From ESA’s Moon Village to Elon Musk’s Martian cities, there is increasing talk of establishing permanent human settlements or outposts in outer space. November 2018 will mark 18 years of continuous human presence in space via the International Space Station (ISS). However, these new proposals are different for several reasons. They are intended to have a permanence never envisioned for the ISS, they are intended to be ‘home’ to more than professional astronauts and fewer than a handful of space tourists, and they will be located on the Moon and other celestial bodies. The ISS is treated by the existing space law regime as a space object, or an assembly of separate space objects, regarded as functionally no different from any other space object. However, whether this approach could be taken for facilities on the Moon and other celestial bodies is the proposed focus of this paper. None of the space law treaties provide a precise definition of the term ‘space object’, however the generally accepted understanding is that “space objects may be defined as artificial man made objects that are brought into space and are designed for use in outer space.” That is not to lament the lack of a specific definition, as it would most likely be disadvantageous to have been lumbered with the 1967 conception of ‘space object’. The nonspecificity of the treaties allow scope for development and adaptation to deal with the uses now proposed. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty potentially provides aid in this quest as it indicates that ‘objects constructed on a celestial body’ fall within the scope of ‘space object’. Therefore, it is most likely possible to construct a regime providing a legal basis for governance of space settlements and outposts utilizing the existing ‘space object’ concept. However, there will still be potential issue around the nonappropriation principle codified in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. Which this paper will also explore. This is a topic which is vital for the maintenance of the existing space law regime and is of growing relevance as more proposals for permanent human presence are made.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is the foundational framework of international space law that has succeeded in effectively governing outer space. However, it is becoming increasingly possible that a major space power, or a group of States, may consider withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty, particularly in view of the current trend towards nationalistic political populism and isolationistic foreign policies to selectively withdraw from certain key international institutions and treaties. The Outer Space Treaty could be one such treaty, especially in relation to the exclusive national exploitation of space-based natural resources by private entities, and threats to national security. Such withdrawals would likely have serious implications for global space governance, which is essentially based on this Treaty. This paper critically addresses some of the most serious legal issues related to the void that such withdrawal might create in the prevailing international governance regime for outer space.

From the inception of European integration, a regime trying to regulate and arrange competition as much as considered necessary for the benefit of society at large has been one of the core elements of the European Union’s legal order. While the European Union has over the past few decades become more and more involved in the European space effort, this has so far hardly given rise to fundamental application of this competition regime to space activities, even if space also in Europe increasingly has become commercialized and privatized. The current paper investigates the reasons and rationale for this special situation, addressing inter alia the special character of outer space activities and the space industry and the role of the European Space Agency in this respect.

Unilateralism has generally been considered a concept with negative connotations. It should be underscored that in some cases unilateralism has resulted in changes either to customary law or treaty law, whereas in others it has not. Consequently, not every type of unilateralism can be perceived as a challenge to Space Law. Nevertheless, we can see the risks of unilateralism when not acquiesced to or generally supported by other States. It is obvious that the multilateral process is becoming more complicated than before which complicates finding multilateral solutions in Space Law. This paper argues that a better understanding of unilateral acts is necessary before delving into the matter of the unilateralism in Space Law.

The development of satellite technology to enhance the exploration and use of outer space has continued at a rapid rate ever since the space age began in 1957. Satellites play a vital part of many aspects of daily life, and also with respect to the conduct of armed conflict. Most military leaders regard space-related technology as an integral element of their strategic battle platform. This reflects the changing technological nature of armed conflict, which challenges many aspects of international law, including the regulation of warfare. This is particularly the case with respect to the use of satellite technology. Moreover, the continuing development of this technology challenges the core of the ‘peaceful purposes’ doctrine that underpins the international regulation of outer space. This article discusses the application of the United Nations Space Treaties and the laws of war to the use of outer space during armed conflict and offers some reflections as to what is required to properly address the issue.

Critical natural resources on the earth will be depleted before the close of this century. As such, humanity must explore for additional natural resources in places beyond the earth (i.e. in outer space and on other planets) in order to sustain life on earth. An appropriate international regulatory regime would be indispensable if such exploration is to succeed and result in the orderly exploitation of space natural resources. Presently, the international regulatory regime governing the exploration and potential exploitation of space natural resources is inadequate and lacks sufficient clarity. This article addresses some important legal aspects of the exploration and exploitation of space natural resources both from an international and a national perspective. Specifically, it analyzes the relevant provisions of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1979 Moon Agreement in addition to some recent regulatory developments occurring in the United States. Finally, it provides an outlook for the future legal regime that may be required to guarantee the orderly exploration and exploitation of space natural resources.