As the commercial satellite remote sensing has grown to bear the typical features of data industry, the relevance of data law to this industry sector has become apparent. However, the data law differs significantly from one jurisdiction to another. The difference is especially big with regard to the regulation on profiling. Given such feature of data law, it should be crucial that the data law does not undermine the internationally recognised principle of the freedom of remote sensing activities, pronounced in the United Nations Principles of Satellite Remote Sensing. It is the cause of difficulties that the commercial satellite remote sensing faces, because the satellite data most likely threatens the personal privacy when used as part of the “big data” and identifies a person through profiling. One possible solution may be to interpret and implement the data law in a manner that least compromises the principles on satellite remote sensing developed by the space law. Another, more practical solution is to develop private arrangements, requiring the data provider to guarantee compliance with the relevant data law, as well as indicating the standardised conditions for trade in data on the platform. Lawyers should find the way to respect both the space law and data law and ensure that the “free flow of data with trust” is realised for satellite data.

The European Union has turned into a significant player in the area of space activities and this has been accompanied by legislative steps. In 2018, it formulated a Proposal for a Regulation Establishing the Space Programme of the Union and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme which seeks to regulate the governance of the key components of the EU space activities. In parallel, the Union adopted also the Directive No 2018/1972 establishing the European Communications Code, which represents the recent developments in the approach to frequency spectrum applicable also to space communication. It is interesting to see that from the legislative point of view European Union is approaching the regulation of space activities and telecommunication differently. Whereas telecommunication, including space communication, is regulated as a part of the European internal market and the respective procedures are substantially harmonised, space activities are based on the provision of the Lisbon Treaty which expressly prohibits any harmonization of national space laws. The common denominator for both areas is the method to codify a whole package of new and older activities in a single document.

Since 2005 a growing number of states have adopted national space legislation to ensure adherence to international obligations, clarify rights under international space law, and promote regulatory certainty for space activities under their jurisdiction. While a certain degree of similarity is seen in the interpretation of these international obligations, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that diverging interpretations on a national level already exist. The interpretations that are reflected in national space legislation are often contextual and products of national space capabilities and ambitions. As such the Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission on the Fragmentation of International Law regarding competing lex specialis, each with its own purpose and reasoning, will be discussed by analogy to provide insight into the processes and consequences of fragmentation of international law through diverging interpretations. Thereafter, this paper will present a brief comparative study on the scope of various national space legislation. This study will highlight variations in the interpretation of what it means to “carry out a space activity” under Article VI OST. Particular attention will be given to who is defined as carrying out a space activity and what is defined as a space activity. The conclusion will underline a need and urgency for coordination in the interpretation and application of space law, which is both beneficial and necessary to avoid the negative consequences of the fragmentation of international space law.