Is the Outer Space Treaty Outdated? Here’s How an Expert Says We Should Govern Space in 2026

AI-generated, human-reviewed.

As the modern space race accelerates, the norms established over 50 years ago by the Outer Space Treaty are struggling to keep pace. According to Harvard Kennedy School Fellow Ely Sandler on This Week in Space, the 1967 treaty—drafted when only two nations were active in space—fails to address today's realities: private companies operating in orbit, thousands of satellites crowding low Earth orbit, competing lunar ambitions, and the urgent need to manage space debris. Sandler and the hosts argue that a new framework—modeled on international climate summits—could be the key to preventing conflict, collisions, and legal confusion in our shared cosmic domain.

Why the Outer Space Treaty Needs Updating

The Outer Space Treaty, signed in 1967 during the Cold War, was designed when space activity was limited to the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Its core principles remain important: it prohibits national appropriation of celestial bodies (no country can claim ownership of the Moon or Mars) and bans weapons of mass destruction in orbit. However, as Sandler explains on This Week in Space, the world has transformed dramatically since then.

Today, hundreds of private companies launch satellites, multiple countries are targeting the Moon and Mars, and threats like space debris and intentional anti-satellite weapons tests are very real. Most crucially, the treaty uses vague language that was never properly defined. Terms like "due regard," "harmful contamination," and even "appropriation" lack clear definitions, leaving room for conflicting interpretations.

The treaty also contains no mechanisms for resolving disputes, clarifying ambiguous rules, or adapting to new technologies. Unlike domestic law that can be amended through legislative processes, international treaties require near-universal consensus to change, making updates to the OST virtually impossible in today's fractured geopolitical environment.

Key Problems with Current Space Law

Sandler highlights several critical issues:

The treaty never imagined a commercial space economy. Written before private spaceflight was feasible, the OST provides little guidance for how companies should behave, safely deorbit old satellites, or coordinate with other actors. While the treaty holds nations responsible for authorizing and supervising private activities, it doesn't specify what that supervision should entail.

Treaty terms are dangerously vague and unenforced. Principles like "due regard" (you must consider other nations' interests) and standards for liability lack clear definitions. Every signatory claims compliance, but without shared standards, the risk of accidents or conflicts grows as orbits fill up and lunar landings increase. For example, the Liability Convention establishes fault-based liability for debris collisions, but without agreed standards of care, it's nearly impossible to prove fault in practice.

There are no "rules of the road" for orbital traffic. Unlike air traffic control on Earth, satellite operators currently set their own protocols for collision avoidance. This ad-hoc approach will only become riskier as orbital congestion increases—SpaceX alone has launched thousands of Starlink satellites, and other mega-constellations are planned.

Resource extraction rights remain disputed. The U.S., Luxembourg, and UAE have passed national laws permitting private companies to extract and own space resources, arguing this doesn't violate the non-appropriation principle. Russia and some developing nations disagree, viewing such activities as de facto appropriation. Without an international resolution, this legal uncertainty could stall investment or lead to conflicts.

Proposed Solution: A "Conference of the Parties" for Space

Inspired by international climate meetings (like the UN COP conferences), Sandler proposes establishing regular "Conference of the Parties" meetings for Outer Space Treaty signatories. Here's how this would work:

All spacefaring nations and treaty signatories would meet annually or biannually to review implementation and discuss needed updates. Unlike one-off diplomatic conferences, COPs create ongoing forums that build institutional memory and expertise over time.

They would gradually define key terms and protocols—building consensus even without formally amending the original treaty. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, parties can create "subsequent agreements" that interpret treaty provisions. These interpretations become binding international law without requiring the grueling ratification process needed for amendments.

New guidance documents would clarify practical issues like satellite maneuvering standards, mandatory deorbit plans, debris mitigation requirements, or coordination protocols for "safety zones" on the Moon. For example, a COP could transform the existing UN COPUOS Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines from voluntary best practices into authoritative interpretations of what "due regard" requires.

Industry, scientists, and regulators could contribute directly—not just diplomats. Climate COPs have shown that including technical experts and affected stakeholders can help build more practical, implementable solutions. The private space industry has explicitly called for clearer regulations, making them likely allies in this process.

Sandler emphasizes that even incremental legal updates could prevent accidents, clarify liability, and ensure fair access for new entrants—all without needing an entirely new treaty (which would likely face insurmountable political gridlock among over 110 signatories with competing interests).

What's at Stake as the New Space Race Heats Up

On This Week in Space, the hosts and Sandler caution that without better international governance, several critical risks could spiral out of control:

Escalating satellite collisions and cascading space junk (the Kessler Syndrome scenario, where debris collisions create more debris in a runaway chain reaction, potentially rendering certain orbits unusable for generations)

Nations creating de facto "exclusion zones" on the Moon under the guise of safety—potentially provoking diplomatic disputes and accusations of creeping appropriation. The Artemis Accords' "safety zones" concept, while arguably practical, remains controversial for precisely this reason.

Inconsistent military transparency and registration, raising tensions and dangers of misunderstanding or inadvertent escalation. The OST bans weapons of mass destruction in orbit but doesn't clearly define what constitutes such weapons or address dual-use technologies like anti-satellite systems.

Unclear property rights stalling commercial investment or scientific cooperation. Billions of dollars in potential investment for lunar mining or orbital manufacturing facilities remain uncertain without clearer legal frameworks.

As more nations and firms line up to access lunar resources, establish orbital factories, or develop space-based solar power, agreed international rules become vital to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" and to keep space both peaceful and productive for all humanity.

Key Takeaways

• The Outer Space Treaty, while foundational, is outdated for today's era of private, commercial, and multi-nation space activity
• Vague legal definitions prevent effective coordination on critical issues like collision avoidance, debris management, and resource rights
• A "Conference of the Parties" model—already proven in climate and environmental treaties—could allow annual, incremental updates without the political impossibility of formal treaty amendments
• Implementing common protocols for issues like deorbit plans and traffic management can significantly reduce risks and foster global cooperation
• The commercial space industry actively seeks clearer, fairer regulation for long-term planning and investment confidence

The Bottom Line

Space is rapidly becoming a more crowded, contested, and economically valuable domain. According to Ely Sandler on This Week in Space, adapting international governance using a flexible, collaborative, and incremental Conference of the Parties (COP) approach offers the most realistic path to keeping space accessible and safe for all nations. Without action, the next generation's cosmic opportunities could be threatened by outdated rules and avoidable accidents—or worse, by conflicts over resources and orbital real estate.

The question isn't whether space law needs to evolve, but whether we can build the political will to make it happen before preventable disasters force our hand.

Subscribe to This Week in Space for the latest space news, expert interviews, and analysis: https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space/episodes/194