Who Owns Space?

A photo of Scandinavia and Northern Europe from space.

Space is one of the only places that no country can claim as its own, yet it is filled with property like satellites. How can something be owned by no one, but still be controlled by so many?

Space is defined as the “province of all mankind,” meaning it belongs to everyone, not just one country or government. In other words, space is treated exactly like the oceans or Antarctica. According to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty passed by the United Nations, these places are shared, not property. This principle, known as non-appropriation, makes sure that no country can ever claim land in space the way they could on Earth.

What is Space?

It makes sense to first define space. After all, one wouldn’t pass a worldwide global bill without being specific enough to at least define where this treaty takes effect, right? Surprisingly, that is exactly the case.

When the United Nations passed the Outer Space Treaty, they did not specifically define the border where space starts. While scientists often use a border known as the Kármán line, which is 100 kilometers above Earth’s surface, there is still a gray area between Earth’s airspace, which is owned by countries, and global space, which is not owned by anyone.

Even though space itself isn’t owned, the things that countries send up there are most definitely legal property. This includes satellites, spaceships, and radars. This may l seem fine, but in the world of politics, implication is everything. Even though a country cannot legally own space itself, they can still fill it with their own technology, effectively allowing them to exert powerful control over parts of space without formally owning it.

Current Issues

Recently, a couple new issues have arisen. First, governments were the only ones sending things into space. Now, there are over a dozen private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin launching their own spacecraft. The treaty was designed during the Cold War and focused on regulating countries, and it says nothing about private companies. Governments must supervise these companies, but enforcement is difficult, and the massive influence these companies have can sway even the strongest governments.

Similarly, space mining is also at the forefront of discussion. The Outer Space Treaty bans owning land, but it does not ban resource extraction. Asteroids and planets may contain resources and rare metals worth high amounts of money, and the capitalists around the world are just itching to get their hands on this volatile economy worth trillions of dollars. Recently, the United States passed laws that allowed companies to own the resources they extract from space, which obviously faced some backlash. Other countries argued against this, claiming that this violates the Outer Space Treaty and the concept of shared ownership. The question is: Is taking resources the same as owning land?

Time moves on though. Thousands of satellites now orbit Earth, many from private companies. This crowding increases the chance of collisions that could release dangerous debris. A scrap of metal might not be scary by itself, but how about if it was moving at 15,000 miles per hour? Just one collision could release debris that would hit other satellites, creating a chain reaction known as Kessler Syndrome.

Of course, the world isn’t the world without some warfare. The Outer Space Treaty (luckily) bans nuclear weapons in space, but it does not stop all military activity. Nations depend on satellites in space for GPS, communication, and radar. To militaries, this is the perfect target to strike if they want to cripple a nation, so it is not surprising that countries such as the United States, China, and Russia are testing anti-satellite weapons and building space-based defense systems.

What Next?

The signing of the Outer Space Treaty.

All these topics lead to one conclusion: the Outer Space Treaty is outdated. While it may have been effective back in the 1960s, it is no longer equipped to regulate the realities of modern space activity. It does not address private corporations, space mining, or even overcrowding. Consequently, many countries can interpret the treaty the way they see fit, leading to disagreement. A law should be explicit, not leaving much up to interpretation.

So what would you do? If you were given the chance to rewrite the Outer Space Treaty, would you clearly establish it as a shared global commons, banning things such as private space mining and militarism and preventing conflict while everyone benefits? On the downside, this would require strict cooperation from every nation in the world, which is highly unlikely. 

You could also establish space as a competitive frontier, in which countries and companies are legally allowed to compete for domination. As history shows, this leads to far faster innovation propelled by the motivation of power, but at the same time, it risks irreversible militaristic and economic inequality and conflict.

The question is no longer just who owns space, but whether space will remain a shared domain or become the next battleground for power, wealth, and control.