Answer

Introduction

As lunar missions like Artemis II mission unfold alongside rising geopolitical tensions and resource ambitions, outer space is no longer a neutral commons, necessitating a shift towards inclusive, rules-based multilateral governance.

Body

Transformation of Outer Space Governance 

• Strategic Arena: Space now reflects power politics and military signalling rather than pure science.
  Eg: U.S.–Israel strikes alongside Artemis II highlights contradiction between cooperation rhetoric and geopolitical actions.
• Commercial Rush: Private and state actors seek lunar mining, turning space into an economic frontier.
  Eg: Artemis programme’s focus on lunar resource utilisation (NASA policy direction).
• Norm Contestation: Different states push competing governance norms and legal interpretations.
  Eg: U.S. reinterpretation of non-appropriation principle under Artemis Accords.
• Security Concerns: Growing militarisation raises risks of conflict spillover into space.
  Eg: ASAT tests by India (Mission Shakti) and China signal strategic use of space.
• Exclusion Dynamics: Limited participation creates unequal access to opportunities and benefits.
  Eg: Artemis Accords largely excludes major players like China and Russia.

Limitations of Bilateral/Plurilateral Arrangements 

• Selective Participation: Accords involve like-minded nations, excluding key stakeholders.
  Eg: Artemis Accords not signed by China/Russia, limiting universality.
• Power Asymmetry: Dominant countries shape rules, marginalising weaker states.
• Legal Ambiguity: Non-binding arrangements lack enforceability under international law.
  Eg: Artemis Accords operate outside binding UN treaties like Outer Space Treaty.
• Resource Inequity: No fair mechanism for sharing space resources among all nations.
  Eg: “Safety zones” concept may enable de facto appropriation.
• Fragmented Governance: Multiple parallel frameworks create confusion and regulatory gaps.
  Eg: Artemis Accords vs UN COPUOS norms lack integration.

Need for a Comprehensive Multilateral Framework

• Universal Legitimacy: Inclusive frameworks ensure acceptance across all spacefaring nations.
  Eg: United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space provides a global platform.
• Equitable Access: Ensures fair sharing of benefits and resources among developed and developing nations.
  Eg: Moon Agreement principle of common heritage.
• Conflict Prevention: Clear rules reduce risks of militarisation and strategic escalation.
  Eg: Need to update the Outer Space Treaty to address ASAT and weaponisation concerns.
• Sustainable Use: Regulates debris, mining, and environmental impact of space activities.
• Legal Certainty: Binding treaties provide clarity, predictability, and dispute resolution mechanisms.
  Eg: UNCLOS model often cited for managing global commons like oceans.

Conclusion

As space mirrors Earth’s inequalities and conflicts, fragmented accords risk deepening divides. A robust multilateral regime, rooted in equity and law, is essential to preserve outer space as a shared, peaceful, and sustainable global commons.

DOWNLOAD PDF