The Russian government said that it will withdraw from the International Space Station “after 2024”. Rather than opting for multilateral cooperation, it intends to be own station and send cosmonauts there to continue space research and exploration.
Russia’s announcement sounds ominous — especially given its invasion of Ukraine — but this move, part of a broader trend away from multilateralism in international space law, is just a recent signal of the fraying of international cooperation in space. Another was the Artemis chordsa legal framework designed to potentially regulate future commercial activities in space that was created under the Trump administration and is enforced by the Biden administration. Such actions threaten multilateralism beyond Earth and predict a future where space may no longer belong equally to all humans.
A number of UN treaties regulate outer space, and strong legal norms reinforce those global rules. The basic agreement is the Space Treaty of 1967, outlining the principles governing space, the moon, and other celestial bodies. The treaty, signed in the midst of the Cold War, was a symbol of the triumph of science over politics: States could cooperate in space even as the prospect of mutual destruction loomed on Earth.
Currently, more than 100 countries — including the United States and Russia — are parties to the treaty, which establishes space as a peaceful zone, prohibits the use or installation of weapons of mass destruction, and designates space as “the province of all humanity.” “States cannot claim sovereignty or proper territory. The treaty also calls for scientific cooperation between states, in the belief that such cooperation will foster “friendly relations” between countries and their peoples. In short, the treaty aims to ensure that all nations benefit from all activities conducted in space.
The symbolic value of the treaty is clear: nationality fades into the background when astronauts float in space. But in addition, it has established standards and practices to prevent environmental pollution of the moon and other celestial bodies. It promotes data sharing, including on the many objects, such as satellites and spacecraft, launched into space, helping to avoid collisions. And the codified norms of humanity’s common heritage, peaceful practices, and scientific cooperation help sustain multilateralism despite state’s deviations.
But the looming prospect of space commercialization is beginning to test the limits of international space law. In 2020, NASA created only the Artemis Accords, which challenge the fundamental multilateral principles of previous space agreements. These are mainly rules created by the United States that are now being adopted by other countries. This is not joint multilateral regulation, but rather the export of US laws abroad to a coalition of the willing.
The agreements take the legal form of a series of bilateral treaties with 21 other countries, including Australia, Canada, Japan, UAE, and Great Britain. This is not just a remnant of the Trump administration’s anti-globalist rhetoric and policies. Just two weeks ago, Saudi Arabia Signed the Artemis Accords, during President Biden’s visit.
In addition, the accords open up the possibility of mining the moon or other celestial bodies for resources. They create “safety zones” where states can mine resources, although the document states that these activities must be undertaken in accordance with the Outer Space Treaty. Legal experts point out that these provisions may violate the non-appropriation principle, which prohibits countries from declaring parts of space their sovereign territory. Others suggest it is important to stay ahead of the changing technological landscape, arguing that when mining on the moon becomes possible, rules should already be in place to regulate such activities. Failure to do so could lead to a “crisis similar to that of seabed mining”, namely: ready to start even if the UN rules have yet to be finalized.
Although well codified in international law, the standards for cooperation are only as strong as the government policies and activities that reinforce them. When countries, especially powerful ones, create rules that conflict with these norms, multilateral institutions can unravel or, worse, become irrelevant. Such unraveling can create opportunities for updated rules that better reflect changes in global politics and technology. But it can also result in a less equitable institution that favors powerful nations and provides an unfair opportunity to reap economic benefits. For this reason, developing countries have long been fervent proponents of “the province of all humanity” as a way to counterbalance the power of wealthier countries and ensure their right to profit financially from the extraction of global resources.
Ultimately, Russia’s withdrawal from the International Space Station is just one part of a larger series of fluid problems in space management. Russia and the United States — powerful space-faring states — have taken steps that challenge existing rules and standards. Russia alone cannot dismantle the collective efforts to preserve space as a peaceful zone of scientific research and exploration, but the current system is in trouble and will likely be replaced by US-made regulations that allow for the future commercialization of space. makes. That future is the real threat to multilateralism and to human rights on the last frontier.