By Jude Braithwaite
The future of space exploration is quickly becoming one of the most hotly debated issues in modern social and political arenas. There are growing concerns surrounding the issue of private space exploration and colonization that could be used to undermine the nation-state system on earth. Advocates for the privatization of space travel and exploration defend it by stating that this action will lower costs, increase incentives for research and development, while also developing a space economy at a much faster rate. On the other hand, there are a great number of observers that argue that there will be a “lack of accountability, labor issues, and environmental degradation”. Over the coming years, governments across the globe have to ensure that, while the privatization of space continues, there are rigorous regulations which guarantee that this new realm of interactions is not exploited by non-state actors.
Within discourse surrounding space exploration, some significant questions arise that require the attention of all parties involved. The primary question is whether or not those in space would abide by the rules of their state on earth, or if new forms of governance need to be developed for the future steps of humankind. The Outer Space treaty, defined as a “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” clearly states that “there is no claim for sovereignty in space; no nation can own space”. Regardless of this fact, what governments on earth do have power over are the non-state actors within their borders who are advancing their own interests beyond the confines of this planet. These governments should more emphatically enforce ethical and moral standards within non-state organizations and institutions that are moving into space exploration.
The first step towards this goal needs to be the acceptance of universal space laws that are accepted by all actors involved. Less ambiguity surrounding who can do what will lead to greater accountability from non-state actors. This will mean the governments on earth will need to play a larger role in space to enforce such laws, just as they do on earth. Oversight committees and policing are two ways in which government institutions can uphold the rule of law in outer space. Participation in these institutions will increase transparency between the public and private sectors, while also giving legitimacy to the non-state actors through cooperation.
Despite the Outer Space Treaty mentioning the regulation of non-governmental bodies in space, there is one significant issue: The United States did not sign the Moon Agreement. The Moon agreement is a sub agreement within the Outer Space Treaty that attempts to regulate how actors in space use celestial bodies. The privatization of space in 1967, the year the treaty was signed, was not emerging as a major concern for nation states on Earth. Fast forward to 2022, the private exploration of space has surfaced as one of the predominant ways in which space exploration, and space tourism has improved and progressed. This is an issue that needs to be rectified. Space exploration is an issue for now and as a result the US should sign the Moon agreement to set an example for other states and non-state actors.
As SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic have begun activities exploring the possibility of space tourism, and placing colonies on celestial bodies, it becomes clear that states have a complicated task of regulating them. Principally for non-state actors like SpaceX who are located within the US, who never signed the Moon Agreement. They are not obligated to follow any international rulings on space, therefore have free reign over their own actions outside of this planet. As the small handful of companies expand their power and influence beyond the borders of this planet, they will only become increasingly difficult to administer. Getting the United States to sign the Moon Agreement is a significant component in establishing ethical and moral standards across all actors exploring space, in addition this would set an example for other states and non-state actors who are unsure about how to proceed.
To add to the existing ambiguity regarding who has the right to space, the Space Act of 2015 allowed individuals and corporations the rights to resources extracted in outer space. Such privatization of resources could compound existing issues of inequality, environmental degradation, and monopolistic power over economic sectors. An article published by The Hill argues that private business in space leaves room for foreign adversaries to exploit and push their agenda, as businessmen begin thinking about their own interests instead of the interests of the United States—again leaving the domestic government under threat. The intelligence community needs to begin molding an idea of what they want the space community to look like, preferably one that promotes transparency between organizations and governments. To accomplish complete transparency, the US government needs to establish oversight committees that can monitor how companies such as SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin operate. The creation of oversight committees is the most effective and least invasive way of assuring the compliance of these powerful organizations.
The process of privatization removes responsibility. While governments represent the greater good, privatization runs the real risk of exploitation with the goal of making more money. Without government oversight there is nobody that can ensure and maintain the presence of ethical practices. Furthermore, with less regulation there is a real probability that space could become the new playground for conducting military operations on earth. Placing weapons of mass destruction on satellites, or in future colonies, poses a real threat to the residents of this planet. Additionally, acts of terrorism could easily take new forms which adapt to the complicated chaos that is the supervision of space.
There are two adjustments that could substantially reduce the risk of space exploration turning into the next major human disaster. The first of these changes would require intensive governmental regulations that mandates the presence of oversight committees and policing to ensure that certain ethical standards are being upheld, as well as guaranteeing that governments on Earth aren't under threat of being undermined by non-state actors in space. Following the initial policy adjustment, the United States should reconsider signing the Moon agreement as the sources of this issue can come from within the US as much as they can come from outside it. National security threats are no longer being determined by borders, instead anyone, anywhere can now pose a security threat to any state. If the goal of all states involved is to mitigate national security risks for the future, then no country should be exempt from signing these agreements. The actions described above will promote accountability in space and make it much more difficult for individuals or non-state actors to abuse the soft approach that has been taken thus far to modulate space.