[This is an excerpt from an article in The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs and Policy Studies. Opinions expressed do not reflect the opinion of the editorial board.]
The Outer Space Treaty holds ‘launching States’ responsible for the actions of their nationals, but this creates a patchwork of rules rather than a coherent global system. As private companies expand their activities, the ambiguity of the present framework risks producing a tragedy of the commons in Earth’s orbital environment. The collective resource of outer space is in danger of degradation through uncoordinated individual action. This piece argues that the Commonwealth, with its distinctive mix of perspectives and its established role as a multilateral forum, should take the lead in shaping a more comprehensive and equitable governance model for outer space, one that prioritises orbital sustainability, universal access, and clear rules on private sector liability.
The challenges arising from commercialisation are numerous. One of the most serious is orbital debris (Nomura et al., Citation2024). The surge in satellite launches raises the prospect of the Kessler Syndrome, where the density of objects in orbit becomes so high that collisions set off a chain reaction of further collisions, making certain orbits unusable for generations. Although the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has issued guidelines on debris mitigation, these are non-binding and lack enforcement mechanisms. While launching states remain liable for damage caused by their objects, proving causation in the event of a collision, especially one involving multiple fragments, is extraordinarily difficult. The current system is reactive, not preventative, and the risk of losing access to critical orbits continues to grow (Shareefdeen & Al-Najjar, Citation2024).
Equitable access is another pressing concern. Mega-constellations threaten to monopolise limited orbital slots. Article I of the Outer Space Treaty recognises outer space as the province of all humankind, but the reality is that a few companies occupy the most desirable orbits. This undermines the principle of shared benefit and risks excluding emerging space actors, many of which are Commonwealth members, from entering the space economy. This is not only a question of commercial competition but one of fairness and sustainable development. In addition, the light pollution produced by large satellite constellations undermines ground-based astronomy, with negative consequences for science and cultural heritage (Kocifaj et al., Citation2021).
The Commonwealth is uniquely positioned to address these issues because of its diverse membership. It includes countries with established space programmes such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, rapidly developing space powers such as India, and small states that depend heavily on space-based services. This combination of perspectives creates an ideal platform for collaboration. Waiting for a new treaty from the wider United Nations system may take decades, but the Commonwealth can act as a catalyst for reform.
India’s evolving role in space governance: room for improvements
Commonwealth Global Challenges: Opinion on the Round Table Conference – ‘Global Challenges and the International Response: What role for the Commonwealth?’
A practical first step would be the creation of a Commonwealth Space Governance Working Group. This body could prepare a model national space act to be adopted by member states, building on existing national laws. The United Kingdom’s Space Industry Act (2018), for example, provides a detailed licencing system for spaceflight activities, including requirements on risk, liability and insurance, with oversight and enforcement powers given to the Civil Aviation Authority. Australia’s Space (Launches and Returns) Act (2018) similarly establishes a comprehensive regime covering licencing, safety, insurance and penalties for non-compliance. These examples show that comprehensive, binding regulation is both feasible and effective. A model act could harmonise standards across the Commonwealth and give its members a stronger, unified voice in international negotiations.
The Commonwealth should also promote a new binding international convention on orbital debris and space traffic management. Non-binding guidelines are not sufficient in light of the pace of technological change. A convention would provide enforceable rules, such as fixed de-orbiting requirements, shared frameworks for debris removal and satellite servicing, and an enhanced liability regime that holds private entities directly responsible for their conduct. The convention could also address the contested area of in-situ resource utilisation, where national laws such as the United States’ Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (2015) and Luxembourg’s Space Resources Law create inconsistent and potentially conflicting rules.
By speaking with one voice, the Commonwealth can exert considerable influence on global discussions. Its collective weight in international lawmaking and diplomacy is significant. The recent Joint Declaration between the Commonwealth Secretariat and the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs on cooperation for sustainable development provides a strong foundation (Commonwealth Secretariat, Citation2025; UNOOSA, Citation2025). Building on this, Commonwealth members could jointly advocate for legal reform at the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and the United Nations General Assembly, ensuring that inclusivity, sustainability and equity remain central to the development of space law. The challenge of governing commercial space activities is immense, but the Commonwealth has the opportunity to lead and to shape the future of this shared frontier.
Charles Ho Wang Mak is Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol Law School.
