Global cooperation at the final frontier: How legal gaps in space technology endanger us all

Lawyer Cybel N. Ekpa reassesses the Outer Space Treaty in the era of automated defence systems

For decades, international space law has rested on a delicate distinction: militarisation of space is permitted, weaponisation is not. Satellites used for communications, navigation, and surveillance have long supported military operations without violating international law. But as technology accelerates, that distinction, clear in theory, has become dangerously blurred, creating a crisis for global cooperation.

As space becomes congested, contested, and competitive, emerging space-based defence technologies are exposing significant legal ambiguities in the international framework. At the center of this tension lies the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), a foundational instrument drafted in an era that could not have anticipated anti-satellite weapons, cyber-enabled orbital warfare, or automated space systems.

These technologies blur the once-clear line between lawful militarisation and prohibited weaponisation. What was once a theoretical distinction has become a practical problem, one with real consequences for global stability.

Militarisation vs. weaponisation: A legal distinction under strain

The OST does not prohibit military activity in space outright. It explicitly allows the use of space for “peaceful purposes,” a phrase that has been interpreted to mean non-aggressive, rather than non-military. As a result, military satellites, used for intelligence gathering, missile warning systems, and secure communications, have been legally acceptable for decades.

What the Treaty does prohibit is the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies. However, it is notably silent on conventional weapons, dual-use systems, and non-kinetic technologies. This silence, a product of its time, has created a vacuum where states develop increasingly sophisticated capabilities while remaining technically compliant with the Treaty’s text, undermining the cooperative spirit it was meant to foster.

The challenge today is that technology has outpaced law. Modern space systems can function simultaneously as defensive tools, intelligence platforms, and offensive capabilities, making it difficult to determine when lawful militarisation crosses into unlawful weaponisation.

Emerging space defence Technologies and legal grey zones

1) Anti-satellite technologies (ASAT)

ASAT capabilities represent one of the clearest examples of this legal and cooperative failure. These technologies include kinetic weapons that physically destroy satellites, as well as non-kinetic systems such as cyber attacks, electronic jamming, and laser dazzling.

While kinetic ASAT tests have drawn international criticism, particularly due to the vast fields of space debris they generate, non-kinetic ASAT tools often operate below the threshold of armed conflict. The OST does not clearly regulate such conduct, leaving unanswered questions about legality, attribution, and proportionality that only a renewed international consensus can address.

From a legal perspective, these systems exploit the Treaty’s narrow focus on weapons of mass destruction, revealing a regulatory gap that modern space warfare readily occupies.

2) Directed-energy and electronic warfare systems

Directed-energy technologies, including high-powered lasers and microwave systems, can temporarily or permanently disable satellites without physically destroying them. These tools are often framed as defensive or reversible, yet their effects can be strategically significant. Because these systems do not involve explosives or mass destruction, they fall outside the OST’s explicit prohibitions. However, their deployment raises serious concerns about escalation and miscalculation, highlighting the urgent need for global cooperation on rules of engagement. The lack of transparency surrounding these technologies further complicates enforcement and accountability.

3) Dual-use satellite technologies

Many of today’s most critical space technologies are inherently dual-use. Earth-observation satellites, navigation systems, and communications platforms serve civilian populations while also supporting military operations.

For example, the Global Positioning System (GPS) provides precise timing and navigation data for everything from banking to ride-sharing, while also guiding military assets. Space domain awareness (SDA) systems track orbital objects to prevent collisions, yet they also provide intelligence relevant to space warfare.

Legally, these technologies challenge traditional classifications of civilian versus military objects, raising questions about lawful targeting and state responsibility under international law that have not been collectively addressed.

4) Autonomous and automated space systems

Perhaps the most disruptive development is the integration of autonomous decision-making and algorithmic processing into space operations. Highly automated systems can manage satellite constellations, detect threats, and respond to anomalies with minimal human intervention.

The OST, drafted long before the digital age, offers no guidance on accountability for autonomous actions in space. If a satellite operating with a high degree of autonomy takes a defensive action that disables another state’s space asset, who bears responsibility, the operator, the programmer, or the state itself? These questions about accountability for automated systems are at the forefront of international security debates.

These challenges underscore the growing disconnect between technological reality and the lack of a cooperative governance framework.

Strategic risk and the problem of escalation

Beyond legal uncertainty, the failure to establish global norms for space defense technologies introduces significant strategic risks. Modern society is deeply dependent on space; disruptions to satellite services can have cascading effects on critical civilian infrastructure, including financial networks, transportation, healthcare, and emergency services.

At the same time, space operations suffer from serious attribution problems. Cyber or electronic interference is difficult to trace, increasing the risk of misunderstanding and escalation. Without agreed legal norms, states are more likely to act based on strategic self-interest rather than shared rules.

Is the Outer Space Treaty still fit for purpose?

The OST remains a landmark achievement, but it reflects Cold War priorities rather than today’s technological reality. The solution is not to abandon the Treaty, but to update how it is applied.

Potential approaches include:

● Clarifying the legal status of non-kinetic and cyber-based space weapons through international dialogue.
● Developing transparency and confidence-building measures for space defence activities.
● Establishing norms for responsible behaviour in space, particularly regarding debris-creating activities.
● Creating a framework for accountability for autonomous and highly automated space systems.

These measures would not require rewriting the Treaty entirely, but they would demand a renewed commitment to global cooperation in a domain that has evolved into a technologically complex and strategically vital arena.

Looking ahead

The line between weaponisation and militarisation of space has never been more difficult to define. Emerging space-based defence technologies are exposing legal ambiguities that the Outer Space Treaty was never designed to address, creating a dangerous vacuum in international law. This is fundamentally a failure of global cooperation. As space becomes increasingly central to national security, economic stability, and global connectivity, the cost of legal uncertainty grows. Rebuilding an international consensus on how existing space law applies to modern technologies is no longer optional; it is essential to maintaining stability, preventing conflict, and ensuring that outer space remains a domain governed by law rather than unchecked technological competition.

Cybel N. Ekpa is a lawyer specialising at the intersection of technology, space policy, and intellectual property law. She holds an LL.M. in Intellectual Property and Technology Law, combining legal expertise with strategic insight into emerging technologies. Her work focuses on technological innovation, the legal frameworks that govern cutting-edge advancements in space policy, sustainability and education.