For centuries, human conflict has been isolated to the Earth. Something the international community has worked hard to maintain.

For most of the Cold War, the nations of the world dispensed significant political capital to ensure that the escalations made during the Cold War did not exceed the confines of Earth. Despite plans to the contrary, space has remained a largely peaceful place due to the efforts of international agreements.

However, as humanity once again prepares for another space age, the implications of recent advancements in space exploration, warfare, and utilisation could pose an evident and apparent threat to global politics.

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall III, said in an interview with the New York Times, that “the sanctity or purity of space” was over and that space “is a place that can be used for military advantage, and it is being used for that. We can’t just ignore that on some obscure, esoteric principle that says we shouldn’t put weapons in space and maintain it”. He even furthered his remarks by affirming that “the threat is there” and space is “a domain we [The United States] have to be competitive in”.

However, are these assertions by outgoing Secretary Kendall indicative of a real and apparent threat or mere paranoia from the world’s largest military power?

Space is complicated, especially when it comes to the regulations that are in place and despite the remarks by the departing U.S. Secretary, there is more to space military agreements than “principles”.

Whilst many might consider the law and politics surrounding space to be the stuff of science fiction or the distant future, humanity has been regulating actions in space since the mid-twentieth century.

Space law is a long-established body of international law. First established in the 1960s and, building upon the principles and beliefs of the time, the international community came together during the Cold War to develop unilateral rules for actions in space. To contain the conflict to Earth and prevent mass destruction, the nations of the world came to an agreement that essentially meant space was off-limits. Whether to claim sovereignty or to deploy weapons, space was excluded from the conventional norms of expansionism and warfare. Space law sees space as free for all to explore and research, with no claims of sovereignty or acquisition of resources to prevent competition that might spark another era of ruthless expansionism and conflict.

Therefore, the outgoing Secretary’s claim that these rules are esoteric or obscure may be accurate, but they extend well beyond merely being a “principle.” All parties have long upheld the international agreements surrounding space, with slight divergence. However, with a renewed space age, that has changed.

In recent years, the increased activity of public and private space actors has caused greater interest in space and drawn more attention to the regulations in place.

Director Aarti Holla-Maini of UNOOSA at the G-77 Vienna Chapter Handover Ceremony in Vienna, Austria on February 28, 2024. Image credit: IAEA Imagebank from Wikimedia Commons.

Furthermore, the prospect of establishing bases and stations and taking humanity to the multi-planetary level has sparked conversations regarding governance and regulations beyond Earth to even the highest offices of the United Nations. At the 67^th Session of COPUOS, Director Aarti Holla-Maini of the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) mentioned the possibility of a UNISPACE VI Summit in 2027 to address such policy concerns. Once again, the world is clearly preparing for advancements in space and politicians around the globe have already begun to consider the way the international community approaches policy surrounding space.

The United States of America pioneered the ratification of the Artemis Accords during the first Trump Administration as NASA hopes to send astronauts and a station to the moon. Although the accords, only ratified by 52 countries, are compliant with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (primarily considered the foundational document of space law), some areas have drawn criticism, especially around the way in which the accords allow for American space mining, a controversial and unanswered matter in space law. However, with the new administration, the Artemis program may be under threat and the public sector, whilst a large player, has not caused as much of a push to reform space law than the rise of the private sector.

Concept art of a SpaceX Dragon Capsule over the planet Mars from 2014. Image credit: Kevin Gill from Flickr.

SpaceX is aiming to put colonists on Mars as Trump, in his 2025 inaugural address, alluded to when he said that America will “pursue [their] manifest destiny into the stars” and will send “astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars” which raises significant concerns and potential for regulatory issues. This immense private sector interest in space activities, and the prospect of regulating off-world colonists, is what has largely raised the issues regarding space travel and governance.

The legal framework did not consider the extent to which the private sector would be involved in space utilisation and exploration. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty makes private companies subject to the regulation of their respective national governments. However, as has been noted by academics, this leaves private sector regulation up to the national governments who can choose individual approaches to private actors whether that be strict or relaxed. With influential figures such as Elon Musk holding sway over not only government departments but also the President of the United States, regulations could be relaxed. This approach may become unsustainable as private corporations such as SpaceX are responsible for off-world colonists, construction, and potentially off-world mining. The international community will likely need to pass further international standards and regulations for respective private sector companies.

However, the main area of potential conflict in space comes from a renewed Cold War mentality.

If Artemis and SpaceX continue, and America is at the forefront of making humanity multi-planetary, there will no doubt be a renewed interest by other major space actors. China was denied access to the International Space Station, so they built their own and history is likely to repeat. If the United States of America establishes bases, stations, and mining operations on the Moon and Mars, China, Russia, and other major space powers will likely want a share of the resources space has to offer. As nuclear weapons did at the end of the Second World War, if a country is to gain a competitive advantage, whether it be financially or militarily, other countries will want to meet such successes. If America leads to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond, humanity will return to the envy and competitiveness of the Cold War that set in motion our current legal pace framework.

Space has remained peaceful for decades because everyone on Earth understands what can and cannot be done in space. Conflict is, however, inevitable if the international community does not come together, as it has in the past, to decide what can and cannot be done in space. With renewed regulation of the private sector and a reaffirming of the principles laid out in the initial treaties, the potential for conflict can be mitigated. Something that, like in the Cold War, must be done both internationally and unilaterally.

Space is the next frontier for humanity. After decades of stagnation, our expansion as a species into the solar system has become a matter of when and not if, and if humanity is to avoid a Second Cold War, they must do, as they did then, what they must to ensure peace.