Can Maritime Law inform Space Law in addressing international commons?

The Northumbria University Law School is home to an expert Space Law Team researching on current legal issues and challenges in Earth’s orbits, on celestial bodies, and across tech such as governance challenges regarding cybersecurity or the use of AI with satellite systems. The Law School also hosts various space law and regulating tech modules at the undergraduate and master’s levels. The Law School includes two Space Law LLM Programmes: Space Law LLM (full-time) and Space Law LLM (part-time, distance learning). To learn more about space law at the Northumbria University Law School please visit: https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/business-services/research-and-consultancy/space/space-law-and-policy/

Matthew Child, Space Law LLM student, Northumbria Law School, Northumbria University 

Maritime law has profoundly influenced how outer space is imagined in science fiction film and television. TV series such as Star Trek, Space 1999 and Red Dwarf have drawn upon nautical traditions and maritime law to depict issues of governance, command, jurisdiction and conflict resolution. Indeed, in the movie The Martian, stranded astronaut Mark Watney, refers to ‘international waters’ when describing Mars and states ‘if you are not in any country’s territory, maritime law applies’. But, is this an accurate reflection on how space is governed today and can we take lessons from maritime law to prepare for the future growth in space activity?  

This article briefly explores the parallels between the governance of the high seas and outer space, comparing maritime and space law and considers whether conventions developed to manage maritime salvage, wrecks, and pollution could offer a blueprint for tackling the mounting crisis of space debris and atmospheric contamination. Furthermore, we examine the conceptual viability of an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) model in space governance, akin to its terrestrial maritime counterpart. 

Background 

Just as early explorers and tradesmen ventured across the oceans under State flags with uncertain legal protections and tenuous authority, space-farers are facing similar frontiers of discovery, danger and diplomacy. At the heart of maritime law, are the legal concepts of freedom of access, non-appropriation and the vessel as a sovereign extension of the State. These concepts are mirrored in space law in the United Nations Outer Space Treaty (OST) and associated conventions which grant launching States, jurisdiction and control over registered space objects and personnel, a principle originating from the flag-State jurisdiction doctrine of maritime law.

Just as the high seas are open to all States and cannot be claimed by any one nation, as detailed in Article 89 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the same principle is found in Article II of the OST, whereby States are prohibited from national appropriation of outer space and celestial bodies. Whereas the high seas are navigable by ships registered under national flags, space objects are the responsibility of the launch State, which retains jurisdiction and control over them (according to the Liability Convention for space objects). 

This registration and responsibility model echoes flag-State responsibility in maritime law, but without the sophisticated enforcement and dispute resolution mechanisms that UNCLOS has since developed. Furthermore, whereas there are certain shared principles, the environments of space and the high seas are very different and legal responsibility less clear cut, as increasingly there are many State and non-State actors involved in the journey of a spacecraft during its mission. 

The mechanisms of governance diverge in other ways. UNCLOS introduced a nuanced regime of maritime zones such as territorial waters, contiguous zones, EEZs, and the high seas, each with different rights and responsibilities. In contrast, space law lacks such stratification. Indeed, the OST is a relatively thin document and arguably aspirational, drafted at the dawn of the space age. Additionally, one might assume that the Convention on the High Seas (1962), (one of four treaties wrapped into UNCLOS) bore some influence on the rapid development of the OST in1967, only 5 years later.  However, what was not foreseen was the transition towards the commercial exploitation of space and the rapidity and scale of its growth we see today. 

Space Debris vs Maritime Wreckage

 

The substantially increased space activity in the last decade whilst astounding has come at a cost to the environment. The European Space Agency estimates there are over 54,000 objects larger than 10 cm orbiting Earth with many millions more, too small to track but still capable of inflicting catastrophic damage on active satellites. 

In maritime law, problems with debris and wreckage are addressed through two key conventions, the International Convention on Salvage (1989) and the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (2007). These frameworks allow for the recovery of wrecked or derelict vessels to protect navigation and the marine environment. Could similar legal instruments be repurposed for outer space? 

The answer lies partly in principle and partly in pragmatism. Salvage law incentivises recovery by granting compensation to those who assist ships in distress and commercial benefits to those that salvage wrecks. In space, in part due to the harsh nature of the environment, a similar incentive system does not exist and as yet, there is little commercial benefit to reward private or State actors who undertake debris removal missions or salvaging spacecrafts.  Indeed, under the OST, all space objects remain the property of their launching States, regardless of abandonment or functionality. This makes unsolicited removal a legal obstacle. 

A solution to this, could be an international agreement similar to the Nairobi Convention to establish a framework wherein States or designated entities can remove debris with consent mechanisms, public notification and liability protections. The development of such a salvage regime for space would require new legal definitions of abandonment and wreck, adapted for the space environment.  However, the commercial incentive to clean-up space and salvage defunct space objects, as yet, remains absent and currently requires launching States themselves to procure debris removal services. 

Orbital Pollution and the Lessons of Maritime Environmental Law 

Another instructive parallel is the MARPOL Convention (1973/78), the main international agreement preventing pollution from ships. MARPOL's success stems from its annexes detailing types of pollutants (oil, chemicals, sewage, garbage, etc.) and it’s global enforcement via port State control and ship inspections. 

However, space-based pollution is perhaps more insidious. Unlike oil slicks that can in time be cleaned, debris and burn-up pollution can persist for centuries. Orbiting at speeds of 7–8 km per second, collisions can generate thousands of new fragments, leading to the feared Kessler Syndrome, where debris begets more debris in a runaway chain reaction. Recent atmospheric tests have also exposed high levels of aluminium particles from space objects disintegrating enroute back to earth, further damaging the effective protection of the Ozone Layer. 

Pollution and waste in space is not as easy to clean-up as it might be at sea, but if left to grow, its effects will be catastrophic. Applying MARPOL's structure to space, a Space-POL convention might be a solution. As a parallel to MARPOL, such an agreement could: 

• Classify debris by risk (e.g., inert, explosive, radioactive), 

• Require end-of-life deorbiting plans, 

• Prohibit certain activities (e.g., anti-satellite weapon tests), 

• Mandate orbital ‘port State’ inspections before launch. 

The technical challenges of monitoring and enforcement are considerable, but arguably, no greater than those faced by the maritime world in the mid-20th century. It would require orbital situational awareness sharing, standardized satellite tracking, and multilateral cooperation. But the underlying principle of preventing human-made harm to a shared environment, translates seamlessly. 

Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in Space 

As commercial operators seek to exploit and extract minerals from celestial bodies in space, such as the Moon, Mars or even asteroids, one of the more intriguing questions is whether a concept like the EEZ could be applied to secure rights on a temporary basis. Under UNCLOS, an EEZ extends 200 nautical miles from a State's coastline, granting it sovereign rights over resources such as fishing, minerals, and energy production without full sovereignty over the waters themselves. 

Could such an exclusion zone be conceptualized in space? For instance, consider a 200km buffer zone around a lunar mining facility, within which a State has preferential rights to resources such as regolith or permafrost to extract water, whilst at the same time maintains open transit for other actors. 

Legally, this would be a radical departure from the OST, which prohibits any national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, use, or occupation. But a modern reinterpretation might allow functional zones as areas not owned but administered for safety, coordination and sustainable resource use. 

Indeed, there are some early signs of this thinking. The Artemis Accords, a US led set of bilateral agreements on lunar exploration, introduce the idea of ‘safety zones’ around installations. These are not legal claims, but mechanisms to avoid harmful interference. A space-based EEZ, if framed not as a territorial claim but as a safety and stewardship zone, could evolve from its conceptual maritime lineage. 

 

Challenges and Opportunities for Legal Synthesis 

Blending maritime law into space law is not merely an exercise in analogy. It’s a recognition that the tools we have used to manage Earth’s ungoverned spaces can inform our approach to the cosmos. However, fundamental differences persist: 

• Permanence of debris: Unlike shipwrecks, which can sink or degrade, orbital debris is persistent and more dangerous to salvage due to high velocities. 

• Sovereignty constraints: Maritime law operates within a flexible sovereignty framework. Space law’s rigidity in non-appropriation currently hinders adaptive governance. 

• Technological asymmetry: Only a handful of nations have or are developing, debris-removal capabilities, creating imbalances that maritime conventions, did not face. 

  
  

Nevertheless, there is room for optimism. Salvage principles could be modified to fit the space domain. Wreck conventions could inform new debris classification schemes. Environmental protection mechanisms from maritime law could inspire pre-launch and post-mission requirements in spaceflight regulation and, temporary exploitation rights could be awarded along the lines of the maritime EEZ model to provide territorial clarity and safety of operations. 

Most crucially, international cooperation, fragile yet vital, must be the bedrock. Just as nations set aside rivalries to protect and govern the seas, so too must they coordinate in space.