The accelerating new space race, driven by geopolitical rivalries and resource competition, risks catastrophic consequences for life on Earth unless stronger governance mechanisms are urgently implemented, according to space policy experts. Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen's emotional message before the Artemis II lunar flyby mission—"We go for all humanity"—belies the primarily geopolitical nature of the endeavor, mirroring the Cold War-era space race between the Soviets and Americans.
From space race to space war
The new space race involves far more players than its predecessor, including Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States, alongside private companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing, Space Machines, Intuitive Machines, and iSpace. The primary driver is access to lunar resources—water and potentially helium-3—which can be used as fuel, offering a major strategic advantage to those who dominate them.
These developments have pragmatic implications for Earth. Satellites enable daily activities—checking weather apps, buying coffee with phones—and provide critical data on climate change, agriculture, fisheries, drinking water, and disaster response. However, the proliferation of satellites and space debris risks catastrophic collisions, leading to outages of essential satellite connectivity. Modern militaries rely heavily on satellites for navigation, intelligence, communications, and targeting, and military operations increasingly interfere with and target adversary satellites, raising the prospect of all-out space war involving satellite destruction, uncontrollable debris, and unusable orbits.
Current governance mechanisms and their limitations
Existing space governance and space law mechanisms, including the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, provide safeguards against doomsday scenarios but face limitations due to ruptured international relations. The treaty establishes space as the province of all humankind, prohibits appropriation or sovereignty claims, bans weapons of mass destruction, and mandates peaceful use. While some argue the treaty is outdated, experts view it as a constitution providing enduring values and principles that require lower-level regulations to address specific technical and behavioral rules.
The challenge lies in developing these lower-level rules. Relying solely on international relations risks gridlock due to political instability, while leaving it to the private sector may prioritize self-interest over the common good. A combined effort involving diverse actors and interests is essential.
Initiatives for stronger governance
Several initiatives are underway that go beyond state-centric approaches. Some are led by the private sector, offering flexibility and commercial buy-in. Others are multilateral through the United Nations, though slow-moving and subject to politicization. Minilateral groups like ASEAN, the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, United States), NATO, the African Union, and the European Space Agency are more likely to produce agreed norms due to existing close cooperation. Non-binding principles, such as the Artemis Accords, provide guidelines for lunar activities.
Securing our future in space requires a shift in humanity's relationship with space. As individuals and civil society play growing roles in governing artificial intelligence, big tech, social media, climate response, and education, they must also engage in space governance. By recognizing space as integral to life on Earth, the gap between citizens and decision-makers can be closed. Approaching this shared responsibility as "space citizens" is the only way forward for current and future generations.
