REGULATING SPACE TRAFFIC IN THE NEW SPACE AGE: A LEGAL IMPERATIVE FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

ABSTRACT

The rapid expansion of space activities by governments, private companies, and emerging space nations has ushered in a "new space age". This growth has brought unprecedented opportunities for innovation, communications, navigation and economic growth. However, it has also created serious challenges related to congestion, collision risk, and space debris, making the regulation of space traffic an important global priority. Unlike air traffic, space activities currently lack a binding and comprehensive international legal framework for real- time traffic management. Existing treaties such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention offer broad principles but are inadequate to address the dynamic realities of modern space operations. Effective space traffic management (STM) requires clear rules on orbital use, data sharing, collision avoidance, and debris mitigation. It also calls for cooperation between states, international organizations and private actors to ensure transparency, accountability and security. Without proper governance, the growing number of satellites and mega-constellations could jeopardize not only valuable orbital slots but also future space exploration and the safety of astronauts.

This paper argues that regulating space traffic is not just a technical necessity but a legal imperative for sustainable global governance. It explores gaps in current legal instruments, evaluates ongoing international efforts, and proposes pathways toward a binding global STM framework. By integrating legal norms, technological solutions and cooperative governance, the international community can ensure that outer space remains safe, secure and accessible to all humanity.

Keywords: Space Traffic Management, Space Law, Global Governance, Outer Space Treaty, Space Debris, International Cooperation, New Space Age.

INTRODUCTION

"Earth's orbit is no longer spacious and empty it has become a highway of dangers." This inauspicious declaration is not an exaggeration, but a faster crowd and a reflection of the election contesting scope. In 2021, a near sarcasm between the Starlink (SpaceX) and the satellites operated by the OneWeb triggered the emergency exercise, increasing the alarm in the global space community. With the Starlink of Elon Musk alone, with more than 5,000 satellites deploying and planning thousands more, the low Earth's orbit (Leo) is now considered as infinite that it is now nervous. This is not just a technical issue; This is a legal and geopolitical challenge that demands immediate international attention. The last decade has seen an exponential increase in space missions, satellite launch and entry of powerful commercial players. India has particularly intensified its space ambitions. Agencies such as the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Centre (In Space), and new space India Limited (NSIL) are running both scientific innovation and commercial exploration. As the space economy increases, the way navigation, defence and scientific research predicts communication and weather. Nevertheless, amidst this rapid expansion, the global outline for the management of outer space remains dangerously chronic.

Space Traffic Management (STM) refers to the set of norms, technologies and legal mechanisms that regulate the movement of space items to avoid conflict, manage orbital slots, facilitates coordination between stakeholders, and ensure behaviour responsible in external space. This launch includes everything from tracking the window and tracking the debris to establish liabilities in case of accidents. However, unlike civil aviation or marine traffic, there is no binding, centralized or universally accepted legal rule to operate space traffic. This legal vacuum is particularly disturbed in the light of the current realities: the orbital crowd is growing at unprecedented rates with mega conflicting crowd Leo; The risk of conflict is no longer imaginary; The commercialization of space is beating regulatory monitoring; And strategic military interests are connecting satellites and vulnerability of space assets.

A legally binding and inclusive global space traffic management governance is no longer optional this is mandatory. It will have to face technical, legal and moral challenges while balanced by global interests. India should lead to shaping the future, as a growing space power, a safe and durable space.

I. RISE AND REGULATION OF SPACE CONGESTION

By 2025, the number of active satellites revolving around the Earth has exceeded 9,000, estimates that SpaceX's star links may deploy 42,000 satellites in the coming years alone. Unprecedented growth in orbital objects is reshaping the nature of external space from a distant scientific boundary to a crowded commercial and geopolitical domain. This change presents a pressure challenge: how to regulate space traffic before the crowd, it leads to irreversible results.

The private sector has been the primary engine behind this explosive growth. Companies such as SpaceX (Starlink), Amazon (Project Kuiper), and OneWeb are running to provide global broadband coverage through giant satellite constellations. At the same time, firms such as Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are carrying forward the boundaries of space tourism, commercializing human space lights. India is also successfully launching dozens of foreign satellites per mission per mission with PSLV missions of ISRO to capitalize on this trend, marking the country as a low-cost launch hub for the world.

1. However, the risks of congested classes are not imaginary. A concept initiated by NASA scientist Donald Caller refers to Caller syndrome, a landscape, where a waterfall of satellite collision makes so debris so that it makes some orbital areas unusable.

2. Each collision produces thousands of uncontrollable fractions that can damage or destroy operating satellites, trigger

further collisions a chain reaction with frightening implications. There have already been many high-profile incidents that underline these dangers. In 2009, the first contingent collision between the two satellites the iridium 33 and the defective Russian universe created more than 2,000 pieces of 2251trackable debris.

3. Recently, from 2021 to 2023, the International Space Station (ISS) had to execute several family manoeuvres due to possible conflicts with space debris, exposing that the missions of the crew are also in constant danger.

4. In 2021, China formally filed a complaint with the United Nations, as its Tiangong space station

had to avoid close colours with star link satellites on two different occasions.

1ISRO Annual Report, 2024–25

2 Kessler, D. J., and Cour Palais, B. G., “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 1978.

3 NASA Orbital Debris Quarterly News, Vol. 13, Issue 2, 2009.

4.  ESA Space Debris Office, “ISS Debris Avoidance Manoeuvres 2021–2023”, Technical Report, 2024

5. United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), China Complaint Document, 2021. Paying cases forward is the adding disarmament of space. To destroy satellites in Orbit the Asat armament has been tested by numerous countries. In 2007, China conducted an ASAT test, which shattered one of its own satellites, producing further than 3,000 debris pieces.

6. India followed a suit with mission power in 2019, targeting a low comprehension satellite and demonstrated its ASAT capacity.7 These tests not only endanger orbital security, but also indicate the onset of space as a possible theatre of war.The United States has already institutionalized space as a military domain through the creation of American space force, while China has upgraded its own double use space strategies mixed with civil and defence applications. Satellites for communication, monitoring, strategic utility of navigation, and targeting make them an attractive goal in any future struggle, leading to the risks of irregular space activity. The absence of real time, applied space traffic coordination is leaving the door open for both accidental and deliberate orbital disruption. More than 100 countries now have space capabilities, and the number of stakeholders is growing rapidly, the space environment is being converted into a congested, competitive and election fighting area. Increase in space traffic by commercial enterprises, national ambitions and military strategies begins in the era of unprecedented orbital congestion. The results of ignoring these trends are serious: important communication networks, GPS systems, weather monitoring satellites, and even human life riding on space stations are at stake. Without a coordinated, legally binding global rule to manage space traffic, humanity risk turns its largest scientific border into a debris filled with debris. The urgency of functioning is not only theoretical; It is already revolving on us.

6 Weeden, B., “2007 Chinese Anti-satellite Test Fact Sheet”, Secure World Foundation, 2010.

7 Government of India, Press Information Bureau, “Mission Shakti”, 27 March 2019.

II. CURRENT LEGAL STRUCTURE: STRENGTH AND GAPS

The rapid expansion of space activity has not been reconciled by a related development in international law. The current legal framework in treaties from the Cold War era is only a skeletal structure, the lack of admissions, clarity and relevance in the context of modern space traffic. Basic, current space law in nature reveal significant intervals in addressing the operations, commercial and military dimensions of Space Traffic Management (STMs). The foundation stone of the International Space Law is 1967, the outer space treaty (OST), which establishes major principles such as peaceful use of external space, restrictions on national investment, and liability for damage caused by space items.

8 However, there is no provision for clearly addressing the STM in OST, nor does it define or regulate the liability of satellite movement, debris, or confrontation in real time scenario. It was draft at a time when only two superpowers dominated space and private companies To complement the OST, the liability conference of 1972 was introduced to establish liability for damage from space objects on Earth or in outer space.

9 It does not act as a preventive tool, and there is no mechanism for intervention to prevent real time monitoring or conflict. Also, the ideal of the 1975 enrolment conference was needed to present the details of its space particulars for the United Nations Registry to the countries.

10 Despite its great intentions, compliance is incompatible and often delayed. In addition, the information presented is largely stable and lacks real time status and technical data required for STM coordination. As a result, there is limited utility for avoiding practical conflict in the registry or orbital path deconfliction. International guidelines by organizations such as United Nations Committee represent peaceful use of external space (UNCOPUOS) and inter agency space debris coordination committee (IADC) one step further. The long-term stability guidelines of the IADC's space debris mitigation guidelines and 2019 of Uncopied offer voluntary best practices for satellite operatorsand states.

11 However, these guidelines are noncomprehensive and suffer from low rearing. The enforcement mechanisms for no transportation or lack of punishment are further diluted by their effectiveness.

8 Outer Space Treaty 1967

9 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 1972.

10 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 1975

11UN OOSA, ‘Guidelines for the Longterm Sustainability of Outer Space Activities’ A/AC.105/2019/CRP.20

Bilateral and national initiatives have also surfaced in recent years. The United States has clarified a domestic STM policy through the Space Policy direction 3 (SPD 3), including transfer of civil STM responsibilities to the Department of Commerce and the use of marketable space status awareness( SSA) data.12 The European Union has established its Space Status Awareness (SSA) structure, with a conflict alert between members with the European Union's Space Monitoring and Tracking (SST) converter coordination. India, meanwhile, is still in the process of defining its legal currency at STMs. While the installation of in space in enabling private sector participation is a major step, a comprehensive STM law or regulatory code is absent. Draft space operated by in space refers to aspects of policy, launch licensing and data sharing, but it does not form a binding rule for STM compliance or orbital deco fluence.

13 A significant decrease in all existing framework whether there is a lack of a centralized authority to manage STMs globally in international or domestic globally. No bodies exist to issue binding instructions for organ allocation, authorize exercises, or punish careless actors. This regulatory fragmentation allows states and private companies to function independently, often prioritizing commercial or strategic interests on collective security. The responsibility is nearly the absence of responsibility for private actors inversely concerned. While the states are nominal responsible for the goods initiated under their jurisdiction, the enforcement mechanisms are unclear. As the private sector plays a major role appointing thousands of satellites annually this difference in oversight and accountability becomes even more dangerous. While being covenants similar asOST, liability conference and enrollment conference have formulated the base for collaborative space disquisition,they're reduced by addressing the complex realities of space business in the 21st century. Without immediate legal improvement and strong enforcement mechanisms, without effective regulation, the risk of conflict, conflict and chaos in external space is moving forward.

12 Space Policy Directive3, United States, 2018

13 In space, Draft Space Policy, Government of India, 2023.

III.THE CASE FOR A GLOBAL SPACE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TREATY

The exponential boom in satellite tv for pc launches, together with the proliferation of industrial and military actors in outer space, has added the urgent want for a cohesive global Space Traffic Management (STM) regime into sharp cognizance. As orbital highways grow to be dangerously congested, worldwide cooperation backed through enforceable criminal gadgets is now not optional it is essential. This section analyses why a global STM treaty is imperative and what middle components it must comprise. 3.1 Escalating Threats in Outer Space The urgency for a global treaty stems from the multiplicity of real international dangers currently unregulated by way of any binding worldwide mechanism. As of mid2025, over 10,000 lively satellites orbit the Earth, a lot of them a part of mega constellations deployed with the aid of SpaceX (Starlink), OneWeb, and Amazon’s Project Kuiper. These dense constellations especially in low Earth orbit (LEO)pose collision dangers now not only to each different but also to crucial authorities and medical satellites

14. Space debris exacerbates this issue. Over 25,000 trackable pieces of debris, and masses of hundreds of untraceable fragments, now litter Earth's orbits15. Incidents which include the close to collision between Starlink and OneWeb satellites in 2021 underscore the absence of mandatory collision avoidance protocols. The loss of Realtime coordination among space actors similarly will increase the potential for cascading Kessler Syndrome a scenario where debris collisions exponentially multiply and render whole orbital layers unusable16 .3.2 Why Existing Legal Norms Are Inadequate The Outer Space Treaty (OST), 1967 bedrock of area law was drafted at a time whilst only spacefaring countries existed. While it gives broad standards just like the nonviolent use of outer space and legal responsibility for damages, it lacks operational rules governing satellite tv for pc motion, debris mitigation, and coordination of launches. Soft law contraptions

14 See Jonathan McDowell, ‘Satellite Mega constellations and Orbital Traffic: The Case of Starlink’ (2023) Space Policy Journal

15 European Space Agency, ‘Space Debris by the Numbers’ (ESA, 2024) https://www.esa.int accessed 1 August 2025

16 Donald J. Kessler and Burton G. Cour Palais, ‘Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt’ (1978) Journal of Geophysical Research including the UN COPUOS recommendations or the IADC particles mitigation framework are voluntary, and many nations do not comprise them into countrywide law.

17. Moreover, national licensing regimes, consisting of the ones carried out by using the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or India’s in Space, range widely in stringency and scope. This fragmented regulatory panorama allows for forum buying by using business players searching for permissive release situations, weakening the effectiveness of present protection norms.

18.3.3. Core Components of a Global STM Treaty To ensure permanent and safe use of external space, a global space traffic management (STM) treaty must include several essential components. First, compulsory data sharing must be applied, all space actors need to provide Realtime space and manoeuvre data for a centralized international registry, which is ideally ruled by the United Nations or an independent STM Authority. Second, the debris mitigation protocol should be integrated into the treaty, including life cycle guidelines for satellites such as autocracy at the end of life or transfers to graveyard classes or legally binding obligations to reduce the construction of space debris. Third, a liability and accountability mechanism must be established to determine the responsibility in the event of failure in compliance with conflict, careless manoeuvres, or STM advice. Fourth, the treaty should embrace technology neutrality, ensuring that it adjusts space tag services without prejudice to emerging innovations such as advanced propulsion system, autonomous conflict revival AI, and the technical abilities of any nation. The fifth, inclusio and equity should be central, guarantee proper access to orbital slots for developing countries and new entry, which technically avoids monopoly by advanced space powers. Finally, given the spread of military satellites and testing of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, the treaty should be provided to avoid conflict through the inclusion of a strong dispute solution mechanism to prevent geopolitical stress from increasing in orbital confrontation.

17 UN COPUOS, ‘Guidelines for the Longterm Sustainability of Outer Space Activities’ (2019).

18 Henry Hertzfeld and Ray A. Williamson, ‘Regulatory Gaps in International Space Law: A Policy Perspective’ (2021) Space Law Review. 3.4 India's role in shaping the treaty

India, with its fast-growing space economy and initiatives such as in space, NSIL and Gaganan, is specially deployed to make an inclusive global STM regime champion. As a nation with both strategic and developmental interests in outer space, India should advocate legally binding, non-discriminatory STM treaties that balance commercial innovation with planetary safety. By taking advantage of platforms such as the UNCOPUOS, International Telecommunications Association (ITU), and BRICS Space Cooperation Framework, India can shape critical south representation in external space regime, taking advantage of platforms such as the UN Committee, ensuring global south representation in external space rule19.

19 Indian Ministry of External Affairs, ‘India’s Space Diplomacy and Global Engagement’ (2025).

IV. INDIA’S ROLE IN THE EMERGING SPACE ORDER: FROM POLICY TO DIPLOMACY

4.1 India’s Expanding Space Footprint India has grown into a formidable space power via cost effective and progressive missions like Chandrayaan, Mangalyaan, and AdityaL1.

20 The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has no longer best verified technological abilities however also elevated India’s international market proportion through industrial palms like Antrix Corporation and New Space India Limited (NSIL).

21 To sell personal sector participation, India hooked up In Space to foster collaboration and alter private area sports.

22. However, India's growing presence in orbit necessitates a sturdy framework for space traffic management (STM). Over 60 operational Indian satellites share more and more congested orbital space, highlighting the pressing need for coordinated guidelines and collision avoidance  systems.

23 4.2 Domestic Policy Initiatives and Gaps The Indian National Space Policy 2023 changed into a landmark step in the direction of liberalising area operations and integrating non-public actors.

24. Yet, it lacks precise references to STM, orbital debris mitigation, or regulatory mechanisms for satellite positioning and coordination. India still does now not have a complete country wide space law. While ISRO recommendations cover issues like remote sensing and satellite conversation, they fall quick of addressing legal responsibility, safety, STM, and personal actor compliance comprehensively.

25. 20 Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Mission Chandrayaan & Mangalyaan Reports, ISRO OfficialPortal (2023).

21 Ministry of Space, Government of India, Annual Report 202223, available at: https://www.isro.gov.in.

22 In space, About Us, https://www.inspace.gov.in.

23 Kibe, S. V., “Indian Satellites and Space Debris Risk,” Current Science, Vol. 116, No. 10 (2019).

24 Department of Space, Indian Space Policy 2023, Ministry of Space, Go I, https://www.dos.gov.in

25 Nair, R., “India’s Space Law: The Unfinished Agenda,” ORF Occasional Paper No. 202 (2020). 4.3 India’s Diplomatic Influence in Multilateral Fora. India has maintained an active presence in worldwide structures just like the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) and helps nonviolent space exploration.

26 However, its contributions lean towards tender regulation devices (such as pointers and resolutions) over binding treaties. India now has the ability to form worldwide norms. It can advocate for a multilateral STM treaty this is along with emerging area countries. Additionally, regional alliances such as BRICS and Quad may be leveraged to expand frameworks around orbital coordination, transparency, and particles avoidance.

27 4.4 Asat test and India's dual responsibility In 2019, India's Mission Shakti Asat Testing performed counterspace capabilities successfully targeting a satellite in a low earth class, while India said that the test was "responsible" and "no proliferative", produced temporary debris and fulfilled concerns on space weapons. The phenomenon is to balance India with specific criteria to balance strategic preventives, which by restricting ASAT tests 28 and pushing them to international agreements on promoting the control of space weapons. 4.5 Recommendations for India’s Strategic Position To strengthen its position in the developed space regime landscape, India must take a multidimensional approach. First of all, it must apply a comprehensive National Space Act that especially Space Traffic Management (STM) addresses the liability mechanism, and controls private sector participation. Second, India should pursue bilateral and multilateral data sharing agreements to increase the Space Status Awareness (SSA) and improve Realtime coordination with other spacecraft nations. Additionally, India should begin or coin laws on a binding STM treaty under the structure of the United Nations Committee on peaceful use of outer space (UNCOPUOS). In parallel, India can expand technical assistance to developing countries through South cooperation, promoting equal access to space technology and governance. In the end, it is necessary that India strengthens its role as a responsible and strategic actor in global space rule, balances its military preparations with diplomatic leadership.

26 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), Member States Contributions, 2022

27 Chaturvedi, A., “India’s Role in Global Space Governance,” The Hindu Centre for Public Policy (2022).

28 Press Information Bureau (PIB), Go I, “Mission Shakti: India’s ASAT Test Facts and Impact,” March 2019.

V. PROPOSAL FOR A GLOBAL SPACE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (STM) RULE

The exponential increase of area activities has rendered the prevailing international legal framework inadequate to regulate the motion of gadgets in outer space. As international locations and personal actors release lots of satellites annually, the absence of a binding international Space Traffic Management (STM) regime increases the danger of orbital collisions, area particles proliferation, and strategic conflicts. The present Outer Space Treaty of 1967, even as foundational, lacks operative mechanisms to deal with contemporary orbital dynamics, mega constellations, and Realtime collision avoidance techniques. It is therefore imperative to set up a comprehensive, legally binding STM regime grounded in international cooperation, technological functionality, and equitable governance. An effective STM regime need to be guided by key legal and operational ideas. Firstly, transparency and information sharing among all across state and private should be mandated, making sure get entry to satellite trajectory data, planned manoeuvres, and satellite failures. Secondly, there must be certainly described standard operating processes (SOPs) for collision avoidance, deorbiting, and emergency responses. Thirdly, global law has to area legal obligations on area actors for debris mitigation and responsible give up of disposal of area gadgets, including via the 25yr rule or obligatory graveyard orbits. Furthermore, issues of legal responsibility and duty have to be clarified to ensure that states and industrial entities are held responsible for negligent or harmful orbital behaviour.

29 Importantly, the STM regime ought to promote equitable get admission to orbital resources for rising spacefaring nations, thereby averting the monopolisation of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) via technologically advanced international locations.

30 To operationalise those concepts, the creation of a Global Space Traffic Authority (GSTA) has been proposed via scholars and coverage advocates.31This authority, probably functioning under the aegis of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), might license orbital get right of entry to, manage a real time global registry of active and defunct satellites, and coordinate warnings and responses in case of collision threats.32 It can also serve as a dispute decision mechanism within the occasion of orbital conflicts, supported by using a dedicated arbitration panel similar to the Permanent Court of Arbitration's area regulations

29 Outer Space Treaty, Articles VI and VII

30 Jakhu, R., Legal Issues Relating to the Global Public Interest in Outer Space, 2006

31 Weeden, B. & Samson, V., Global Governance of Space Traffic Management, Secure World Foundation, 2021.

32 UNOOSA, Registration Convention, 1976; and proposed models in IAA STM Working Group Report, 2020 framework. A key position of the GSTA would be to enforce compliance with worldwide STM norms by using levying consequences or restricting get entry to orbit slots for repeat offenders. Technological infrastructure is vital to put into effect and monitor STM regulations successfully. The established order of an included global Space Surveillance Network (SSN)combining the competencies of nations along with the U.S., India, France, and Australia could enable nonstop tracking of orbital actions.33 Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) models are already being evolved to automate predictive modelling of collision dangers and self-sufficient satellite reaction.34 In addition, blockchain primarily based registries may be employed to make certain tamperproof, timestamped statistics of satellite launches, ownership, and operations.35 Equally crucial is capability constructing. Any worldwide STM regime need to make certain inclusivity via extending technical and economic assistance to developing nations. Provisions for training, records get entry to, and era switch have to be integrated into the treaty framework.36Without such affirmative support, the risk of furthering area inequality will boom, undermining the peaceful and cooperative nature of outer area activities. Several regional and country wide frameworks offer a blueprint for global adoption. The European Union’s Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Programme, Japan’s bilateral SSA agreements, and the US' Office of Space Commerce tasks mirror efforts toward coordinated STM.37 These models can be harmonised beneath an international STM regime, supplemented by multilateral agreements and binding protocols. As outer area turns into the next strategic and monetary frontier, a binding, inclusive, and technologically supported STM regime is now not optional it is a felony vital.

33 ESA, EU Space Surveillance and Tracking (EU SST) Programme, 2023

34National Academies of Sciences, Orbital Debris: Technical Assessment and Mitigation Strategies, 2021.

35 Das, A., “Blockchain Based Solutions for Satellite Data Registry,” Space Policy Journal, Vol. 47, 2022.

36 UNOOSA & ITU, Bridging the Space Divide: Capacity Building and Technical Assistance Report, 2019.

37U.S. Department of Commerce, Space Policy Directive3: National Strategy for Space Traffic Management,2018.

VI. KEY LEGAL AND POLICY CHALLENGES IN REGULATING SPACE

TRAFFIC

The proliferation of satellites and area actors has a long way outpaced the felony frameworks governing outer space. At the centre lies the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, which even though modern at the time, lacks the granularity required for the cutting-edge complexities of area traffic. The OST prohibits countrywide appropriation of area and mandates nonviolent use, but it does now not define area traffic control (STM), let alone provide enforceable regulations concerning satellite tv for pc collisions, particles mitigation, or business coordination. This has created a prison vacuum wherein national guidelines and voluntary hints have become the default mode of governance. Yet, those efforts lack uniformity, enforceability, and duty at the worldwide level.38 One of the essential issues is country duty and liability. Article VI of the OST makes states the world over liable for activities in area, whether or not carried out by way of governmental or nongovernmental entities. However, as personal gamers like SpaceX, OneWeb, and Amazon’s Project Kuiper dominate space operations, enforcing state responsibility becomes increasingly difficult. While the Liability Convention of 1972 holds launching states answerable for damage resulting from their area items, it fails to deal with preventive obligations consisting of actual time coordination of orbital paths.

39 Moreover, the absence of a central authority to solve disputes in case of close to collisions or interference complicates the enforcement of liability. The lack of clean definitions also contributes to regulatory ambiguity. There is not any universally everyday definition of phrases like “space traffic”, “space item”, or maybe “collision avoidance”. This results in inconsistent interpretations among nations. For example, whilst the United States implements Space Policy Directive3, focusing on home STM norms and statistics sharing mechanisms, different international locations depend on unique technical protocols, main to fragmented strategies.40 Without a harmonized lexicon and popular working processes, the ability for operational misunderstandings and conflicts will only amplify.

38 Ram Jakhu, 'Legal Issues Relating to the Global Public Interest in Outer Space' (2011) 36 J Space L 31

39 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (adopted 29 March 1972, entered into force 1 September 1972) 961 UNTS 187.

40 US White House, 'Space Policy Directive3, National Space Traffic Management Policy' (18 June 2018). Another pressing assignment lies in statistics sharing and transparency. Effective STM is based on accurate and well-timed sharing of orbital facts. still, geopolitical pressures and marketable confidentiality enterprises hamper this. The lack of a mandatory global protocol for facts exchange has brought about reliance on unilateral databases just like the U.S. SpaceTrack.Org, which might not always be available or trusted by means of all stakeholders.

41 Further, military satellites frequently function underneath secrecy, yet they make contributions notably to orbital congestion. This dichotomy between civil openness and army opacity exacerbates the threat of miscalculation and accidental escalation. The enforcement mechanisms in the International Space Law are particularly weak. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Use of external Space( UNCOPUOS) plays a coordinated part, but the long- term stability guidelines of 2019 are noncomprehensive as noncompliant.

42. The WTO dispute settlement system or radio communication has no place equal to the frequency authority of ITU. In the absence of a central enforcement or arbitration body for STM violations, governance depends on goodwill and political pressure, which is insufficient in high day scenarios associated with the satellites of the state actors or the Arab dollar. Finally, concerns of sovereignty and geopolitical rivalry create major obstacles for collective action. Emerging space powers like China and India can be reluctant to control their space assets or to present externally operated rules. Meanwhile, established players such as the US and Russia can oppose the boundaries that disrupt their commercial or military gains. As long as the STM debate does not actually develop into a multilateral framework, a terrible space accident or struggle will remain at risk with strategic interests with global security.

41 Theresa Hitchens, 'Space Situational Awareness: Big Challenges for a Small Planet' (2020) Secure World Foundation Report.

42 UNCOPUOS, 'Guidelines for the Longterm Sustainability of Outer Space Activities' (2019), A/AC.105/C.1/L.366.

VI . NATIONAL SPACE POLICIES GAPS AND THE NEED FOR STM PROVISIONS

Despite speedy improvements in area technology and increasing participation within the international space financial system, most countrywide area policies including those of predominant spacefaring nations fail to comprehensively address the urgent need for area visitors control (STM). The absence of unique STM rules at the national stage has resulted in a fragmented and inconsistent approach to space governance. India’s country wide space policy, as an example, while innovative in commencing the world to personal players thru companies like in Space and NSIL, does no longer contain specific prison mandates on STM norms including orbital allocation, collision avoidance protocols, or standardized debris mitigation techniques. The coverage primarily specializes in facilitation in place of law, and lacksfelony teeth to put in force behaviour inside the more and more contested Low Earth Orbit (LEO) area.

43 This is concerning, given India’s developing presence in space, both commercially and strategically. Similarly, the USA, even though comparatively more advanced on this area, is based on apatchwork of agency obligations. The U.S. Space Policy Directive three (SPD3) entrusts the. Department of Commerce with STM, however this delegation has not but been followed with the aid of a comprehensive statutory regime.44 In the European context, character member states pursue their personal area law, main to a lack of harmonization.45 While entities just like the European Space Agency (ESA) coordinate on joint missions and sustainability, they lack enforcement mechanisms for STM obligations across member states. The loss of prison obligation on the country wide level outcomes in gaps in worldwide accountability. There is presently no mechanism to penalize a kingdom whose satellite causes harm because of terrible site visitors coordination, nor are there incentives to actively deorbit retired satellites. STM provisions must be embedded in domestic rules, in conjunction with mechanisms for licensing, monitoring, enforcement, and legal responsibility evaluation.46

43 Department of Space, Space Policy 2023, Government of India.

44 United States, Space Policy Directive3, June 2018.

45 European Space Agency, Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, 2020

46 Ram S. Jakhu, ‘Legal Aspects of Space Traffic Management’ (2016) 42(3) Space Policy 160 This regulatory vacuum turns into trickier as space becomes increasingly privatized. Without country wide regulations mandating adherence to worldwide STM standards, private operators may prioritize profit over responsibility. Incorporating STM into countrywide prison frameworks is essential now not just for compliance, however additionally for building the muse of any future international STM treaty regime. Nations have to adopt binding norms requiring facts sharing, prerelease trajectory approval, and real time collision avoidance coordination with different area actors.47

VII. WAY AHEAD A GLOBAL STM FRAMEWORK

As the variety of satellites in orbit maintains to surge mainly in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) with the rise of mega constellations the urgency to establish an international, binding framework for space traffic management (STM) turns into critical. The contemporary voluntary and fragmented machine cannot preserve the extent of coordination required to prevent collisions, mitigate area particles, and make certain lengthy time period area sustainability. A possible worldwide STM framework ought to be grounded in multilateral cooperation under the aegis of the United Nations. The United Nations Committee at the Peaceful Uses of external Space( UNCOPUOS), formerly the custodian of the external Space Treaty, is excellent placed to act as the platform for this adjustment.48 However, the prevailing guidelines such because the UN Long Term Sustainability (LTS) Guidelines are nonbinding and rely heavily on goodwill. Transforming those into enforceable norms would require a binding worldwide conference on STM. A comprehensive treaty on space site visitors’ management (STM) should contain key provisions to make sure safety, transparency, and responsibility in outer space sports. It needs to set up standardized techniques for orbital registration and the coordination of launch trajectories to keep away from conflicts. Furthermore, Realtime facts sharing duties among countrywide area organizations and personal operators ought to be mandated to promote situational cognizance. The treaty needs to additionally implement Quito life disposal plans and particular deorbiting timelines for defunct satellites to decrease area particles. Additionally,

47 UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, Guidelines for the Longterm Sustainability of Outer Space Activities, 2019

48 UNCOPUOS, Outer Space Treaty of 1967, UN Doc A/RES/2222 (XXI). it ought to incorporate strong warfare decision mechanisms to cope with orbital disputes or negligence successfully. Finally, the established order of a worldwide STM coordination centre doubtlessly under the auspices of the United Nations or a specialized enterprise consisting of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is vital for tracking compliance and facilitating worldwide communication amongst stakeholders.

49.In addition to felony equipment, technological solutions should play a key function. Global monitoring infrastructure wishes to be upgraded, probably via public non-public partnerships, to make certain unique monitoring of area items.50 India, with its ISRO competencies and increasing private space environment, can play a critical function in shaping and piloting such mechanisms. Moreover, incentivizing compliance may be important. Instead of depending simplest on punitive mechanisms, international locations and personal actors adhering to STM norms can be presented privileges which includes orbital priority, licensing benefits, or get right of entry to global STM databases. Ultimately, STM have to be visible now not merely as a technical project but as a criminal and diplomatic priority. The absence of a unified framework dangers a tragedy of the common’s situation in Earth’s orbits.51 Just as maritime and aviation legal guidelines introduced order to seas and skies, it's miles imperative that space follows suit before collisions, congestion, and conflicts make sustainable get right of entry to not possible.

49 Jin yuan Su, ‘The Need for an International Space Traffic Management Treaty’ (2021) 6 Space Policy 101400

50 Secure World Foundation, Global Space Traffic Management Assessment 2023

https://swfound.org/media/207886/swfstm2023.pdf accessed 1 August 2025

51 J C Gabrynowicz, ‘Space Law: It’s Time for a New Treaty’ (2010) 74 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 705.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Since humanity stands on the tail of a transformative era marked by unprecedented progress in the discovery and commercialization of space, the outer location is increasingly developing in a crowd and competition. Orbital Commons, once spacious and weak, are now colliding with satellites, space debris and emerging private players, which is dangerous the risk of conflict and conflict. Nevertheless, the absence of a strong and binding international legal structure is not just a regulatory difference to manage space traffic this is a stunning global crisis. If left, this vacuum can severely reduce the long-term stability of space as an important domain for scientific discovery, national security and socioeconomic development. In response, the development of space law should exceed aspiring announcements and voluntary guidelines. The immediate requirement is a legally applied, technically adaptive and globally inclusive Space Traffic Management (STM) rule. Such a structure should be vested in international cooperation and forwarding rule that embraces the interests of both private institutions and multilateral institutions as well as established and emerging spacecraft. In this context, India is specifically deployed to play the role of a leadership. With its fast-moving space capabilities, diplomatic credibility and commitment to peaceful space use, India can serve as a prominent architect in shaping a global STM rule that balances innovation with accountability, and balances ambition with stability.

In the new space age, legal inertia is not a viable path. The law must evolve at a pace that matches the velocity of space activities. Failing to do so will not only endanger global space security, but also destroy the huge opportunities that cosmos keeps for future generations. The imperative is clear: we must regulate space traffic now, or risk being over Ken by Chaos Later.

“ The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle ever. ”

-Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Father of Astronautics

REGULATING SPACE TRAFFIC IN THE NEW SPACE AGE: A LEGAL IMPERATIVE FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

NITHYA PRAKASH D: PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY

REGULATING SPACE TRAFFIC IN THE NEW SPACE AGE: A LEGAL IMPERATIVE FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

NITHYA PRAKASH D: PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY