Insight - Global Space Governance: Pathways to Agreement

By Richard DalBello, member of the Secure World Foundation Advisory Committee

Strategic Governance Pathways

To date, space governance has not emerged as a core diplomatic priority among leading spacefaring nations. Although individual dialogues and initiatives exist, there is little momentum to translate them into a comprehensive multilateral framework. The European Union’s proposed Space Law - an effort to harmonize regulatory standards across member states - offers a potential regional model, though its implications for global governance remain uncertain. Absent the interest and efforts of the major space actors, progress is likely to take shape through a pragmatic process in which diverse approaches to coordination, norm-setting, and legitimacy interact over time. Near-term actions will likely emerge through normative coalitions, industry-driven technical standards, and bilateral or multilateral data-sharing agreements.

Normative Coalitions

One promising mechanism for rule formation is the coalition model exemplified by the Artemis Accords. These voluntary arrangements allow like-minded states to advance principles related to transparency, lunar resource utilization, and coordination of civil activities. Future iterations could extend to the creation of “operational coordination zones,” defined by shared traffic management and communication protocols for the most congested orbits. The strength of such coalitions lies in their flexibility, speed, and shared values, but their legitimacy remains bounded by participation. When major space actors remain outside such arrangements, the risk of fragmented governance increases, as do perceptions of exclusion or normative imbalance.

China, in partnership with Russia and other interested states, has proposed the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) initiative as a parallel effort to the U.S.-led Artemis Accords. The ILRS envisions the cooperative development of a long-term scientific outpost on the Moon’s surface, with shared contributions from participating nations. The ILRS is not structured as a legal framework akin to the Artemis Accords and does not specifically address the issue of lunar resource extraction. However, the ILRS functions as a geopolitical and technical alternative to Artemis, emphasizing multilateral collaboration outside U.S.-aligned blocs and reflecting differing interpretations of lunar governance.

Technical Standards

In parallel, the technical community continues to play a quiet but essential role in building functional coherence across space operations. Organizations such as the CCSDS, ISO, and IADC have developed widely accepted standards for interoperability, safety, and debris mitigation. These standards lack binding legal force, but operate as de facto “soft law,” shaping behavior through shared best practices and industry adoption . Their effectiveness rests on credibility, operational utility, and alignment of incentives, rather than enforcement. Still, as with civil aviation and telecommunications, such technical scaffolding is indispensable—it enables basic trust, reduces friction, and lays the groundwork for more formalized governance structures.

Agreements on Data Sharing

A third pathway lies in the continued development of data transparency regimes, particularly in space situational awareness (SSA). The proliferation of satellite constellations has heightened the urgency of data exchange to prevent collisions, manage proximity operations, and coordinate maneuvering. While recent initiatives, such as the World Economic Forum’s SSA principles, have framed this challenge, progress will depend on future bilateral and regional agreements. Over time, such practices could evolve into a globally distributed model for space traffic coordination, even absent binding multilateral agreements.
Although normative coalitions, technical standards, and data sharing agreements are valuable, there is, arguably, a long-term need for institutions that can serve as custodians of legitimacy and strategic balance in space governance. COPUOS and the ITU represent legacy structures that have, despite their limitations, enabled foundational achievements. Their evolution could involve broader mandates, closer commercial engagement, and enhanced working group structures. In the longer term, the concept of an independent authority focused on safety protocols, dispute resolution, and emergency coordination for space activities may become politically feasible. Such a body would likely take decades to form and would face resistance from states wary of sovereignty erosion or regulatory capture. But its value would lie not in daily operational control, but in anchoring the broader architecture in shared norms, stable procedures, and long-term vision.

Governance is not a destination, but a process that is iterative, layered, and ultimately reflective of the world it seeks to organize.

This evolutionary model does not promise perfection or immediacy. It is, instead, a blueprint for how disparate actors can cohere into a functional order. This is unlikely to happen in sweeping new agreements, but rather by gradual alignment across layers of governance. Each layer supports the others - normative coalitions create political momentum; technical standards enable interoperability; coordination zones manage complexity, and data sharing ensures safety. Each component of this informal structure lends durability and legitimacy to the broader enterprise. In this vision, governance is not a destination, but a process that is iterative, layered, and ultimately reflective of the world it seeks to organize.

Space Governance as the Architecture of a New Global Commons

We stand at a unique historical juncture. For the first time, humanity possesses the technological capacity to operate continuously and independently in orbit and soon these capabilities will extend to other celestial bodies. Today we lack the accompanying institutions and norms to ensure that this expansion unfolds in a manner that is stable, predictable, and peaceful. Some have argued that governance may constrain creativity or slow innovation, but history suggests that the absence of governance can foster an instability which is detrimental to the development of a dynamic and resilient commercial space environment. Without purposeful coordination, the space domain will reflect the centrifugal forces of our geopolitical moment and could lead to rivalry among great powers, fragmentation of norms, and privatization of authority without accountability.

In today’s political environment, it is hard to imagine a single, unified system of global governance arising spontaneously. Space is unlikely to be governed by a new universal treaty regime. Instead, what is more likely is the evolution of a mosaic of overlapping frameworks. These are likely to begin with soft law norms, technical standards, commercial practices, bilateral understandings, and eventually, institutional mechanisms of oversight and arbitration. This is not necessarily a sign of failure, but perhaps the realistic path by which order has historically emerged - incrementally, imperfectly, and through the accommodation of diverse interests.

The goal of some future global governance is not the imposition of harmony or order, but the management of competing imperatives. Governance, in this conception, is not the endpoint but the scaffolding and the architecture through which a pluralistic world builds a shared stake in a domain beyond sovereignty. The task before us is nothing less than to lay the institutional and normative foundations for humanity’s next great expansion. If we succeed, space may become a zone of enduring cooperation, scientific progress, and shared prosperity. If we fail, it may replicate the worst instincts of terrestrial politics in a far more fragile environment.

It is, therefore, the responsibility of nations, intergovernmental bodies, and entrepreneurs to lend their efforts to this endeavor. Space governance is not simply about regulating our activities but rather about shaping our relationship to the new horizon offered by space. As with all grand strategic undertakings, success will require vision tethered to realism, ambition tempered by restraint, and a sense of shared destiny strong enough to endure the turbulent decades to come.

Recommendations for National Policymakers and Regulators

Create Flexible Mechanisms for Strategic Dialogue

Develop structured and recurring channels for bilateral and multilateral dialogue on space governance, including technical coordination, civil-commercial harmonization, and national security risk management. These platforms can build trust, reduce miscalculation, and address dual-use challenges without requiring formal agreements.

Leverage Market Mechanisms to Incentivize Responsible Behavior

Use public procurement, insurance frameworks, and performance-based incentives to encourage compliance with safety and sustainability norms. Align national licensing and funding with internationally recognized standards to harmonize commercial innovation with global governance goals.

Recommendations for Intergovernmental Bodies

Create Formal Roles for Industry and Civil Society in Governance Processes

Move beyond observer status by establishing advisory panels, working groups, or rotating consultative bodies that include industry, academia, and NGOs. Their input should inform norm-setting, implementation guidance, and compliance monitoring—especially in technically complex domains.

Embrace a More Flexible Governance Structure

Enable parallel progress through soft law, technical standards, and voluntary coalitions while preserving inclusive multilateralism for core norms. A pluralistic structure allows experimentation and responsiveness while building toward long-term institutional coherence.

Recommendations for Commercial Operators

Lead Voluntarily Where Regulation Lags

Commit to publicly adopted standards in debris mitigation, maneuver coordination, and SSA data-sharing. By doing so, commercial operators not only enhance operational safety, but also shape emerging global expectations and demonstrate readiness to behave responsibly in lieu of regulation.

Contribute to Global Norm-Building Through Data and Dialogue

Share non-sensitive SSA data and operational lessons with government, commercial, and academic partners. This will enhance industry’s role as a governance stakeholder and helps ensure that future rules are grounded in technical and commercial reality.

This Insight piece was adapted from Richard DalBello’s publication, “Global Space Governance – Pathways to Agreement.” The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Secure World Foundation. To explore the full analysis and recommendations, download the complete publication here.