In decades past, multilateralism and collaboration in an overwhelmingly international space sector felt like a given. Now, as the space domain becomes increasingly competitive (both commercially and strategically), the sector is faced with the challenge of re-imagining what cooperation, multilateralism, sovereignty and jurisdiction should look like in a new age.
Australia put its vision forward on Day 1 of the International Astronautical Congress 2025 in Sydney this week, announcing a mandate to negotiate a Cooperative Agreement with the European Space Agency and reaffirming its commitment to peaceful lunar exploration and interoperability under the Artemis Accords. Regional partnerships are also taking off. However, those in the industry are facing practical challenges associated with navigating tightening regulatory landscapes and shifting international (and inter-agency) relationships.
Join us as we run through the key 'jurisdictional touchpoints' that should be on your radar for any space project and share some practical tips on how to manage the cross-border elements of shooting for the stars.
Layers of law – a quick refresher
| The international stage |
The five United Nations (UN) treaties on outer space1 still sit at the top of the pyramid, but newer, non-binding instruments (such as the Artemis Accords, ISO 24113 and the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines) are shaping state practice. While liability sits with states at this level, international obligations are typically passed down to individuals and organisations through the licensing frameworks of spacefaring (and space-aspiring) jurisdictions, including in Australia. |
| National licensing frameworks |
For non-government organisations (including businesses) active in the sector, these frameworks constitute the 'space law' as it applies to their activities. While the UN treaties on outer space have not been updated in over 40 years, policy, regulatory and licensing frameworks in the region are evolving at pace: Australia2, New Zealand, Japan and India have each progressed updates to relevant legislation this year alone. In addition to staying on top of the latest changes to domestic frameworks, it's also important to keep track of the rules that apply to any international partners. The Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 places obligations on Australian nationals launching space objects outside Australia, and other frameworks can include similar provisions.3 |
| Contract |
As we explained in our previous alert in this series, well-drafted, space-specific contracts are still the best way to manage risk when operating in the sector and the most common way that rights and liabilities are enforced. Getting your choice-of-law and forum clauses right is especially critical when managing multiple jurisdictions and associated sources of liability. |
Keeping track of 'jurisdictional touchpoints'
Every space mission is, by definition, a cross-border venture. A single project may simultaneously engage the laws of the place of a launch site, responsible parties' home jurisdictions, the country of manufacture for critical components, the location of ground infrastructure, the international legal frameworks that govern outer space – and, if something goes wrong, the courts (or arbitrators) of them all.
Because almost every component of a space project has the potential to be a 'touchpoint' to another jurisdiction, it is critical to keep track of and manage exposure to the regulatory, licensing and contractual regimes that may apply. Set out below is a high-level summary of the 4 key 'jurisdictional touchpoints' which come into play in space projects and some practical tips on how to manage them:
Assets and technology
(a) Export controls
Many space-related technologies are classified as 'dual-use' (meaning they are created for commercial purposes but may be used or modified for use in military programs or to create weapons of mass destruction) and are therefore frequently subject to export control regimes in multiple jurisdictions (including Australia's Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (DTC Act)).
These controls can apply not only to physical exports but also to intangible transfers of information, such as through emails, cloud storage, remote access, and teleconferencing. Recent legislative changes, including to the DTC Act and Defence and Strategic Goods (DSGL) List, continue to tighten controls on dual‑use and defence‑related technology transfers.
Our tip: Stand up an export-controls workstream from day 1 and map "controlled" items and intangible technology flows against the DSGL List and DTC Act. Seek early, written advice where required.
(b) Cloud and cyber
Cross-border cloud hosting, remote access, and in-orbit software uploads can trigger a complex web of privacy, telecommunications licensing, and data protection obligations across multiple jurisdictions. Operators must navigate not only data localisation and breach-notification laws, but also telecommunications regulations that may require local licensing or registration for elements of ground segments. Privacy regimes such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, Australia's Privacy Act 1988, and similar laws in other jurisdictions can impose strict requirements on the collection, storage, and transfer of personal and technical data, including obligations to notify regulators and affected individuals in the event of a data breach. Cybersecurity incidents can also trigger mandatory reporting and cooperation with national security agencies, with potential exposure to regulatory action in multiple countries.
Our tip: Map all data flows and hosting arrangements to identify where telecommunications and privacy laws apply, ensure that cloud and ground segment providers are compliant with local licensing and data protection requirements and develop an incident response plan that addresses notification, cooperation, and evidence preservation obligations under all relevant privacy and telecommunications laws.
On the ground
The use of launch facilities, ground segments, and other space infrastructure can subject operators and service providers to a web of legal frameworks in the facility's home country. These may include domestic space law, aviation regulation, telecommunications licensing, workplace health and safety, and national security requirements. Ground segments, including telecommunications networks and facilities, may be classified as critical infrastructure, potentially triggering additional cybersecurity and operational obligations and may also mean operators are considered as carriers or carriage service providers for the purposes of telecommunications law. Site-specific onboarding may require personnel to be certified for security clearances and compliance with local workplace standards (which have been the subject of high-profile regulatory enforcement actions in the United States and elsewhere).
Our tip: Before committing to any site or ground station in another jurisdiction, run a location‑specific due diligence to ensure that the facility can comply with the relevant regulatory frameworks. Conversely, facility providers looking to attract international clientele should assess whether their offerings align with the requirements of their targets' home countries. For multi‑site networks, consider whether it is possible to designate a "lead jurisdiction" for incident management and align all site contracts to that framework.
Lift-off
(a) Launch and return
Launch and return create multiple jurisdictional gateways: the launch state(s), the operators' and manufacturers' nationalities, the registration state, the return/landing site, and any overflight or maritime safety zones. Under the UN Liability Convention, launching States face fault‑based liability for damage to other space objects but are absolutely liable for damage their space object causes on Earth (ie who is at fault is irrelevant). Uncontrolled re‑entries and debris incidents can give rise to inter‑state claims under the Liability Convention, alongside national tort regimes (see, for example, recent claims in the United States alleging damage from launch and space debris). Licensing processes will also pull in export controls, range safety and environmental approvals across launch and return locations.
Our tip: Clearly assign roles and responsibilities through careful planning and contracting. Engage with regulators early to ensure you are on the same page about what is required. Because liability sits with governments at the international level, agencies and operators have a shared interest in getting things right.
(b) In orbit
Once in orbit, jurisdiction fragments: the state of registration retains jurisdiction and control over the space object, while the international liability regime engages the "launching State" construct (under the UN Liability Convention). Operators must also navigate non‑binding but increasingly mandatory‑by‑contract debris and space traffic management norms.
Private‑to‑private liability in space remains largely untested, so risk allocation lives in contracts (eg through cross‑waivers, knock‑for‑knock, space situational awareness (SSA)/collision‑avoidance cooperation, data‑sharing) supported by tailored insurance.
Cyber is a cross‑border wild card: attacks can be launched from third countries or non‑state actors with difficult attribution, creating overlapping regulatory and liability exposure.
Our tip: Align registration strategy with your licensing and insurance plan and specify governing law and an arbitration seat for disputes. Require counterparties to maintain compatible cyber controls, incident notification and evidence‑preservation protocols, and consider whether dedicated cyber cover is appropriate for your project.
Doing business
Recent high-profile disputes (including CC/Devas v Antrix Corp proceedings in multiple jurisdictions and the Jabiru/NewSat Ltd insolvency proceedings in Australia) have primarily arisen from commercial contract breaches, financing defaults and public procurement, rather than treaty liability. Meanwhile, financing norms are shifting toward recognised multilateral standards and sustainability metrics (for example, ISO 24113 or the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines). While the international community is still consensus-building on these topics, whether a standard is internationally binding is irrelevant for those with a contractual obligation to comply.
The fact remains that the basics still apply far, far away. Successful space projects are underpinned by rigorous fundamentals: precise allocation of risk, realistic and enforceable approval milestones, robust security interests over cashflows and key agreements, disciplined change-control processes, and proactive stakeholder management.
Our tip: Well-drafted contracts and disciplined project management remain the most effective tools for managing legal and commercial risk. For when things go wrong, ensure that dispute resolution, governing law, and waiver clauses are consistent across all contracts in your supply chain to prevent conflicting proceedings in multiple forums.
Our checklist for cross-border project teams
- Identify all relevant 'launching States' and registration candidates, including the jurisdictions of manufacture, launch, operators, control centre, and landing or return site.
- Ensure that your contractual risk allocation is consistent with applicable treaty and national liability and insurance rules.
- Integrate dual use/export control and sanctions analysis into your supply chain due diligence, covering both tangible and intangible technology transfers.
- Structure your insurance programme to comply with liability caps, debris mitigation and SSA protocols, and to address cyber and operational risks. Maintain documented conjunction-assessment procedures.
- Clearly specify governing law, dispute resolution forum, and enforcement venue in all contracts, and ensure these terms are flowed down through all subcontracts and data-sharing arrangements.
- Where relevant, prepare and maintain comprehensive SSA, collision-avoidance, and de-orbit plans in accordance with ISO 24113 and COPUOS Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space - both because they are increasingly required by regulators and insurers, and as a matter of best practice.
Looking forward
One jurisdictional issue that has our attention: Private entities now possess the technical capability to extract and utilise space resources, and some countries have enacted domestic laws recognising private property rights in those materials. However, the legality of "appropriating" materials extracted in outer space remains unresolved at the international level. One of the key commercial issues is whether a multilateral framework, such as an International Seabed Authority-style regime, will be established to provide legal certainty and mitigate title and allocation risks for investors.
As the sector evolves, multilateral fora like UNCOPUOS and the Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group are stepping up to shape the next generation of space law. Will we see harmonisation of national approaches to space activities—or a patchwork of divergent regimes? The answer will define the commercial landscape for years to come. Watch this space.
Footnotes
1. Commonly referred to as the Outer Space Treaty, Rescue Agreement, Liability Convention, Registration Convention and the Moon Agreement, the UN treaties on outer space are over 40 years old. Australia is party to all five of them.
2. Amendments to the Space (Launches and Returns) (High Power Rocket) Rules 2019 and Space (Launches and Returns) (General) Rules 2019 came into effect in February 2025.
3. See sections 14 and 15A of the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
