The deadly abyss: what on Earth governs satellites?
For many experts, the deadliest attack a state or group of individuals could suffer from would be executed by attacking satellites. By attacking systems that control banking, communication, and protection (military and digital), a capable force could cripple communities. Immediately, a threat multiplier situation would set off a domino effect. With many essential services reliant on satellite software, an attack on one service would bleed into others. How do I pay for an X-ray if banking systems are down? How would I communicate the scale of the problem if I can't use my phone? How would we escape to another country if navigation systems aren't working? Most critically: How do I see if anyone is posting about it yet?!
The immediate outer space is a concentrated space of power and control over what lies beneath it – Earth. The satellites which populate it, which provide essential services such as internet, phone service, navigation, weather monitoring, and resource management, are relied upon by governments and private companies. Moreover, satellite technology's dual-use nature means the same systems can serve both military and civilian applications, multiplying their strategic value.1 With little education on the intricacies and a lot of secrecy of the detailed operations of satellites, the increasingly crowded outer space feels more like the wild west of technological innovation than an exciting tool for autonomy over our future – as their operations are so fervently sold to us by the billionaires who fund the operations of satellites and space technology.
So much legal and operational ambiguity happens in this space (literally and figuratively). The most pressing principle is: how are we regulating space—an increasingly operational necessity for modern life—if no nation can claim ownership, yet mostly billionaires control the satellites operating within it? For companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Virgin Galactic, and thousands of other space companies looking to profit from operating in the abyss, questions about their intentions and regulation, like the nature of the area itself, never end. Ambiguity in the business of outer space, subsequently, defines it.
As billions of dollars funnel into repurposing outer space into a battleground for control by both state and non-state actors, our control over our future feels increasingly distant, as we continue to channel operations into systems increasingly alien to traditional governance models. Headlines about where this money is going and for what purpose often fall flat and are consequently regularly covered. Subsequently, attempts are made to explain the seemingly secretive operations in outer space, with little social pressure to squeeze out any clarity. Outer space just feels so… far away. So – out of my depth. I guess the specifics of operations don't matter so much as the principle that guides them. Which are… what exactly?
In their role as critical geopolitical infrastructure, satellites occupy a precarious position. Are they stabilising the global environment by democratising information and providing transparency, or does our reliance on them undermine global stability by providing a means for threat-multiplying offensive action? Recent conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine have provided scenarios of the potential latter. During Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine began using SpaceX's Starlink to control unmanned surveillance and reconnaissance aerial vehicles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles. 2 Whilst Israel, in the wake of October 7th, 2023, weaponised satellite imagery integrated with an AI system, "the Gospel", for systematic targeting of individuals. 3
These examples reveal a fundamental tension that existing space law was never designed to address the weaponisation of ostensibly civilian satellite technology for tactical military operations. In 1967, two years before the first man landed on the moon, the first Outer Space Treaty was established. The treaty sets out critical governance principles for the most extreme form of security in outer space. It states that there is no sovereignty in space (authority to govern), prohibits the use of weapons in space, and requires all activity in space to operate in line with international law. Although grateful that we managed to secure the signatures of significant powers on a treaty before the period of individualism from states we find ourselves in now, academics note that this treaty and its details did not anticipate the proliferation of private actors or the integration of space assets into critical military and civilian infrastructure. 4 The details of the treaty prove inadequate for regulating the complexities of contemporary satellite capabilities. Mega constellations like SpaceX's Starlink (comprising 6,000 operational satellites) and the utilisation of their satellite data for tactical operations are mechanisms that understandably challenge existing governance frameworks. These inadequacies reveal consequential gaps in governance. Such gaps raise questions about the extent to which states control critical infrastructure and, subsequently, how much private actors dictate the operations of an area once thought uninhabitable.
Given these inadequacies, scholars propose different governance models, although the extent of the power states have in regulating outer space varies between commentators. Some argue that we must treat space like the global commons. Acting in the interests of each other under international law. Although as things start to literally and figuratively (through climate change and political means), I don't necessarily see us having a kumbaya moment beyond miniliteral agreements between allies, but this is still a start.
Because commercial satellite capabilities do, on some level, rely on a relationship with the home government, the operations must comply with the laws of their home state. In this way, space law has redistributed responsibility to domestic governance. Subsequently, to some observers, any real catastrophic threat would be avoided, lending itself to a theoretical principle similar to nuclear deterrence during the Cold War, in which the mere threat of retaliation would deter any force in outer space from attacking others.
Ultimately, like many security threats these days, which are inherently influenced by the many contours of modern developments, space governance most likely will need polycentric governance. Governance that encourages transparency, prioritises equitable resource allocation, and minimises commercial agency over state principles and inter-governmental cooperation. 5 But thorough policy recommendations require exploring a universe of source material that could never fit into this little article investigating the nuances of what on Earth currently governs the operations of satellites, and why on Earth we should be concerned about it.
References
1. Space in the International Relations of Asia: A Guide to Technology, Security, and Diplomacy in a Strategic Domain." Taylor & Francis Online, 2025. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14799855.2025.2483170#.
2. Abels, Joscha. "Private Infrastructure in Geopolitical Conflicts: The Case of Starlink and the War in Ukraine." Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, March 9, 2023. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/starlink-and-russia-ukraine-war-case-commercial-technology-and-public-purpose.
3. Brumfiel, Geoff. "Israel Is Using an AI System to Find Targets in Gaza. Experts Say It's Just the Start." NPR, December 14, 2023. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/12/14/israel-ai-warfare-gaza-gospel/.
4. Houston, We Have a Problem: International Law's Inability to Regulate Space Exploration." NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 2020. https://nyujilp.org/houston-we-have-a-problem-international-laws-inability-to-regulate-space-exploration/.
5. Morin, Jean-Frédéric, and Joanne Richer. "Astro-Environmentalism: Towards a Polycentric Governance of Space Debris." Global Policy Journal, 2021. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/global-commons-and-environment/astro-environmentalism-towards-polycentric-governance-space.