The Kármán line is a widely used reference to mark the separation between airspace —the layer of air surrounding the Earth and under the sovereignty of each State— and outer space, where, in principle, all States can operate freely. It is located about 100 kilometers above the Earth and marks the point where aviation rules cease to apply and those of astronautics begin. This environment, characterized by vacuum, radiation, and microgravity, introduces a technical complexity that conditions its use and regulation.
Over time, space has ceased to be exclusively associated with scientific exploration to become a key infrastructure for the functioning of societies. A good part of everyday services depend on systems that operate in orbit: communications, navigation, weather observation, or emergency management.
As this activity grows, so do the risks. The number of satellites has multiplied, especially in low orbit —between 160 and 2,000 kilometers in altitude— along with the accumulation of space debris. This increase has placed space traffic management at the center of the international agenda. Who should coordinate that traffic in an increasingly congested environment without an effective global authority?
Likewise, space has shifted from supporting military operations to becoming a realm in which hostile actions can develop. Satellites, in addition to enhancing the operational capacity of armies, can also become targets of attack or interference. What limits should be established for these actions, and at what point should they be considered legitimate use or a form of confrontation?
The role of private companies adds another layer of complexity. In the war in Ukraine, for example, SpaceX’s Starlink satellites have been key to maintaining communications and supporting operations on the ground. Who controls these infrastructures in a critical situation and under what rules do they operate? To what extent is it acceptable for key systems for military and civilian operations to depend on private companies?
The current regulatory system has been overwhelmed by the speed of technological, commercial, and geopolitical changes. Its principles, mainly enshrined in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and other instruments developed within the United Nations, establish that this space must be used for the benefit of all humanity, that all countries can access it on equal terms, and that no State can claim any part of space or celestial bodies as its own or exercise sovereignty over them or their resources. They also set limits on security matters, such as the prohibition of deploying weapons of mass destruction, and assign each country responsibility for space activities under its control, including those of private companies. However, how can these principles be applied in an environment with thousands of satellites, private actors, and new commercial activities?
The international system is fragmented around different regulatory and strategic approaches. The United States promotes agreements like the Artemis Accords, based on flexible principles, while China develops its own program with other countries. In Europe, the priority is a common framework, reflected in the EU Space Act, still under negotiation, which addresses aspects such as operator responsibility, investment control, and industrial protection.
Beyond Earth orbit, initiatives like the Artemis program, led by the United States with the participation of the European Space Agency and other countries, anticipate a scenario of greater regulatory and political pressure. On April 1, 2026, a crewed mission orbited the Moon for the first time in over 50 years, paving the way for sustained presence on the surface during this decade. This step involves deploying infrastructures, communication systems, and the use of resources like water ice, which directly introduces the issue of space resource exploitation. Where does the use of resources end, and where does a form of indirect control or appropriation begin?
In short, regulating the use of space responds both to a security issue and to the need to protect an increasingly essential infrastructure. States compete to strengthen their presence and capabilities, but at the same time depend on a common environment that they need to preserve. The way this tension is resolved will mark not only the future of space but also that of other technological areas with similar characteristics.