However, the outer space treaty should never be complete. The agreement put in place at a time when outer space was still in its infancy was intended to address problems that might arise with the state of space technology. It is therefore a little flexible in its interpretation, as well as limited. But the treaty has always served as the basis for any space legislation created over the past half century. “It`s essentially the most important and fundamental source of international space law,” Christopher Johnson, the space law advisor at the Secure World Foundation, told The Verge. “This results in all international space legislation and all national space activities are covered by the Treaty.” The legislator is working on legislation that would provide a regulatory framework. This is a perfect example of the role played by the outer space treaty over the past 50 years. The treaty set only a minimum of rules that countries must comply with. It is up to each nation that has signed the treaty to decide on the execution of these rules. “It allows for the flexibility of how you would meet the commitment,” schäfer says. “And the way we get more details is through national space legislation.” The prohibition of nuclear weapons and military activities in outer space was sensible, given the concerns of the time. The United States and the Soviet Union were caught in a space race, and each country looked at the other with suspicion when it came to activities in this area. The placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on a “celestial body” threatened to disrupt strategic stability by disrupting the launch, detection and response times previously defined on the basis of ground weapons platforms.

Other provisions of the treaty stress that space is not the domain of a single country and that all countries have the right to explore it. These provisions stipulate that astronauts of one State Party shall provide all possible assistance to astronauts of other States Parties in the exercise of space and celestial activities. The fact that a large number of States have been calling for decades and, more recently, with new insistence, for the adoption of a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space shows the conviction of the international community that the existing legal regime is not sufficient to put an end to the pervasive militarization of outer space. This should serve as a reason to check what existing space legislation actually has to say about it. Article I The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be for the benefit and interest of all countries, regardless of their level of economic or scientific development, and this is the task of all mankind. While article IV bans weapons of mass destruction from orbit, it does not prohibit weapons of mass destruction carried by missiles from crossing outer space or weapons other than weapons of mass destruction from being placed in orbit and used to attack targets in outer space or on Earth. There is no ban on air, ground or conventional anti-satellite or anti-missile weapons. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty addresses international responsibility and stipulates that “the activities of non-governmental organizations in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be approved and monitored on an ongoing basis by the State Party concerned”, and that States Parties have international responsibility for national space activities, whether carried out by governmental bodies or not.

In summary, it is very difficult to interpret the outer space treaty in such a way that it provides for a general prohibition on the militarization of outer space. But immediately after the creation of this “just use” of space, the treaty makes an important reservation: space and celestial bodies cannot be acquired by a nation. . . .