3.3 Law and policy The process for implementing space sustainability legislation and policy can often be hindered by the economic trade-offs created for domestic industry, a lack of regulatory capacity in some nations and national security considerations in others. However, addressing foundational obstacles in space law and policy will be crucial to supporting technological and economic efforts in mitigating and remediating space debris. A robust international consensus on methodologies already exists, built upon key international efforts.11,12,13,14 The most effective path forward is for nations to build on this shared baseline by implementing guidelines into binding domestic law and maintaining international consistency for commercial operators. Implementing guidelines can be driven through several national-level tools, including licensing conditions, procurement standards for government contracts and market access rules that apply standards equally to all operators wishing to serve a country’s market. For example, China requires all domestic operators to submit a dedicated debris mitigation plan that covers passivation and disposal as a mandatory prerequisite for obtaining a launch permit.15 Furthermore, there is a need for commonly accepted, practical and objective standards that can fill the gaps in binding law and be more easily adopted by emerging space nations that may lack extensive regulatory capacity. The push for accelerated post-mission disposal is a clear example in debris mitigation, supporting the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines (LTS Guidelines)16 for either controlled deorbiting or the removal of space objects into a controlled orbit following the termination of their operations. The United States’ Federal Communications Commission has shifted from a 25-year to a five-year deorbit rule for commercial low Earth orbit satellites licensed in the US. Canada’s government is in consultations to adopt a similar rule, while the proposed EU Space Act is also expected to set a legal obligation for a five-year maximum orbital lifetime, in line with the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Zero Debris approach. Similarly, India has announced its debris-free space missions initiative,17 aiming for zero debris generation by 2030 and requiring a post-mission orbital lifetime of less than five years for all governmental and non-governmental missions. To make implementation plans that are flexible to differing commercial capabilities, countries can focus on requiring technology-neutral, performance- based, accelerated post-mission disposal plans as a condition for national licensing. Additional LTS Guidelines can also be integrated into national legislation, such as requiring updated contact information and information sharing on space objects and orbital events. Mandating the sharing of such information through centralized, government-led platforms, direct operator-to- operator exchanges, as many satellite operators already practise, or neutral third-party platforms, would support global efforts for space traffic coordination. The US government’s TraCSS programme18 provides a civil-led service for operators and the European Union’s EUSST service19 is a government-supported consortium that also provides collision avoidance alerts free of charge to global operators, demonstrating a parallel approach to providing SSA as a public good. However, a standardized system for data sharing at the international level will likely still be necessary. On debris remediation, the Outer Space Treaty20 creates legal uncertainty for ADR missions. Article VIII states that the state of registry retains jurisdiction and control over its space objects, while Articles VI and VII outline state responsibility for national and private space activities and liability for damage caused by their space objects. This ambiguity means that a commercial company that attempts an ADR mission, even with consent, could be held liable for any new debris generated, discouraging the investment needed to accelerate technologies essential for removing identified high- threat derelict objects. A scalable solution requires a clear legal framework for the transfer of responsibility, liability and operational control, supporting the market certainty needed to overcome the cycle of technology development waiting for regulatory clarity. This could begin with bilateral or multilateral “safe harbour” agreements for specific authorized missions, such as the one underpinning ESA’s ClearSpace-1 mission.21 Furthermore, such a legal framework could introduce a viable financial model for liability, as standard insurance markets may not yet be equipped to cover such high-stakes missions alone. Solutions will also require the political will to implement them. In the US, non-partisan legislation, such as the US ORBITS Act,22 has stalled, but other nations have successfully moved forward in debris legislation. For example, Japan has taken concrete action to establish domestic frameworks for debris remediation and is currently developing international regulations and legal frameworks for active debris removal. In this sense, law, regulation and policy are closely interconnected with economic and technology solutions while creating economic incentives may help encourage political progress. Clear Orbit, Secure Future: A Call to Action on Space Debris 21

Clear Orbit Secure Future 2026