The orbital economy is moving faster than the regime that governs it. The work is to operate lawfully inside the gap — and to shape the rules before they harden.
Space law rests on a 1967 settlement written for two state actors and a handful of government launches. The commercial reality — constellations of thousands, private landers, resource extraction, in-orbit servicing — has outrun it. The interesting questions now live in the space between what the treaties say and what commerce actually does.
Most of the consequential questions are not yet settled law. Resource rights sit in open tension between Article II of the Outer Space Treaty and the national frameworks built around the Artemis Accords. Debris liability, traffic coordination and registration are governed by instruments that predate the activity they now have to cover. Operating here is less about applying rules than about taking defensible positions in their absence.
Two disciplines, then: counsel that lets a client operate lawfully and defensibly inside the current regime, and policy advocacy that shapes the regime while it is still forming. The second is rarer and matters more — the rules being drafted now will bind the orbital economy for a generation, and they are being written by whoever shows up with a coherent position.
Select an issue to see the governing instruments and the posture a client can defend today. Much of this is not settled law — which is precisely why the position matters.
Article II of the Outer Space Treaty bars national appropriation of celestial bodies by claim of sovereignty, use or occupation. It says nothing explicit about a private company owning the resources it extracts — the way a fishing vessel owns its catch on the high seas.
The United States (2015 CSLCA), Luxembourg, the UAE and the Artemis Accords signatories have built national frameworks affirming a right to extracted resources. Non-signatories and parts of the academic regime read this as appropriation by another name. Both readings are currently live.
The work is to take a position a client can defend — choosing the jurisdiction, the framing, and the contractual architecture that make an extraction claim survivable if and when the tension is resolved against the permissive reading.
The foundational settlement. No national appropriation of celestial bodies; space for the benefit of all; states liable for national activities, including private ones.
Binding · widely ratifiedAbsolute liability on launching states for surface damage; fault-based for damage in space. Still the operative liability regime.
BindingLaunching states must register space objects; the state of registry keeps jurisdiction and control.
BindingDeclared the Moon and its resources the 'common heritage of mankind'. Almost no spacefaring nation ratified it — a cautionary tale in over-reach.
Binding · low ratificationAffirmed a US citizen's right to own resources extracted in space — the first major national break toward a permissive extraction reading.
National lawA US-led set of principles affirming resource extraction and introducing 'safety zones'. Now signed by 40+ states, including the UAE.
Non-binding · multilateralThe multilateral process attempting to reconcile national extraction frameworks with the Outer Space Treaty. The rules being drafted here will bind the next generation.
In progressThe UAE and regional regulators advance domestic space-activity licensing — turning the frontier into a live national regime with real authorisation requirements.
National regime · liveThe rules being written now will bind the orbital economy for a generation. They are shaped by whoever shows up with a coherent position. A live view of where that work sits.
Advancing a workable, fault-allocating debris-liability standard into the multilateral drafting process, written for the regulators who read it first.
A defensible reconciliation of national extraction rights with Outer Space Treaty Article II — drafted as a position states could actually adopt.
Engagement on the national authorisation regime for commercial operators — turning an emerging framework into a navigable one.
Pressing for an Outer Space Treaty-consistent definition of operational safety zones before de-facto practice hardens into contested precedent.
Tracking the slow move from voluntary coordination toward a binding traffic regime, and positioning operators ahead of it.
Clearer lines on where space hardware and data sit under export-control regimes, so cross-border ventures can plan with certainty.
Defensible positions on extraction and ownership inside the OST / Artemis Accords tension, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Mapping liability under the 1972 Convention and national regimes, and the contractual allocation around it.
Which state registers, which state's law governs, and how to choose where it is a choice.
ITU coordination for constellations and the filing strategy that protects an orbital position.
National space-activity authorisation — increasingly a live regime in the UAE and the Gulf.
Position papers, consultation responses and direct engagement to shape rules while they are still being drafted.
A venture is building in orbit and needs a defensible legal posture; a resource or liability question has no settled answer; or a rule is being drafted and the client needs a coherent position in the room before it hardens.
The firm takes on a small number of new retainers each year. First conversations carry no fee and no commitment. They begin with a written introduction.
office@khazanchi.org