Beyond the Stars: A Constructivist Look at the Future of Space Governance

The nascent domain of outer space, far from being a realm governed by immutable laws of physics or predetermined political structures, is instead a vibrant crucible where the future of its governance is being actively forged through the interplay of shared ideas, evolving norms, and shifting identities. Constructivism, a powerful theoretical lens in international relations, posits that the global system itself is not merely a material structure but a social construct, shaped profoundly by the interactions and collective understandings of states and other actors. This framework is particularly illuminating for understanding space governance, as it emphasizes that the interests and identities of states are not static; instead, they are continuously shaped by their social context and interactions with others. What is perceived as 'reality' in space – from the definition of property rights to the parameters of responsible behavior – is the outcome of a dynamic process of construction influenced by social conventions and structures. In this critical infancy of space exploration, every policy decision, every technological breakthrough, and every international collaboration contributes to the collective beliefs that will ultimately define the cosmos as a shared human endeavor, instilling hope for a harmonious and cooperative future in space.  

Core Tenets of Constructivism in Space Governance

Constructivism fundamentally argues that the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature. This theoretical perspective challenges traditional views like neorealism, which focuses on material power and anarchy, and neoliberalism, which emphasizes institutions and economic interdependence.  

Key concepts within constructivism include "ideas," which are the beliefs, concepts, and values shaping how actors perceive and interact with the world; "norms," which function as collective expectations for appropriate behavior; and "identities," the meanings actors attribute to themselves. These elements are not abstract thoughts but are crucial in forming behaviors and determining how societies construct rules. Central to this framework is the concept of "intersubjectivity," which describes the shared understandings and meanings between actors in the international system. This means that the international system is created and sustained through the interactions and shared understandings of states and other actors.  

The profound significance of intersubjectivity in shaping space governance cannot be overstated. Since outer space is a domain largely undefined by historical precedents, the very meaning of concepts such as 'peaceful use,' 'responsible behavior,' or 'ownership' is not inherent; it must be collectively agreed upon. This process of intersubjective meaning making is actively unfolding through the ongoing interactions of states and private entities. For example, the persistent disagreements surrounding the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty concerning space resource extraction highlight the current absence of a universally shared understanding on this critical issue. This demonstrates that the 'reality' of space governance is still very much under construction. Consequently, the current period is not merely about establishing formal rules, but about building a shared cognitive and normative framework for space. Without this foundational intersubjectivity, even well-intentioned regulations may encounter significant challenges in consistent application and enforcement, potentially leading to fragmentation and conflict. The urgency and significance of this task cannot be overstated, as it will shape the future of space governance.  

Application of Constructivism to the Space Domain

The application of constructivism to space implies that space and place are not simply physical properties, but abstractions made up of shared understandings and social structural differences. This perspective is crucial for comprehending how norms evolve and spread within the space domain. The early development of space law, commencing with the launch of Sputnik and the subsequent Outer Space Treaty of 1967, swiftly recognized the imperative for a regulatory framework to guide space exploration, establishing foundational principles such as freedom of exploration and non-appropriation. These initial agreements were themselves a social construction, reflecting the prevailing ideas and identities of the Cold War era, primarily shaped by the interactions between the United States and the Soviet Union.  

A compelling aspect of this constructivist lens is how national identity serves as a powerful driver of state space strategy. Constructivism asserts that identities play a crucial role in shaping political decision-making and guiding action. When examining the space policies of major actors like Russia, China, and the European Union, it becomes evident that their approaches are deeply intertwined with their national identities and strategic aspirations. Russia, for instance, views its space strategy as an instrument to pursue its goal of being a "great power" and to shape the international system. China's extensive space endeavors are intrinsically linked to national pride and are instrumental in cultivating political legitimacy, aiming for technological dominance and global leadership. The European Union's pursuit of "strategic autonomy" in space reflects its desire to make independent decisions based on its interests and values, thereby distinguishing itself from other global powers. These distinct national identities inform their fundamental "ideas" about how space should be governed, influencing their willingness to cooperate, compete, or interpret existing norms. Therefore, the future of space governance will be profoundly influenced by the interplay of these diverse national identities. Conflicts or cooperation in space may arise not solely from material interests but from fundamental differences in how states perceive themselves and their role in the cosmos, leading to distinct normative preferences and potentially competing governance frameworks.  

The Infancy of Space Governance

Rapid technological advancements and an increasing number of actors, both state and non-state, in the space environment characterize the current period in space governance. These developments present challenges and issues that were not fully imagined when foundational treaties were established decades ago. This dynamic environment means that many norms governing space activities are still informal, having emerged out of necessity and a shared interest to maximize benefits. However, these informal norms are now being challenged by increased accessibility to space and its accelerating commercialization.  

The process of norm diffusion, through which shared expectations about appropriate behavior spread across different actors, is a key mechanism for the social construction of governance in this nascent domain. A notable example of this mechanism at play is the European Union's planned EU Space Law. This initiative aims to establish standard rules on safety, resilience, and sustainability within the EU, and it explicitly seeks to create a "Brussels effect". This phenomenon implies that by setting stringent internal standards, the EU intends to compel non-European actors to comply with these requirements if they wish to access the lucrative European market. This represents a powerful, indirect method of shaping global norms without requiring universal multilateral agreement. This demonstrates that the social construction of space governance is not confined to formal treaty negotiations. Powerful economic blocs or leading nations can unilaterally establish norms that, through market leverage or technological influence, diffuse globally. This suggests a future where space governance norms might emerge through multiple pathways, potentially leading to a complex, fragmented, but continuously evolving normative landscape.  

National Policy as a Building Block: The United States' Trajectory

The United States, as a dominant force in space exploration and commerce, plays a pivotal role in the social construction of future space governance through its evolving national policies, the restructuring of its lead space agency, and its embrace of private sector innovation. These domestic actions, far from being isolated, articulate specific ideas and norms that ripple through the international community, influencing expectations and shaping the broader global discourse on space.

U.S. Government Policy and Space Policy Directives

The National Space Policy of 2020 provides a comprehensive directive for all United States space activities, emphasizing leadership in responsible space use, promoting a robust commercial space industry, and advancing human exploration to the Moon and Mars. This policy explicitly recognizes the commercial sector as foundational to economic development and sustained American leadership.  

Space Policy Directives (SPDs) are instrumental in translating these broad policy goals into specific procedures and expectations. For instance, SPD-1 reinvigorated human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), setting a clear direction for deep space missions. SPD-2 aimed to streamline regulations on commercial use of space, promoting economic growth and U.S. leadership in space commerce. SPD-3 called for a new method of space traffic management to address risks and encourage commercial growth, directly influencing norms around safe operations. SPD-5 established cybersecurity principles for space systems, fostering best practices against cyber threats. SPD-6 focused on space nuclear power and propulsion, outlining policy goals for future governance of such technologies. SPD-7 guided U.S. space-based positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) programs, influencing international standards for these critical services.  

These policy directives serve as a powerful form of declarative norm setting. They are not merely bureaucratic documents; they are explicit articulations of the U.S. government's "ideas" and intentions for how space activities should be conducted. By setting clear directions for human exploration, commercial regulation, space traffic management, cybersecurity, and the use of nuclear power, these directives act as unilateral declarations of desired norms. They signal to domestic and international actors what constitutes "responsible" or "prioritized" behavior from the perspective of a leading space power, thereby initiating or reinforcing specific normative pathways in the social construction of space governance. Therefore, the unilateral policy choices of a significant space actor can serve as powerful initial inputs into the global norm-building process. These domestic "ideas" can either become widely adopted, forming new international norms, or they can create points of contention and fragmentation if they clash with the "ideas" of other significant actors.

NASA's Evolving Command Structure and Commercialization

NASA's strategic objectives have shifted to foster the commercialization of space transportation and to spur a new and robust commercial space market. The agency aims to remove barriers to space commerce, use market tools, provide opportunities for new commercial markets, and strategically align its participation with its mission and values.  

The Commercial Crew Program exemplifies this revolutionary approach to government and commercial collaborations. Historically, NASA engineers oversaw every development aspect and owned all hardware. Now, NASA identifies a need and broad safety requirements, while private companies, such as Boeing and SpaceX, are free to design, own, and operate their hardware and infrastructure. NASA acts as an "important customer" for the private sector, which provides goods and services. This partnership has significantly reduced costs for NASA, spurred innovation, and built a stronger American commercial space industry.  

NASA's collaborations extend to various commercial partners developing advanced capabilities for low Earth orbit, including habitats, launch systems, in-space servicing, and manufacturing. This strategic shift allows NASA to focus its resources on deep space missions, such as Artemis, aimed at returning humans to the Moon and preparing for Mars.  

This evolution represents a profound shift in NASA's organizational identity, moving from a traditional government-led space agency that historically controlled and owned all aspects of space missions to a facilitator and anchor customer for commercial space. This reidentification is driven by the "idea" that leveraging private sector innovation can reduce costs, share risks, and accelerate progress. By intentionally fostering a commercial space market and becoming a customer for private services, NASA is actively constructing a new norm for state-private sector relationships in space, where commercial entities are empowered as independent actors rather than mere contractors. This evolving identity of a key state actor like NASA is not just an internal organizational change; it is a powerful force in the social construction of global space governance. It establishes a precedent and a model for how states can interact with the private sector in space, potentially influencing other nations to adopt similar partnership models and thereby shaping the global norms of commercial space activities.  

The Influence of Privatization

The growing trend of privatization and commercialization has brought significant legal challenges, necessitating the adoption of national space legislation to regulate private initiatives and ensure compliance with international space law.  

The private sector itself, through companies like SpaceX, is driving down the cost of space access and pushing the boundaries of technology. However, this rapid technological advancement often outpaces existing regulatory frameworks, leading to legal uncertainty and a struggle to align legacy systems with the diverse new space environment.  

Companies advocate for "smart regulation" that is not overly prescriptive and can adapt to technological advancements, emphasizing the government's role in enhancing safety and minimizing risk. This highlights a co-constructive process between industry and government in defining regulatory norms. The consistent observation that technology "outpaces regulation" and that new space activities "lack a clear regulatory home" points to a fundamental challenge in space governance. This is not merely a logistical problem; it is a social dilemma where the "idea" of what constitutes acceptable "risk" and "safety" in space is constantly being reevaluated and reconstructed. As private companies push into new frontiers, such as in situ resource utilization, the absence of clear policy precedents means that the shared understanding of liability, environmental impact, and even ownership remains fluid. The demand from the private sector for "smart regulation" that is flexible and iterative further illustrates this dynamic, co-constructive process of norm-building between innovators and regulators. The "infancy" of space governance is characterized by a continuous, iterative process of social construction where technological capabilities force a renegotiation of existing norms and the creation of new ones. Future governance will depend on the ability of actors to collectively define and adapt to new forms of risk, ensuring that regulation fosters innovation while safeguarding long-term sustainability and security.  

Global Echoes: International Actors and Emerging Norms

The social construction of space governance is a profoundly global endeavor, with diverse national interests, strategic approaches, and multilateral frameworks interacting to shape the shared understandings that will define humanity's future in the cosmos. While the United States' policies are influential, the actions and "ideas" of other major spacefaring nations and international institutions contribute equally to this complex, dynamic process, sometimes reinforcing existing norms, sometimes challenging them, and often creating new ones.

Other Spacefaring Nations: China, Russia, and the European Union

China's space strategy is a methodical, state-guided, long-term endeavor shaped by military ambitions, aspirations for technological dominance, and ubiquitous commercial considerations. Its space exploration efforts are deeply tied to national pride and serve to cultivate political legitimacy. While adhering to the principle of peaceful use, China's strategy also emphasizes independent innovation. It aims to achieve global leadership, integrating satellite technology into consumer markets and aggressively pursuing access to limited space resources, such as frequency spectrum. The establishment of entities like the Aerospace Force under the Central Military Commission underscores the military dimension of its space program.  

Russia views outer space as a strategic region vital for enhancing its military capabilities, providing intelligence, and achieving international status as a "great power". Its policy is driven by defense requirements and state military control, often seeking global strategic parity with the US and securitizing perceived US threats. Russia actively uses diplomacy through UN-affiliated organizations to influence the militarization of space, advocating for binding laws and non-binding norms to control weapons in space, and promoting a collective approach to governance. Its focus includes guaranteed access to space from its territory and developing space technology for socio-economic benefits.  

The EU aims for "strategic autonomy" in space, defined as its ability to make independent decisions based on its interests and values. Historically civilian-focused, its policy is adapting to rising security and defense concerns, including anti-satellite weapons. The EU is working to strengthen its launcher capabilities, address space debris, and establish clear rules for space mining, potentially through a "Brussels effect" where its internal regulations influence global standards. Its fragmented institutional base, relying on ESA, presents a unique challenge to its unified approach.  

The distinct strategic approaches of China, Russia, and the EU reveal how national identities and perceived security environments fundamentally shape their "ideas" about space governance. Russia's "great power" identity drives its pursuit of military parity and a collective approach to arms control, often in direct opposition to US policies. China's national pride and the army's ambitions lead to a state-guided, comprehensive strategy. These differing identities lead to divergent interpretations and applications of the "peaceful purposes" norm of the Outer Space Treaty, contributing to the ongoing social construction of what constitutes acceptable military activity in space. Therefore, the future of space governance will not be monolithic. It will be characterized by a complex interplay of competing national "ideas" and identities regarding security, economic advantage, and international influence. This dynamic could lead to a fragmented normative landscape, where different blocs adhere to distinct sets of "shared understandings" about space, potentially increasing the risk of miscalculation or conflict.  

Multinational Institutions and Treaties

The Outer Space Treaty (OST), signed in 1967, remains the foundational document of space law, establishing principles like freedom of exploration, non-appropriation of celestial bodies, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons in space. It provided a critical foundation for the burgeoning sector, with its principles largely emerging from the physical, technological, and financial constraints of early spacefaring nations.  

While the Outer Space Treaty is widely regarded as the foundational document of space law, its application to contemporary issues like space resource extraction is highly debated. The non-appropriation principle, while clear on sovereign claims, is ambiguous on the ownership of extracted materials. This ongoing disagreement demonstrates that even established, seemingly stable norms are subject to reinterpretation and reconstruction as new technologies and commercial interests emerge. The "spirit" of the treaty is being tested by the material realities of the new space age, forcing actors to collectively decide how to apply old "ideas" to new contexts. Consequently, the future of space governance will involve not just the creation of new norms but also the continuous resocialization and reinterpretation of existing foundational norms in light of technological advancements and evolving actor interests. Failure to achieve consensus on these interpretations could lead to normative fragmentation and legal uncertainty.  

The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), established by the UN General Assembly in 1959, is the primary international organization for promoting cooperation and developing the framework for global governance in space law. It has created the five major space law treaties and several principles, aiming to ensure space is used for the benefit of all humanity. COPUOS has addressed issues like space debris mitigation and long-term sustainability guidelines.  

Despite its impressive historical record and mandate to benefit "all humanity," COPUOS faces significant challenges in the new space era. Rapid technological advancements, the increasing number of diverse actors, including private firms, and issues like equitable access for developing countries, strain its traditional consensus-based approach. The Committee's size and internal "modus operandi" are seen as hindering its leadership. The need for "new views, tools, and procedures" and concerns about its lack of coordination with disarmament efforts highlight a critical juncture where COPUOS must adapt its internal norms and processes to remain relevant. The effectiveness of traditional multilateral institutions like COPUOS in shaping future space governance depends on their ability to adjust their "identity" and "ideas" to the dynamic realities of the space domain. If they cannot effectively incorporate new actors, technologies, and diverse national interests, the void in governance may be filled by less inclusive frameworks, potentially undermining the universal principles enshrined in the Outer Space Treaty.  

The Artemis Accords, launched in 2020 by the United States and NASA, are a non-binding set of principles designed to guide civil space exploration and use in the 21st century. They reinforce existing international space law while providing operational implementation for principles like transparency, interoperability, emergency assistance, and the responsible utilization of space resources. With over 50 signatories by 2025, they represent a growing coalition of nations sharing a common vision for peaceful, sustainable, and transparent cooperation. The Accords explicitly state that space resource extraction and utilization must comply with the Outer Space Treaty.  

The Artemis Accords, while non-binding, represent a significant attempt to socially construct a specific set of norms and "ideas" for civil space exploration, particularly concerning lunar and Martian activities and resource utilization. By explicitly interpreting the Outer Space Treaty to permit resource extraction and rapidly expanding its signatory base, the Accords are creating a distinct normative cluster. This plurilateral approach, led by the US, offers a more agile alternative to the slower, consensus-based multilateralism of COPUOS, potentially leading to a bifurcated or multi-polar normative landscape where different "shared understandings" about space activities compete for global acceptance. Luxembourg's alignment with the Artemis Accords, distancing itself from more cautious European partners, exemplifies this dynamic. The rise of frameworks like the Artemis Accords indicates that norm-building in space is becoming increasingly complex, involving multiple, sometimes competing, pathways. The future of space governance may see a fragmentation of shared understandings, with different groups of states adhering to distinct sets of norms, which could complicate universal cooperation and increase the risk of normative clashes.