1. Introduction

Space infrastructure ownership is an important and developing area of international space law. It concerns the legal rights, responsibilities, and limitations associated with owning, operating, transferring, and controlling infrastructure located in outer space or used to support space activities.

Space infrastructure includes satellites, space stations, launch vehicles, orbital platforms, ground stations, communication networks, navigation systems, remote-sensing facilities, lunar installations, and potentially future space-based energy systems. Such infrastructure may be owned by governments, private corporations, international organisations, or public-private partnerships.

Unlike ordinary terrestrial property, space infrastructure operates within a special legal framework. A state may retain ownership of a satellite launched into outer space, but it cannot claim sovereignty over the orbit or celestial body in which that satellite operates. Private ownership is also possible, but private operators remain subject to national regulation and the international obligations of the state responsible for their activities.

The central legal challenge is therefore to reconcile property rights, state sovereignty, commercial freedom, international cooperation, environmental responsibility, and the peaceful use of outer space.

The principal legal instruments governing these issues are the Outer Space Treaty, 1967; the Rescue Agreement, 1968; the Liability Convention, 1972; the Registration Convention, 1975; and the Moon Agreement, 1979.

2. Meaning and scope of space infrastructure ownership

Space infrastructure ownership refers to legally recognised interests in physical assets and associated systems used for space activities.

It involves several distinct legal concepts:

Ownership: The legal title to a satellite, space station module, launch vehicle, or other space object.

Jurisdiction and control: The legal authority exercised by a state over registered space objects and related activities.

Operational control: The practical ability to command, maintain, or manage infrastructure.

Access and use rights: Contractual or regulatory rights to use another party's infrastructure.

Intellectual property: Rights over software, designs, technical systems, and inventions incorporated into space infrastructure.

Resource rights: Legal claims concerning extracted lunar or asteroid resources, which must be distinguished from ownership of celestial territory.

These concepts are not interchangeable. A company may own a satellite while the state of registry exercises jurisdiction and control over it under international law. Similarly, an operator may lease capacity on a satellite without owning the satellite itself.

Space infrastructure ownership also extends beyond physical assets. Software licences, spectrum authorisations, orbital coordination, data rights, cybersecurity arrangements, and servicing agreements can determine who effectively controls a space system.

3. International legal framework governing ownership

A. Outer Space Treaty, 1967

The Outer Space Treaty is the foundational instrument for space infrastructure ownership. Its Articles II, VI, VII, VIII and IX are particularly important.

UNOOSA

+1

Article II — Prohibition of national appropriation

Article II prohibits states from appropriating outer space, the Moon, or other celestial bodies through sovereignty claims, occupation, use, or any other means.

This provision creates an important distinction between ownership of equipment and ownership of territory. A corporation may own a satellite or a lunar lander, but that ownership does not automatically confer sovereignty over the orbital region or lunar surface where the object operates.

For example, a company that deploys a solar power station on the Moon cannot claim ownership of the entire surrounding lunar territory merely because it installed the station there.

Article VI — State responsibility for private activities

Article VI makes states internationally responsible for national space activities, including those undertaken by non-governmental entities. Private space activities require authorisation and continuing supervision by the appropriate state.

Consequently, private ownership is not equivalent to regulatory independence. A company operating a satellite constellation must comply with applicable national licensing requirements and the state's international obligations.

Article VII — International liability

Article VII establishes international liability for damage caused by space objects, subject to its specified conditions. The Liability Convention further develops the applicable framework.

Ownership and liability should not be confused: the legally relevant launching-state connections determine international responsibility under these instruments, rather than simply asking who holds title to the asset.

UNOOSA

+1

Article VIII — Ownership, jurisdiction and control

Article VIII expressly preserves ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on celestial bodies, and their component parts.

It also provides that the state on whose registry a space object is carried retains jurisdiction and control over the object and its personnel while in outer space or on a celestial body.

This is the central treaty provision for space infrastructure ownership. It recognises that ownership survives deployment in space, while jurisdiction and control operate through a separate legal connection to the state of registry.

Article IX — Due regard and cooperation

Article IX requires states to conduct space activities with due regard to the corresponding interests of other states and to pursue cooperation and mutual assistance. It is relevant when infrastructure creates interference, collision risks, contamination, or operational conflicts.

B. Registration Convention, 1975

The Registration Convention establishes an international registration framework for space objects. It identifies launching states and the state of registry, and requires specified information to be provided to the United Nations.

UNOOSA

Registration is legally significant because it supports identification, jurisdiction, control and accountability. However, registration is not necessarily proof of private ownership. A registry entry and a company's title documents serve different legal functions.

C. Liability Convention, 1972

The Liability Convention establishes the international framework for claims arising from damage caused by space objects. It distinguishes between damage occurring on the Earth's surface or to aircraft in flight and damage occurring elsewhere in space, with different liability standards.

UNOOSA

This framework matters where a satellite is damaged, a spacecraft collides with another object, or a privately operated installation causes harm. Contractual insurance and indemnity arrangements may allocate financial risks between commercial parties, but they do not automatically displace applicable international obligations.

D. Moon Agreement, 1979

The Moon Agreement addresses exploration and use of the Moon and other celestial bodies. Article 11 provides that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and prohibits ownership claims over the Moon's surface, subsurface, and natural resources in the terms set out in that article.

Its application must be considered in light of the states that are parties to it. It is not universally accepted, and its provisions should not be treated as if every state were bound by the Agreement.

A critical distinction arises between ownership of manufactured infrastructure and claims to natural resources or territory. A lunar habitat may be privately owned without automatically granting its owner sovereignty over the land beneath it.

4. Major legal issues in space infrastructure ownership

4.1. Private ownership versus state jurisdiction

Private companies may own satellites, launch systems and orbital platforms. However, the state of registry retains jurisdiction and control under Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty. National licensing, supervision and export-control laws may also apply.

The legal difficulty increases when ownership, launch, registration, financing and operation involve different countries.

4.2. International and joint ownership

The International Space Station illustrates how different partners can contribute modules, equipment, funding and personnel under a cooperative legal framework. Such arrangements require rules governing jurisdiction, access, use, maintenance, liability and the allocation of ownership interests.

Joint financing does not necessarily imply joint ownership of every component.

4.3. Transfer of ownership and in-orbit servicing

Satellite operators may sell, lease, refuel, repair or transfer spacecraft. Such transactions raise questions about whether title has passed, who may command the satellite, which state's authorisation is required, and whether registration or insurance arrangements need updating.

A servicing company should not assume that physical access to a satellite automatically grants the right to control or dispose of it.

4.4. Space debris and abandoned infrastructure

A non-functional satellite does not automatically become ownerless. Article VIII preserves ownership, while responsibility and liability questions remain subject to the applicable legal framework.

This complicates debris removal: another operator cannot simply assume that it may capture, alter or deorbit someone else's spacecraft without appropriate legal authority or consent.

4.5. Lunar installations and resource extraction

Future lunar infrastructure may include habitats, mining equipment, communication relays and energy installations. Ownership of equipment must be distinguished from territorial sovereignty and rights over natural resources.

The legal status of extracted resources remains contested in some respects, especially concerning the relationship between national resource-extraction laws and the non-appropriation principle.

5. Important case laws and legal precedents

A significant qualification is necessary: there is no comprehensive body of international court judgments directly resolving every question of satellite or orbital infrastructure ownership. The most useful authorities combine treaty provisions, diplomatic settlements, space-station agreements, and domestic commercial litigation.

Case 1: Cosmos 954 Incident — Canada and the Soviet Union (1978–1981)

Authority: Diplomatic settlement of 2 April 1981; not a judicial judgment.

Facts: The Soviet satellite Cosmos 954, which carried a nuclear reactor, re-entered the Earth's atmosphere in January 1978 and scattered radioactive debris over Canadian territory. Canada sought compensation from the Soviet Union for the resulting damage and cleanup operations.

Legal issue: Whether the launching state was required to compensate Canada for damage caused by its space object.

Outcome: The two states settled the claim diplomatically in April 1981 for C$3 million. The settlement resolved the dispute without a court judgment on the merits.

Canada.ca

+1

Relevance to infrastructure ownership:

Ownership of a satellite does not remove the international liability framework governing damage caused by that satellite.

The distinction between the owner, launching state and state of registry can be important when identifying legal responsibilities.

Operators should establish clear procedures for decommissioning, nuclear safety where applicable, debris mitigation and insurance.

Legal principle: Ownership rights in space infrastructure coexist with international responsibilities. The Cosmos 954 settlement is a practical illustration of the liability regime, not a direct judicial precedent on ownership title.

Case 2: International Space Station (ISS) — Intergovernmental Agreement, 1998

Authority: International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement and implementing arrangements.

Facts: The International Space Station was developed through cooperation among the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada and participating European states. Each partner contributed particular modules, equipment, services or other resources.

Legal issue: How should ownership, jurisdiction, control and legal responsibility be allocated in an infrastructure system jointly developed and operated by multiple states?

Legal position: Under the ISS Intergovernmental Agreement, partners generally retain ownership of the elements they provide, subject to the Agreement. Article 5 addresses registration, jurisdiction and control; Article 6 addresses ownership of elements and equipment.

International Space Station legal framework

+1

Relevance to space infrastructure ownership:

Each partner can retain ownership of its contributed infrastructure.

Registration and jurisdiction are allocated through the agreed legal framework.

Cooperation does not require all participants to merge their property rights into a single jointly owned asset.

Contracts and implementing arrangements can regulate access, maintenance, intellectual property, liability and use.

Legal principle: International space infrastructure can operate through a structured allocation of ownership and jurisdiction rather than a single undifferentiated property regime.

The ISS framework is especially important for future lunar research stations, orbital fuel depots and jointly financed space-based energy systems.

Case 3: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. — United States litigation

Authority: Commercial dispute involving satellite-capacity contracts and arbitration enforcement.

Facts: Devas Multimedia, an Indian company, entered into a 2005 agreement with Antrix Corporation, an Indian state-owned company, for leasing capacity on ISRO-related S-band satellites. The agreement became the subject of contractual disputes, arbitration and litigation in multiple jurisdictions.

Legal issue: How do contractual obligations concerning satellite infrastructure interact with state-owned enterprises, arbitration and foreign sovereign immunity?

Legal significance: The dispute illustrates that commercial rights connected to space infrastructure can be legally distinct from ownership of the underlying spacecraft. A customer may contract for satellite capacity without acquiring title to the satellite or control over its operation.

The litigation has also raised questions about the circumstances in which foreign courts can hear claims involving state-owned entities and enforce arbitral awards. Recent US proceedings include the Ninth Circuit's August 2026 decision.

SSRN

+1

Relevance to infrastructure ownership:

Contractual access to infrastructure is different from ownership.

State-owned space companies may enter commercial agreements, creating disputes that extend beyond international space law.

The applicable contract, arbitration agreement and domestic procedural law can determine the available remedies.

Legal principle: Commercial rights in satellite capacity do not automatically confer proprietary rights in the physical space object. This is a useful commercial-law analogy, not a direct international judgment defining ownership under Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty.

Case 4: The Outer Space Treaty, Article VIII — treaty-based authority

This is a treaty provision rather than a court case, but it is the most direct legal authority on the issue.

Article VIII expressly provides that ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on celestial bodies, and their component parts is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body.

Its legal importance is threefold:

Ownership may survive launch and deployment.

Ownership is distinct from a claim of sovereignty over the location.

The state of registry retains jurisdiction and control as provided by the Treaty.

The text is available through the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.

UNOOSA

+1

Case comparison

6. Ownership of space infrastructure under national laws

International space law establishes the basic framework, but domestic law determines many practical aspects of ownership, financing, licensing and commercial transactions.

A. United States

US law recognises private participation in commercial space activities through licensing and regulatory regimes. The Commercial Space Launch Act and other applicable legislation govern aspects of launch and re-entry, while communications and remote-sensing activities may be subject to separate authorisation requirements.

Private ownership of a satellite does not itself grant unrestricted authority to launch, operate or transfer it. National regulatory requirements and international treaty obligations continue to apply.

B. India

India's space sector has increasingly opened to private participation, with the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe) serving as an important authorisation and promotion institution.

Relevant legal and policy instruments include:

Indian Space Policy, 2023: Establishes the policy framework for participation by non-governmental entities in space activities.

IN-SPACe norms and guidelines: Address authorisation and relevant regulatory requirements for private space activities.

Telecommunications Act, 2023: Provides a statutory framework relevant to telecommunications services and spectrum, subject to applicable provisions and implementation.

Satellite communications authorisations: Operators must comply with applicable spectrum, security, operational and other regulatory requirements.

For India, the important distinction is between owning a satellite or related equipment and possessing the regulatory permissions needed to operate a commercial space service. Private ownership does not remove India's international obligations under applicable space treaties.

7. Major challenges in space infrastructure ownership

7.1. Fragmented jurisdiction

A satellite may be manufactured in one country, launched from another, registered by a third and operated by a company headquartered elsewhere. Conflicting laws can create uncertainty about ownership transfers, insolvency and dispute resolution.

7.2. National security and strategic assets

Satellite communications, navigation and Earth-observation infrastructure may be strategically important. Governments may restrict foreign investment, transfers of control, access to technical data or exports of sensitive equipment.

7.3. Debris and end-of-life obligations

The owner or operator may become unable to maintain a spacecraft or pay for its safe disposal. Ownership, contractual responsibility, financial security and the state's international obligations therefore need to be considered together.

7.4. Cybersecurity and operational control

A satellite can be legally owned by one entity but compromised by an unauthorised party. Legal frameworks must distinguish title, authorised command authority, cybersecurity responsibility and liability for operational failures.

7.5. Ownership of lunar infrastructure

Lunar habitats, mining machinery and power installations may be privately financed. The law must distinguish ownership of manufactured objects from sovereignty over the lunar surface and address access, safety, interference and resource extraction.

8. Recommendations for a stronger legal framework

A more effective framework for space infrastructure ownership should incorporate the following measures.

1. Clear ownership documentation: Require contracts to identify the legal owner of each satellite, module, payload and component, including ownership of replacements and upgrades.

2. International registration coordination: Ensure that registration and jurisdictional arrangements remain clear when ownership or operational control changes.

3. Transfer and servicing rules: Establish procedures for consent, licensing, cybersecurity, liability and authority to command or modify a spacecraft.

4. Debris-removal protocols: Develop clear rules for obtaining permission to service, capture, move or deorbit another party's space object.

5. Financial protection: Use insurance, indemnity arrangements and financial-security mechanisms appropriate to the risks of each activity.

6. Joint infrastructure agreements: Define ownership shares, access rights, maintenance duties, intellectual property, dispute resolution and exit arrangements for international projects.

7. Lunar infrastructure safeguards: Develop internationally compatible rules for the coexistence of installations, protection of scientific sites, resource extraction and access to celestial areas.

8. Dispute-resolution mechanisms: Use carefully drafted contracts, arbitration clauses and appropriate intergovernmental procedures to reduce uncertainty across jurisdictions.

9. Conclusion

Space infrastructure ownership is governed by the interaction of international space law, national legislation and commercial agreements. The central legal rule is that ownership of a space object is not extinguished merely because the object is launched into outer space or placed on a celestial body. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty expressly protects such ownership while separately recognising the jurisdiction and control of the state of registry.

The ISS framework demonstrates how international partners can allocate ownership and jurisdiction over shared infrastructure. The Cosmos 954 incident demonstrates that ownership must be considered alongside international liability. The Devas–Antrix dispute illustrates how commercial rights relating to satellite capacity can generate contractual and arbitral disputes without transferring ownership of the underlying satellite.

The principal unresolved challenges concern fragmented jurisdiction, debris removal, insolvency, cybersecurity, foreign investment and future lunar installations. A balanced legal framework must protect legitimate property rights while preventing those rights from becoming a basis for territorial appropriation or the evasion of international responsibilities.

Ultimately, space infrastructure ownership should be understood as a legally protected interest in an object, not as an unrestricted right to control the surrounding space or escape international regulation.

Key primary and secondary sources

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs — Outer Space Treaty, 1967.

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs — Registration Convention, 1975.

Government of Canada — Canada–USSR settlement concerning Cosmos 954, 1981.

European Space Agency — International Space Station legal framework.