As humanity moves beyond Earth’s atmosphere and into the vast realm of space, the geopolitical implications of our extraterrestrial ambitions have become increasingly complex. What was once the domain of Cold War superpower rivalry has evolved into a multi-faceted arena involving state actors, private enterprises, emerging economies, and international institutions. This new dimension of global power politics, astro-geopolitics, requires urgent scholarly and policy attention. It demands new frameworks that extend the familiar paradigms of territorial sovereignty, economic competition, and security cooperation into the domain of low-Earth orbit and beyond.
The rise of astro-geopolitics reflects a convergence of scientific progress, commercial interest, and strategic competition. As countries and corporations pursue capabilities in satellite technology, planetary exploration, space-based infrastructure, and asteroid mining, outer space is no longer a distant curiosity: it is an integrated element of 21st-century geopolitics. As such, understanding the drivers, tensions, and potential consequences of astro-geopolitics is essential for ensuring space remains a domain of peaceful and equitable cooperation rather than one of conflict and exclusion.
The Strategic Relevance of Space in the 21st Century
Historically, space exploration was seen through the lens of prestige and ideological competition, epitomized by the US-Soviet space race. However, the modern space environment is increasingly instrumentalized for economic development, national security, and technological leadership. Satellite constellations enable communications, navigation, financial transactions, and surveillance. Space-based assets are now integral to military command and control systems. Earth observation satellites monitor climate change, disasters, and agricultural conditions. These overlapping roles have made space infrastructure a critical part of global supply chains and security architectures.
The strategic relevance of space is most evident in the resurgence of great power competition. The United States, China, and Russia are all investing heavily in their civil, military, and dual-use space capabilities. China’s Tiangong space station, lunar plans, and BeiDou navigation system rival American and European projects. Russia, though economically weakened, maintains a robust launch capacity and missile development program. Meanwhile, the United States has reoriented its focus through the establishment of the U.S. Space Force and ambitious NASA-led initiatives such as the Artemis program.
The expansion of space actors also includes regional powers such as India, Japan, and the United Arab Emirates, each advancing national programs that assert sovereignty, bolster prestige, or seek economic returns. The Indo-Pacific is increasingly a space-active region, raising new questions about regional security balances and multilateral governance.
Commercial Actors and the Privatization of Space
Alongside the proliferation of state programs, commercial actors have fundamentally reshaped the space landscape. SpaceX, Blue Origin, Axiom Space, and others have introduced disruptive models that lower the cost of access to space, increase launch frequency, and introduce new services such as satellite internet and space tourism. SpaceX’s Starlink constellation alone has changed global internet access, challenged conventional satellite architecture, and introduced new dependencies for both civilian and military users.
However, the rise of commercial space power raises important geopolitical and ethical concerns. Private firms wield unprecedented influence over access to space, satellite frequencies, and orbital slots. The rapid deployment of mega-constellations also increases the risk of space debris and orbital congestion. In the case of SpaceX, reports suggest tensions between its interests and NASA’s Artemis mission, with some experts warning that launch scheduling conflicts and commercial priorities may delay or disrupt scientific objectives.
More fundamentally, the dominance of a few private actors in strategic sectors challenges the balance between national regulation and global governance. When corporate decisions affect the stability of global systems, such as the ability to detect missile launches or deliver humanitarian assistance, where should accountability lie? And how can the international community ensure equitable access to space resources if launch and infrastructure capacity are monopolized?
Legal Frameworks and Normative Gaps in Outer Space Governance
The foundational legal instruments for space governancem, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the Moon Agreement, and a handful of other conventions were designed in a vastly different era. These treaties establish that outer space is the “province of all mankind,” that no state may claim sovereignty over celestial bodies, and that space shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. However, they provide limited clarity on commercial exploitation, militarization, dual-use technologies, or liability for space debris.
Efforts to modernize the governance framework have met limited success. The proposed International Code of Conduct (ICoC) for Outer Space Activities, spearheaded by the European Union, failed to gain global consensus. Recent initiatives such as the UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Reducing Space Threats and the Artemis Accords, led by NASA to promote transparency, interoperability, and peaceful collaboration, mark steps forward but have faced criticism for excluding key global actors or reproducing power asymmetries.
As such, astro-geopolitics operates in a normative vacuum. As countries establish military space commands, test anti-satellite weapons, and develop autonomous satellites capable of interference or inspection, the risk of conflict, accidental or deliberate, grows. Without binding norms or effective dispute resolution mechanisms, space may become the next contested frontier.
Towards a Multilateral and Inclusive Astro-Geopolitical Architecture
Addressing the challenges of astro-geopolitics requires more than technical solutions. It calls for a reimagining of space as a global commons, one that is inclusive, equitable, and resilient. Such an approach must foreground multilateral diplomacy, scientific cooperation, and the incorporation of Global South perspectives.
Small and emerging spacefaring nations have legitimate concerns about being excluded from the benefits of space development. If access to launch services, spectrum, and orbital resources is governed by market dynamics alone, the risk of reinforcing global inequalities is high. Therefore, mechanisms such as the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), and international space science consortiums must be strengthened and better funded.
There is also a role for civil society, academia, and indigenous voices in shaping the narratives and priorities of space exploration. Astro-geopolitics is not just about satellites and military posture; it is about how humanity defines progress, allocates opportunity, and shares responsibility for our shared planetary and interplanetary future.
A Frontier of Shared Responsibility
In the face of growing militarization, commercialization, and climate-linked vulnerabilities on Earth, the temptation to view space as an escape is understandable. But astro-geopolitics reminds us that space is not separate from Earth’s geopolitics: it is an extension of it. Decisions made about space today, who launches, who governs, who profits, and who is included, will shape not only future missions but also the moral and strategic trajectory of our planet.
Whether space becomes a domain of peaceful exploration and mutual benefit or one of contestation and exclusion will depend on the willingness of actors, public and private, large and small, to engage in cooperative frameworks, respect shared norms, and imagine a future in which going beyond Earth does not mean abandoning the principles of justice and sustainability. Astro-geopolitics is not destiny, but a domain in which human values and institutions will be tested anew. The choices we make today may well define our legacy in the stars.