Chapman Law Review
Abstract
Space warfare poses grave dangers that many fail to appreciate. Modern technologies and data-driven services have transformed the domain of space from a distant scientific frontier into the backbone of twenty-first century life. GPS navigation, supply chain logistics, aviation systems, weather forecasting, disaster planning, emergency services, and countless other essential, everyday data-driven systems depend on satellites operating in orbit. If these satellites were permanently disabled or destroyed, the critical Earth-bound infrastructure that relies on them would collapse as well.
For nearly fifty years, space as a geopolitical domain has relied on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) to ensure that it is used for “peaceful purposes.” Despite this, the dominant military superpowers—the United States, China, and Russia—are openly preparing for conflict in orbit. This Note examines how the militarization and weaponization of outer space have proliferated under the outdated OST. Although the OST was intended to preserve space for peaceful purposes, its narrow prohibition on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction has permitted States to deploy both destructive and non-destructive space weapons under the guise of national security.
Because the superpowers increasingly rely on both Earth-based and space-based weapons for deterrence, this Note argues that any realistic response must account for that reliance rather than ignore it. Accordingly, this Note proposes a new, U.S.-led treaty that would prohibit debrisgenerating space weapons while allowing reversible, non-destructive weapons. Disarmament under this treaty would occur gradually and be modeled after the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. This treaty would protect critical infrastructure on which billions of people depend not only for convenience, but for survival.
Recommended Citation
Jaeden Esquivel,
The Outer Space Legal Regime: Peace in Name, Power in Practice, and the Call for a New Treaty,
29
Chap. L. Rev.
189
(2026).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman-law-review/vol29/iss1/5