Private Space Actors And State Responsibility Under International Space Law: Lessons From India’s Emerging Space Sector

By Khushi Mokati (Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar)

INTRODUCTION

India’s space sector is changing rapidly. By 2023, India’s private space sector had attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in venture funding, reflecting the rapid growth of the country’s commercial space ecosystem. Once dominated by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), the sector now includes private launch service providers such as Skyroot Aerospace and Agnikul Cosmos, satellite operators like Pixxel and Dhruva Space, and a growing number of space technology start-ups. The Indian Space Policy, 2023 and the establishment of IN-SPACe as a single-window regulatory body signal India’s commitment to integrating private enterprise into its space activities. This shift raises a critical question: how does the rise of private space actors affect State responsibility under international space law?

The entry of private actors further complicates State responsibility because commercial operators may pursue profit-driven objectives that diverge from the diplomatic and safety considerations that historically guided government-led space programmes. Despite decades of space commercialisation, international law continues to anchor responsibility firmly with States. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, 1967 mandates that States bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, whether conducted by governmental or non-governmental entities (Outer Space Treaty 1967, 610 UNTS 205, Art VI). With private companies launching satellites, providing in-orbit services, and operating large satellite constellations, States must oversee a growing number of actors whose activities may generate international liability. India’s emerging private space sector provides a compelling case study for examining how States can reconcile commercial innovation with enduring international legal obligations.

ARTICLE VI: THE FOUNDATION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY

The Outer Space Treaty (1967, 610 UNTS 205) establishes the foundational architecture of international space law. Article VI makes it clear that States bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities. The provision further requires that activities of non-governmental entities be subject to “authorization and continuing supervision” by the appropriate State (Outer Space Treaty 1967, 610 UNTS 205, Art VI). In practice, continuing supervision requires States to establish regulatory frameworks that allow authorities to monitor private operators on an ongoing basis, including ensuring compliance with licensing conditions, safety standards, and space debris mitigation requirements throughout the lifecycle of the space activity.

This framework prevents States from avoiding international obligations by shifting space activities to private actors. Article VI is widely understood as imposing a due diligence obligation on States to ensure that private entities comply with international space law, a reading endorsed by scholars such as Frans von der Dunk and confirmed in the work of COPUOS. Responsibility is not contingent on direct State involvement; rather, it attaches by virtue of the activity’s national character, determined by incorporation, registration, or launch location.

Article VI creates a two-tiered responsibility structure. First, States must authorize private space activities, establishing ex ante regulatory control. Second, States must exercise continuing supervision, maintaining ongoing oversight throughout the activity’s lifecycle. Failure at either stage may expose the State to international responsibility, as recognised in leading interpretations of international space law.

THE REGULATORY CHALLENGE: COMMERCIAL REALITY MEETS TREATY LAW

When the Outer Space Treaty entered into force in 1967, space activities were conducted almost exclusively by governments. Today, private entities dominate satellite launches, Earth observation, and space communications, with emerging sectors including space tourism and on-orbit servicing. According to the Space Foundation’s Space Report 2023, the global commercial space economy was valued at over USD 380 billion, illustrating the scale of private sector involvement. This transformation has blurred the line between governmental and commercial space activity.

The regulatory challenge is compounded by hybrid operations. A satellite launched for commercial purposes may simultaneously serve strategic functions. A private launch vehicle may carry both commercial and governmental payloads. These activities complicate traditional public-private distinctions and require more sophisticated regulatory frameworks.

INDIA’S TRANSFORMATION: POLICY WITHOUT STATUTE

India has taken decisive steps toward liberalization. The Indian Space Policy, 2023 explicitly recognizes non-governmental entities across the entire space value chain. This shift is reflected in the growing role of private companies. Skyroot Aerospace successfully launched the Vikram-S suborbital rocket in November 2022, while Agnikul Cosmos is developing the Agnibaan orbital launch vehicle. Satellite operators including Pixxel (Earth observation) and Dhruva Space (satellite communication) demonstrate the sector’s breadth.

However, India’s regulatory architecture remains incomplete. Despite the policy framework, India lacks comprehensive space legislation. Draft versions of the Space Activities Bill have circulated since at least 2017, when the Government of India released the Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017, but no comprehensive statute governing private space activities has yet been enacted as of the date of this paper. This legislative vacuum raises concerns regarding legal certainty, particularly concerning authorization standards, supervision mechanisms, liability frameworks, and insurance requirements. For example, it remains unclear how compliance with debris-mitigation obligations is monitored or what enforcement mechanisms apply if authorization conditions imposed by IN-SPACe are breached.

The absence of enacted legislation creates potential gaps in India’s discharge of its Article VI obligations. While IN-SPACe has begun issuing authorizations, the legal basis for these decisions remains insufficiently defined. Without statutory clarity, questions arise regarding enforceability of conditions, adequacy of supervision, and available legal remedies, concerns increasingly noted in discussions on space governance.

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT

From an international law perspective, India remains responsible for all space activities conducted by entities under its jurisdiction, regardless of their commercial nature. Any damage caused by an Indian-registered satellite or treaty violation resulting from private conduct may engage India’s international responsibility under both Article VI (general responsibility) and Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty, as elaborated in the Liability Convention, 1972.

This responsibility is not theoretical. Space debris proliferation, orbital collision risks, and radio frequency interference create tangible scenarios where private activities could generate international claims. If a satellite operated by an Indian private entity were to collide with another State’s spacecraft, India would bear international responsibility, a risk that is becoming increasingly significant due to the rapid expansion of commercial satellite constellations.

Comparative practice illustrates effective approaches. The United States Commercial Space Launch Act establishes detailed licensing requirements and mandates third-party liability insurance. The United Kingdom’s Space Industry Act, 2018 creates a comprehensive authorization regime with strict liability provisions. Luxembourg’s Law on Space Resources, 2017 addresses emerging activities while maintaining robust supervisory mechanisms. These jurisdictions show that effective implementation of Article VI depends on binding legal frameworks with clear authorization criteria and enforceable supervision mechanisms.

LESSONS FOR INDIA

India’s experience underscores critical lessons for States integrating private actors into their space sectors. First, policy frameworks cannot substitute for comprehensive legislation. Binding legal instruments are essential for defining rights, obligations, and remedies with clarity required for regulatory certainty and investor confidence.

Second, authorization and supervision mechanisms must be operationalized through detailed regulatory standards addressing technical requirements, orbital safety, debris mitigation, and compliance monitoring. IN-SPACe provides institutional capacity, but its powers require statutory foundation.

Third, liability and insurance frameworks must be clearly defined. Private entities should maintain adequate insurance coverage for third-party liability, while the State’s residual liability under international space law must be acknowledged and carefully managed.

Fourth, international cooperation mechanisms should be strengthened. As space activities increasingly involve multinational actors, coordination among regulatory authorities becomes essential. India should engage actively in forums, including the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Deeper engagement with COPUOS would enable India to contribute to the development of international guidelines on the long-term sustainability of outer space activities (UN Doc A/74/20, Annex II (2019)), align its national regulatory framework with emerging global norms, and strengthen its position as a responsible space actor capable of shaping the rules-based order governing commercial space operations.

Without a clear statutory framework, India risks relying on ad hoc regulatory practices that may struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving commercial activities. Codifying authorization standards, supervision thresholds, and enforcement mechanisms would not only strengthen compliance with Article VI but also enhance predictability and accountability in India’s emerging space ecosystem.

CONCLUSION

The rise of private space actors represents one of the most significant developments since the Space Age began. Yet this transformation has not altered the fundamental principle that States bear international responsibility for activities conducted within their jurisdiction. India’s emerging private space sector illustrates both opportunities and challenges inherent in this new era. While the Indian Space Policy, 2023 and IN-SPACe signal important progress, the absence of comprehensive space legislation creates uncertainty that undermines both regulatory effectiveness and commercial development. Enacting a robust Space Activities statute would strengthen India’s compliance with international obligations while providing the legal clarity necessary for sustained private sector growth.

As space commercialization accelerates, the question is no longer whether private entities will play a central role, but how States will adapt regulatory frameworks to ensure commercial innovation proceeds in accordance with international legal responsibilities. India’s experience offers valuable lessons; the future of space governance will depend on regulatory frameworks that enable private innovation while firmly anchoring State responsibility under international law.