On September 14, the U.S. revealed that its Space Force has “space control weapons” in orbit, though details about their type, number, deployment time, or intended use remain unclear. This announcement has sparked debate over how space law should evolve to address modern threats.
For years, major space powers like the U.S. have developed technology to protect their satellites and disrupt others’. But now, as countries expand their capabilities beyond defense to include controlling the space environment, legal questions arise about what is permitted under existing treaties.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit but does not clearly ban all types of weapons. This ambiguity leaves room for interpretation, with some reading it as allowing conventional weapons while others argue against any weaponization of space.
India’s growing reliance on space for defense, navigation, intelligence, surveillance, weather services, disaster management, and civilian connectivity makes these legal and strategic issues particularly relevant. As space becomes increasingly contested, countries like India have an opportunity to shape the rules through forums such as the BRICS Space Council.
The BRICS bloc recently reaffirmed its commitment to peaceful use of space and preventing an arms race. By setting norms around harmful interference and proximity operations, nations can ensure that defensive measures are seen as legitimate acts of self-defense rather than escalatory actions.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in determining who gets to define the limits of space control. Organizations like BRICS could play a key role in establishing these boundaries, ensuring that space remains a domain for cooperation rather than conflict.