Space Law in Movies and Series: A Demonstration and Prediction of Its Application and Evolution

Abstract

Outer space is widely democratized thanks to the movie industry. Every space activity has been discussed on a cinema screen, or on Netflix. Space law is never the main topic of a Hollywood production, but is always present in the background. Studying this background is a good way to be introduced to space law, and even to question today’s space behaviour, how states conduct their activities, and how they interact with each other and their environment. Movies and series on space hazards is a pretty accurate representation of current space and international law. Productions on space activities in development (space stations, exploitation, space war) are great to understand the challenges states and the industry face today. Fiction on future space activities that we are not able to conduct today (finding aliens, colonisation) allow us to imagine how space law will evolve. Finally, as a species, we will have to determine how we want to act in outer space when we will be an interplanetary species.

1 Introduction

Outer space may be one of the greatest subjects to make a good blockbuster: stunning views of the Earth or other planets, action, danger, patriotism, suspense…. While many movies are science fiction, the development of space activities and technological advances have made some of them much more real than you might think. In any case, now that our modern societies on Earth depend on space infrastructures, we need to protect them at all costs.

But what about space law in movies? Space law, a rather unknown area of law, is essential to provide a legal framework to space actors: space faring nations and private companies. Because outer space is an international zone, there should be no space activities (satellites, astronauts, space station…) without law, whether international law (lex generalis) or space law (lex specialis).

Some movies do not bother to deal with space law, but even so, we can study them through the prism to existing rules. In the next few pages, the law applicable now and in the future to outer space will be studied thanks to some fiction. How space activities in pop culture demonstrate the application of space law and could predict its evolution?

Of course, the study needs to focus on a few selected topics, divided by chronological order. The first part is dedicated to the current space activities, focusing on space hazards (2). The second part places humankind in a near future, focusing on space stations, exploitation of space resources and space war (3). The third part is dedicated to a further future, where humanity has colonised other celestial bodies and has encountered extra-terrestrial life (4). Finally, the fourth part is focused on humanity as an interplanetary species (5). Be careful, spoilers ahead!

2 Houston, We Have a Problem

Space hazards are perfect to illustrate how space law can directly (or indirectly) impact space activities and the way we think about them. How some space hazards are dealt with in movies is a great example to show how space law works.

Gravity¹ may be the most famous example that comes to mind when we talk about space hazards. About 1.036.500 pieces of space debris greater than 1 cm are currently orbiting Earth,² which increases the risk of collision in outer space. Even a very small object can cause tremendous damage to any other space object, including satellites and the International Space Station (ISS). Space agencies and private actors are trying to reduce that number with many different technical measures, but the increasing number of launches and space objects only makes the problem worse.

The synopsis of Gravity is rather simple: Russia sends a missile into outer space to destroy one of its own satellites. The destruction causes a lot of space debris, which enter into collision with the Explorer, an American space shuttle. Several astronauts were servicing the Hubble telescope, orbiting the Earth, and were also struck by the debris. Two astronauts are surviving but have to “swim” in space to reach the ISS to go back to Earth. One of them, Kowalski (played by George Clooney), will not survive. The other one, Ryan (played by Sandra Bullock), will succeed, but the ISS is also struck by the wave of space debris. Modules to go back to Earth are inoperable, but she can use one of them to reach the in orbit Chinese space station, to then go back to Earth.

This movie is, regarding the space law aspects, very accurate. First of all, direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles were at several occasions tested by a limited number of space powers (United States, China, India), including Russia since the 1960s, but its latest test was conducted in 2021, nine years after Gravity. The 2021 Russian test generated a lot of space debris, interfering with the operation of some satellites, for instance those of the company Planet, triggering numerous conjunctions. Russia was heavily criticized for this test, and it re-opened the debate on anti-satellite missiles.

Indeed, if the Russian behaviour was not sustainable for space activities, it was neither forbidden by international law. Russia has jurisdiction and control over space objects it launched into outer space,³ so it can freely destroy it. The creation of debris is not prohibited, only soft law (meaning non binding guidelines) asks countries and private operator to limit the creation of space debris and to mitigate the impact of that created.^{4 5 6}

Some states are trying to ban ASAT missiles, for instance the United States has announced in April 2022 that it will no longer be testing ASAT missiles by adopting a voluntary moratorium, and was followed by several countries, including some space powers (Canada, Japan). A resolution was even adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations stating favourably for an international interdiction of ASAT missile test.⁷ But once again, this resolution is only soft law, so Russia is not bound and can continue to destroy its own satellites.

Gravity shows the lack of binding international law about ASAT missiles and space debris—but absence of law is a demonstration of states’ will to not regulate a particular area. What is not approached in the movie is the consequences regarding responsibility and liability of the test. In 2021, the Russian test had no severe consequences, but in Gravity, several astronauts died and the ISS was destroyed. According to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer space treaty, OST), a state is internationally responsible for national activities in outer space⁸ and liable for the damage it caused in outer space.⁹ The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention, LIAB) in its article III states that liability for damage caused in outer space is only triggered in case of a fault. Is the destruction of a satellite by an ASAT missile a fault? Both ways can be argued.

Finally, Gravity can be used to illustrate the rules protecting the astronauts. They are considered as “envoys of mankind” and states “shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas”.¹⁰ A specific treaty was even negotiated to further protect the astronauts.¹¹ The fact that Ryan, an American astronaut, goes to the ISS without any permission (communication with Houston is cut off) may not be problematic because the orbital station is mainly American, but the use of the Chinese station is different. However, Ryan is an astronaut in distress and thus, other states must bring support. The use of the Chinese module to come back to Earth should not be criticised by China.

Other than human-made space debris, asteroids are another space hazard that movies address. Two of them are interesting: Armageddon¹² and Don’t Look Up.¹³ These two movies have the same starting point: a giant asteroid will soon destroy the Earth.

Armageddon, directed by Michael Bay, is a pure Hollywood cliché: a team of oil driller experts, without any space experience of any kind, is called to be sent last minute to the asteroid, drill a hole of 250 m depth to place in it a nuclear bomb to destroy it before it reaches the Earth. What could go wrong?

If the scenario is unlikely to happen, states are concerned by this kind of event. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 2022 conducted the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission: crashing a satellite on a satellite (Dimorphos) at 22,000 km/h to change its course. No worries: the test was conducted eleven million kilometres from Earth. This mission was only possible because the American Congress decided to invest public money in it. NASA obtained as a whole U.S.$23.3 billion in 2021, which is the biggest space budget for a single country in the world. Congress provided U.S.$156 million for planetary defence missions, including U.S.$66 million for the DART mission. It demonstrates how space mission and technologies development are framed by law. We must notice that here it is national law that allows the mission: no international law exists to avoid an asteroid to hit Earth.

Regarding the nuclear weapon used to neutralize the asteroid, article IV of the Outer Space Treaty forbid “to place in orbit around the Earth an objects carrying nuclear weapons”.¹⁴ If we read carefully this article, states can use nuclear weapons in outer space, the only interdiction is about placing nuclear weapons in outer space. So Armageddon is (surprisingly) compliant with space law.

In Don’t Look Up, two astronomers discover a giant asteroid on course to collide with Earth, predicting a global extinction event. The head of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office of NASA agrees, and they all present their findings to the President of the United Sates who ignores the issue. Satire of the situation of climate change, it is a good example to show the importance of political power in space activities. It is also a good illustration of the repartition of powers between space faring nations: the United States is the first space power, with the most advanced technologies and the biggest budget.

A mission is planned to destroy the asteroid with nuclear missiles, in accordance with space law, but the mission is aborted when an American company offers to exploit the rare-earth elements it contains. The U.S. government decides to lead this project without any cooperation, and to leave aside other space faring nations. Space law is not really clear about exploiting space resources (see next part), but despite this legal uncertainty, the United States decides to interpret international law as they see fit. It can clearly be assimilated to the Artemis Accords,¹⁵ a multilateral (and not international) treaty between the United States and some partners, leaving aside other space faring nations (mainly China and Russia). The environmental satire mirrors the reality of the space sector.

We will end this first part with the movie Ad Astra,¹⁶ studied in detail in the next part. But here we will focus on space weather. The movie starts with power surges coming from outer space, from an unknown origin (in fact from a space lab near Neptune), that could be easily assimilated to solar flares.

The impact of solar flares is being studied by space agencies, and we know that it can have devastating effects on Earth’s infrastructures but also space objects. A study estimated that “the economic impact of an internet disruption for a day in the US is estimated to be over $7 billion”.¹⁷ Government internet shutdowns cost almost U.S.$24 billion in 2022.¹⁸ These disruptions can happen because of solar storms. For instance, in 2022 SpaceX lost about forty satellites sent into orbit because of a geomagnetic storm. For now, space law does not enforce any obligation on internet providers or space operators, for instance an obligation to monitor space weather and take action if needed, despite the large impact it could have on human societies.

So space hazards are not always well covered by space law, but in some aspects movies allow us to better understand its importance to better protect space activities but also security in outer space and cooperation between space faring nations. Space law shall also constantly evolve to adapt and take into consideration new space activities in the near future.

3 That’s One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind

Space technologies are evolving fast, and space faring nations are eager to explore more and to use the full potential of outer space. In the near future, states will install space stations on other celestial bodies and will exploit their resources. How will space faring nations regulate these new activities?

We will start with The Martian,¹⁹ starring Matt Damon as an astronaut left behind by his crew on Mars because of a storm. As a consequence, while waiting for a rescue mission, he must survive by rationing his food. He also managed to grow and harvest some potatoes.

This movie is quite banal regarding space law. The space station has clearly a scientific purpose, thus compliant with articles I (freedom of use) and IV (uses of celestial bodies for peaceful purposes only) of the Outer Space Treaty. The mission is not permanent (but should have last 30 Martian sols), so it does not constitute an appropriation of Mars by the United States.²⁰ The movie also shows a great example of cooperation between two countries, China trying to help and to save the American astronaut by sending a cargo to Mars (but the launch was not a success), respecting the status of envoy of mankind and protection of astronauts.²¹

What is more interesting in this movie is the (false) representation of space law. Mark, the astronaut, says that cultivating a field makes the cultivator officially the colonizer of this field. So because Mark succeeds in growing and harvesting potatoes, he is now the “owner” of this parcel of land on Mars. Obviously, it is not that simple.

According to article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, states are responsible for national activities in outer space. So whatever Mark does on Mars, it is on behalf of the United States (Mark has not the international personality, so he cannot act in an international zone by himself, for himself). And as we said, “national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means”²² (so even harvesting) is forbidden.

By saying that, Mark might be referring to the principle of Terra Nullius, which was used to colonize Australia for instance.²³ This principle allows someone to take possession of a land if it belongs to nobody. Harvesting would be a symbol of possession but once again, it is against the Outer space treaty. Mark does not own land on Mars. Could Mark declare independence? We will answer this question in the next part about colonization.

Mark is a very bad jurist, and he does not know a lot about space law. At one point, he explains to the viewers that Mars is like high seas, and that maritime law applies when a territory belongs to nobody, which is not true. International law of the sea is contained in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (or Montego Bay Convention): it applies to water on Earth, but cannot be transposed to be applied to any other territory.²⁴ It is true that the legal regime of High Seas is rather similar to the one we can find in the Outer Space Treaty, but still, they must not be confused. Space law is a very specific branch of international law and sometimes difficult for people to understand. As an all-audience movie, The Martian participates to spread space law, and in this case, false information about it.

If the American scientific outpost of The Martian does not raise many questions about its lawfulness, the scientific base of the series The Silent Sea²⁵ is on another level. If you have not seen the series, you should go check online the structure of the Moon base: it is huge, and surely permanent. If a Moon base is permanent, it could be understood as an appropriation of the Moon, and thus contrary to article II of the Outer Space Treaty. This question is particularly important to answer, because they are studying Moon water, while Earth is facing a severe drought, forcing humanity to ration water and to reorganise the whole society around water. The Silent Sea shows how a single country can, on the cover of a scientific study, takes control of a space resource and a part of a celestial body. It reminds the Artemis Accords and its controversial “safety zones”²⁶: can a state declare a safety zone around its activities, avoiding other countries to conduct space activities there? The answer is unclear, explaining why the Artemis Accords are so problematic and criticized.

The water found in situ reveals to be a very specific water with astonishing properties. What about the appropriation of such a discovery? According to the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Agreement, MOON), “the exploration and use of the Moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development”.²⁷ This principle explains why the Moon Agreement has not been ratified by any current space faring nations and why states are opting out.²⁸ The Silent Sea is a great example: if a state discovers a very valuable resource in outer space, it will not want to share it. It explains the Artemis Accords as a replacement of the Moon Agreement, but they are imperfect, because they are negotiated only between a few countries. The fact that now each state can sign it does not correct the original exclusion of certain countries. Exploitation of space resources is far from being a settled legal issue.

Ad Astra is also interesting. The depicted world is much more advanced in space activities. The Americans have installed what seems to be a permanent station on Mars. It raises questions about the appropriation of Mars by the United States. But also, the station seems to be a military station. It is stated by the Outer Space Treaty that “the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes”.²⁹ Of course, military personnel is not prohibited as long as it is used for scientific purposes, but the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications is. The United States base on Mars seems to be unlawful.

Another base is located on the Moon, much more important, and which seems to be a commercial base. The only reserve we can emit here is the risk of national appropriation, because even if the base is open to people of all countries, it might still be under the jurisdiction of one country.³⁰ Moreover, the Moon’s natural environment becomes inaccessible in such conditions, which seems to be contrary to article I of the Outer Space Treaty.³¹ We can conclude that for now, space law is quite unsuitable to a complete and comprehensive lunar economy.

Ad Astra also covers exploitation of space resources. Just a few sentences are relevant to the current state of space law on this topic. Roy, the main character, must cross the Moon to reach its far side. But the trip is dangerous. Apart from the pirates (which seems to be far fetched but not really if states of convenience appear in the future in outer space), we learn that the Moon is a borderless territory (which is compliant under the Outer Space Treaty and the principle of non appropriation) but that many mining zones are disputed territories, even war zones.

It is undeniable that war is forbidden on Earth and in outer space,^32,33 but disputed mining zones sounds plausible. The Moon Agreement tried to find a solution decades ago: “States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon”.³⁴ As we already said, states rejected this treaty. The United States and their partners have their own vision of outer space (Artemis Accords), with safety zones, and other space faring nations could disagree, namely China, Russia or even African, South American, Asian and European countries. Uncertainty in space law could lead to conflicts, and at the same time, international law is a tool to reach international peace and security.³⁵ In face of these international legal doubts, space faring nations relies on their domestic law.^36,37,38,39

In any case, it is certain that states will massively exploit space resources when they will be able to, regardless of international space law. The first minute of the movie Alien⁴⁰ is clear about that: 20,000,000 tons of minerals are returned to Earth. But where does it come from?

In Avatar,⁴¹ it comes from Pandora, a celestial body far from Earth, inhabited by the Na’vis, a people living in harmony with nature. The United States find on Pandora an extremely valuable metal. So they decide to exploit the resource, disregarding the fact that the planet is already inhabited. This behaviour is exactly the same that drove the states to colonize foreign territories on Earth.

Legally speaking, the United States has the right to exploit resources, but the status of the Na’vis is quite unsure. Humans need to destroy Na’vi’s habitat to have access to the resource, and they do it by killing them: it could be assimilated to a genocide⁴² or at least a non-compliance with international humanitarian law.⁴³ However, Na’vis are not humans, the application of international law to Na’vis could be questionable.

The sequel, Avatar: The Way of Water,⁴⁴ is no better: hunters kill highly intelligent and conscious living creatures (like big whales) connected to the people of the planet, to get a liquid found in their brain that stops aging (and so is very expensive on Earth). Hunters have killing quotas to respect, so they have to kill a certain number of “animals”. It shows the importance that extra-terrestrial resources could have for us on Earth and how space faring nations could decide to exploit it. New international rules for ethical and sustainable exploitation may be needed.

Dune⁴⁵ is based on a geopolitical conflict against two families to control the production of Spice, a component enabling interstellar travel. We are far from discovering such a resource, but it can eventually happen. The control of the production of Spice is key to a huge power. If today's trend in space law (especially domestic law) seems to be towards authorizing the exploitation of space resources, the said exploitation must be strictly defined, managed and framed by the international community as a whole. Coordination and cooperation between states encouraged by the Outer Space Treaty⁴⁶ are necessary to avoid conflicts.

Even if such conflicts and especially space wars should not exist according to the Charter of the United Nations,⁴⁷ all space faring nations are preparing for this moment to happen, by creating national space forces and developing weapons able to destroy satellites. Space movies allow us to imagine how states will react in case of a war in outer space, and why such a conflict could arise. Dune is again a great example, displaying a war to control the production of Spice. One of the families is supported by the Emperor himself, who fears losing control. Resources and control are here the two main elements of war (the exact same elements as on Earth).

Political power is often (only not to say always) the cause of conflicts in space in movies. The saga Star Wars⁴⁸ is an emblematic example. The war is constant between two sides: the Republic (the good ones, Luke Skywalker and the Jedi) and the Empire (the bad ones, Darth Vador and the Sith). Control of the galaxy, but above all the political nature of control, are at stake: democracy or tyranny? We will study this question in the last part, but we can already see here that war is totally normalised in outer space. The spaceship in Alien seems to indicate the same thing by being heavily armed.

International law forbids war, except in two exceptions: decision of the Security Council of the United Nations⁴⁹ and self defence.⁵⁰ Article III of the Outer Space Treaty reminds us that international law fully applies to outer space, but it is still very quiet on war in outer space. In 1958, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted on a resolution saying that “outer space should be used for peaceful purposes only”.⁵¹ This precision did not survive the early years of space activities, and never reached the Outer Space Treaty.

Only article IV explicitly addresses the issue: no placement of nuclear and mass destruction weapons in orbit around the Earth. This measure only exists to protect states’ territories on Earth. Celestial bodies are also protected: no military bases, installations and fortifications allowed, nor testing of weapons and conduct of military manoeuvres.⁵² Article IX of the same treaty reaffirms a fraternity principle: “in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, States Parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle cooperation and mutual assistance”.⁵³ Reading all that, we should be protected from a space war, shouldn’t we?

Many signals lead us to believe the contrary. Outer space has been used since the beginning for military purposes, to watch (friendly and enemy) foreign territories and to support military operations on Earth (telecommunication for instance), which is not per se forbidden by international law. States have also shown their capabilities to destroy satellites with ASAT missiles, which is again not forbidden by international law. But recently, threats are becoming different. The French Minister of Armies Florence Parly declared in 2018 that a Russian satellite may have tried to hijack a French satellite.⁵⁴ Can it be considered as an armed aggression (and thus that could trigger the right to self defence)? Is espionage forbidden by international law? These questions do not have clear legal answers.

Russia, regarding the war in Ukraine, threatened to destroy Starlink satellites because SpaceX provides an Internet connection to the country. Could those satellites be seen as critical military infrastructures, part of the Ukraine war material, and thus be legally struck down by Russia?⁵⁵ All these issues are challenges that states must face today.

A last movie to conclude this part: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets.⁵⁶ The plot revolves around a space war between different species and, again, the control of the universe. As a species, humankind has to address the question of conflicts in outer space, if we can conduct wars in space, and if the answer is yes, how. Many science fiction movies predict that space wars will happen in the future, and if we take an example of history on Earth, it may indeed happen. Having clear rules, like the Geneva Conventions of 1949, but specific to outer space to take into account all the new challenges, is necessary. These rules will become unavoidable as we colonize other worlds.

4 Human Phone Home

We have talked about a supposed near future, and how states will have to adapt space law to deal with exploitation of space resources, space stations and conflicts in outer space. Now, imagine a world in several decades, when the human species will (probably) colonize other worlds, and eventually encounter extra-terrestrial life. What can space law do to guide humans?

Colonization of outer space is a hot topic and a favourite one for Hollywood, first and foremost because the Earth may be uninhabitable in the future, due to climate change and the fact that we are unable to reverse it. It is a great start for a scenario, forcing humans to become explorers, navigating the universe to find a new place to live.

Interstellar⁵⁷ and the series Lost in Space⁵⁸ start with this idea. In the first one, Cooper, a former NASA pilot, must go through a wormhole to find another inhabitable planet. In the second one, Earth’s climate has become hostile because of an impact, some families and individuals are selected to colonize a new planetary system.

If Interstellar is grandiose and makes us realise that we may not fully understand how the universe is working and that Earth is for now and maybe forever our only home, Lost in Space is particularly interesting about the conditions of selection of the families. We follow the Robinson family during the whole show, and we learnt that the son did not qualify to be part of the adventure, due to bad results in the tests. His mother ultimately finds a way to avoid the separation, but it asks the question of ethics and equality: do all humans have an equal right to be saved and to colonize outer space? According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are all equal,⁵⁹ meaning that we should all be able to be saved in going to outer space. On the other hand, our survival may depend on our skills and knowledge, and thus a selection would be needed. As a jurist, am I as valuable as an engineer or biologist? If a state colonizes another planet, it would have to answer these kinds of questions.

The movie Passengers⁶⁰ brings another element into the equation: space travel can be very long and difficult to support for humans, psychologically speaking. The Avalon spaceship is equipped with capsules where people are asleep and preserved during the trip of more than 90 years. But a meteor shower damages the spaceship and a man wakes up. After one year of solitude, he intentionally wakes up a woman. States have the responsibility of their national,⁶¹ could it be liable for this kind of incident? The Martian displays the same issue, where a man has to live by himself on the planet Mars for a long period of time.

WALL-E⁶² and Ad Astra can be studied together. In WALL-E, the Earth is filled of debris and must be evacuated: no sign of life exists anymore. So a giant spaceship is built, like Noah’s Ark, where humans can live while they find another planet or Earth is cleaned up by small robots. It is not a proper colonization of another celestial body, but it can still be seen as a colonization of outer space. Now, what is interesting is that Earth activities and capitalism were brought aboard the ship: advertising, consumerism, waste… nothing has changed: Earth is replicated in outer space. In Ad Astra, the Moon is colonized, we can see a DHL store and a Subway restaurant on the Moon. It seems that colonization ultimately brings in outer space all Earth behaviours. All these activities brought to outer space are governed by domestic (space) law, but it lacks for now a legal international regime for space commercial activities.

Colonization is not possible under the Outer Space Treaty because it is a “national appropriation” by “claim of sovereignty”.⁶³ But the case of the International Space Station is particular to study. Is the ISS a colonization, and thus an appropriation, of outer space? Since the end of the 1990s, the in orbit station has been permanently occupied by several astronauts of different countries, like WALL-E’s spaceship. According to article 5 of the Intergovernmental Agreement regarding the ISS, states “shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements” it sent.⁶⁴ It could be easily perceived as an appropriation of outer space. But because the ISS is permanently moving and does not impeach other states to go to this orbit, this does not represent a claim by a state.

Valerian depicts an interesting process of space colonization, taking departure from the ISS, gradually improved over the years. It eventually becomes too big and has to leave Earth orbit. In this case, it could also be seen as a colonisation of outer space (like WALL-E), but space is so vast that it is not really an issue. International community has accepted the fact that a very powerful state could send as many objects (inhabited or not) in outer space, it will not constitute an appropriation. Things could change with mega constellations of satellites. For now, the rule of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is “first come, first served”,⁶⁵ but a state could have so many satellites on a specific orbit that it factually (not legally) owns it. Will we see a change in the attribution regime?

A last word on colonisation of outer space. Mark in The Martian says that because he harvested some potatoes, he is now the owner of the land. If it is not true from a legal point of view, it may ask the question of independence of colonization in outer space. Could a space colony become independent from Earth? The question is rather similar to the question of independence of states on Earth. States are indivisible and as sovereign, they are the only one able to, in theory, decide if a part of them can become independent. However, if the existence of a state is only subject to four criteria (a people on a territory under a political power able to enter into relations with other states),⁶⁶ recognition by the international community is needed, but the sovereignty of the primary state shall be respected.^67,68 Nevertheless, the International Court of Justice has recalled that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States”: declarations of independence by nationals can (but not always) be lawful.⁶⁹ The question is immensely complicated and explains why there are so many situations with independence on Earth.

If a space colony decides to become independent, it is in theory possible, but the state of origin must accept it. An independence war may be needed (we know how states are not keen on letting go of territories), but they will eventually be forced to let space colonies be independent. This reasoning only works if human society decides to apply Earth law in outer space. It is possible that that kind of expansion through the universe requires a completely new set of rules.

One of the numerous consequences of space colonisation could also be the discovery of extra-terrestrial life. It may even be possible that extra-terrestrials find us before we find them. It is the case in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.⁷⁰ E.T. is forgotten by his species and adopted by a boy and his family. They even go further and hide E.T. from the government, whose main preoccupation seems to be the contamination of Earth.

Earth contamination is also the main subject of the movie Life⁷¹: a form of life is discovered on Mars. It is brought to the ISS to be studied by a few astronauts. It turns out the form of life, nicknamed Calvin, is very hostile and kills the astronauts. The remaining ones have only one mission left: to prevent Calvin from going to Earth, or it could be the end of humankind. Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty⁷² was impressively and thoroughly respected by the states: numerous firewalls were conceived throughout the study of Calvin to make sure that it cannot go to Earth. The first firewall was the box where Calvin stayed. When it escaped, the second firewall was the lab inside the ISS. But again, it escaped. So the third and last firewall was the ISS itself, and Earth sent a spaceship to push the ISS into deep space, saving humanity. These three firewalls were not enough and remind us to be careful about our will to find extra-terrestrial life.

Alien terrorised many generations when it was presented to the public. A spaceship belonging to a mining company on its way back home stops because of an audio beacon of an unknown origin. In fact, the secret mission of one astronaut is to bring back to Earth a new form of life discovered on a planet. The company knows the deadly potential of it, and wants to retrieve it for its arms division: the organism is perfect, impossible to destroy. Ultimately, the alien kills everyone except Riley. What is important to mention is that the crew was expandable according to the secret mission order, asking the question of labour law in outer space and protection of astronauts. If today they are legally considered as “envoy of mankind” and have a special protection,⁷³ expansion of space activities could change the rules and astronauts could become normal workers.

Finally, what if powerful aliens (not like E.T.) find us? Worse, what if they bring conflict to Earth? We might be forced to make a choice, whether considering it as friends, or enemies. The saga Transformers⁷⁴ and the movie Man of Steel⁷⁵ are well illustrating this issue. Eventually, if states colonize other celestial bodies, humankind will become an interplanetary species.

5 Humanity as an Interplanetary Species: How to Organise Our Presence in Space?

If space faring nations continue to develop their space activities, humanity will eventually become an interplanetary species, and will have to decide how to behave in the universe and how to rule it.

But first, the theory of planetary sovereignty has to be introduced. In Avatar, an Earth state is going to Pandora, another planet, to exploit a new material. For doing so, the military must dislodge the people living there. The Na’vis of course reply by killing soldiers. We can be tempted to apply terrestrial law, mainly international humanitarian law to the story, trying to determine which behaviour is lawful or not. But then, a question arises: why would we apply human international law on another planet?

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires that a state must accept (usually by ratification) a treaty in order to be bound by it.⁷⁶ If we apply this principle to interplanetary relationships, a planet should accept a treaty to be bound by it. By going further, a planet should accept the application of Earth law to be bound by it. Nevertheless, Earth law should be non applicable to other planet than Earth. Still, Earth law should be applicable to state activities, but only when no other form of life is involved.

For instance, the principle of non-interference of a state in internal affairs of another state⁷⁷ can be transformed into the obligation for the people of a planet to not interfere into the affairs of the people of another planet. As long as states have relationships in space without meeting aliens, international law can apply. But if we discover an inhabited planet, humanity should refrain from applying its law to this celestial body and its people.

Valerian explicitly locates humanity as the dominant species in the known universe. The ISS is now the Alpha Station, and shelters 3,236 different species. Which is why a commander destroyed a planet and its people (about six million Muls), so that humanity can keep leadership of the known universe. We may be very far off from this question but we might one day make a choice of how to behave in the presence of extra-terrestrial species.

Agent Valerian is above all a federal agent, meaning that the universe is organised as a federation. Some Star Wars movies reveal the same organisation, with a Galactic Senate. Under the Republic, war seems to be forbidden, and the Senate (with its armed body the Jedi Order) is in charge of negotiations to prevent any conflict. If humanity becomes an interplanetary species and discovers other intelligent forms of life, an interstellar treaty would be a good idea to avoid wars and conflicts. The principle of sovereign equality⁷⁸ needs to be applied and respected to ensure peaceful relationships between the different people of the universe. Interplanetary peace and security shall be ensured.

The common element of many movies (Star Wars, Valerian, Dune) is the fear of losing power and control over the universe and, maybe, over the fate of humanity. The current space race seems to have taken the same path as displayed in science fiction movies, which is not reassuring.

6 Conclusion

I could have talked about many other movies and series—Star Trek, Guardians of the Galaxy, Buzz Lightyear, First Man, Moonfall, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Final Space, and many more—showing the interest of Hollywood for outer space. These movies show us the challenges states are facing today, and that space law is not complete and does not cover all present and future situations.

The new fashion is now to shoot movies directly in outer space. A Russian movie has already been shot in the ISS⁷⁹ and Tom Cruise is planning the same kind of movie, asking some new questions about private astronauts and space tourism.

We need to remember that international and space law are only tools at disposal of states to organise their relationships, on Earth and in space. Law itself cannot be the solution nor the guarantee of peaceful interactions, between states, private companies or even towards extra-terrestrial forms of life. Law is shaped by states will only. But do they want to set limits for themselves in outer space? Nothing is less sure…. In the meantime, (re)watch these classic movies, with a new eye for space law.