There has been a radical change in the modern management of outer space. Previously state-controlled and driven by scientific exploration, space activities have become more commercialized, nowadays, privatized and strategic in nature. This has transformed national space legislation from a peripheral issue to a central issue in contemporary space governance (Adams and Yoo, 2023). Although international space law, in particular the Outer Space Treaty, 1967, defines some guiding principles, national law brings them operational factors, assigning responsibility, and dealing with risks posed by an ever more complex and dual-use space project (Li, 2021). Without a complete domestically implemented regulation, states become vulnerable to international liability, regulatory ambiguity and lack of governance, especially during a period when business launches are on the rise, satellites are forming constellations and military services heavily depend on space-based systems.
The legislation on national space has hence become the main source of law in which the states are relieved of their international obligations. The Outer Space Treaty in Article VI makes it the obligation of the states to authorize and incessantly oversee national space operations, whether administered by the government or non-government agencies. Article VII and the Liability Convention carry international liability over the destruction of space objects. Such obligations of treaties require elaborate internal frameworks on licensing, oversight, distribution of liabilities, insurance, and registration (Larsen, 2019). This has been met with detailed laws, such as the Outer Space Act, 1986 of the United Kingdom, which offers a licensing regime in connection with space operations under Section 4 and the introduction of liability and indemnity regimes under Sections 10 and 11, which were followed by the Space Industry Act, 2018 which regulates commercial space launches and spaceports (Newman, 2022).
With this world trend, the space governance framework of Pakistan is mostly fragmented and institutionally weak. Although Pakistan has a long history of the space programme, it has not yet a unified Space Activities Act that outlines the authorization processes, liability framework, or the way of involving the private sector in the activities. The article is based on a doctrinal and comparative approach to assessing the regulatory status of Pakistan in the context of international legal standards and comparative state practice. Comparative space law provides a systematic methodology of locating normative gaps and transferable regulatory interventions without losing track of domestic context in terms of politics, economics and security.
The two countries that are chosen as comparative models are India and the United Kingdom. India is a comparator of the region and development with overlapping security concerns, and an emerging legal framework, such as the Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017, which suggests licensing, allocation of liabilities, and governmental indemnification mechanisms. The United Kingdom, in its turn, shows the example of a developed, treaty-abiding, and market-focused regime with highly developed norms of regulatory control and sustainability. The North-South comparative axis generated thereof facilitates a balanced evaluation of the legislative demands of Pakistan, in providing realistic lessons as opposed to abstract regulatory principles.
The normative basis of the modern space policy is the international space law, which, however, requires domestic enforcement to work. The regime of the United Nations space treaty formulated between 1967 and 1979 is not a self-executory regulatory rule. The key to this framework is the Outer Space Treaty, which entrenches freedom of exploration, the non-appropriation, and peaceful utilization of space (Latimer, 2021). Nevertheless, these principles are voluntarily open-textured, and the states need to convert international commitments into a legally enforceable national law.
The international responsibility to pass domestic space laws is most directly derived out of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, which imposes international responsibility on states regarding all their national space operations, whether by governmental agencies or non-government organisations, and necessitates that the international responsibility should be under authorization and ongoing supervision (Stotler, 2025). This responsibility is strengthened by Article VII of the Treaty and further detailed by the Liability Convention, which presents absolute liability for the destruction caused by space objects on the surface of the earth under Article II and fault-based liability for the destruction in outer space under Article III (Schmalenbach, 2023). Such liability regulations exist solely on an interstate basis where states are obligated to develop legal frameworks within their domestic jurisdictions, i.e., licensing requirements, insurance clauses, and indemnification rules, to regulate financial risk at the local level.
As well, the Registration Convention has established that states must have national registers of space objects under Article II and provide information to the United Nations under Article IV (Masson-Zwaan et al., 2024). Unless national laws are established that assign a competent body and stipulate the registration processes, these obligations are still not fully structured. The international space law thus assumes that the presence of national regulatory regimes would be in a position to operationalize the commitments of the treaty.
It is the legal requirement of national space legislation. Therefore, not a matter of preference in policy but a matter of an international binding legal obligation. Those states that do not implement thorough domestic structures also find themselves in a position of unchecked international liability, regulatory uncertainties and lapses in governance, which commersialisation, launching privately and dual-use technologies increase their exposure to. In this respect, the national space legislation is the inevitable window between international standards and current space law, which translates the notions of the abstract treaty into legal form.
Pakistani activity in outer space started in the early 1960s, which makes it one of the first developing countries to be a leader in space science and technology. The national space programme was founded mainly on scientific research studies, remote sensing and strategic reasons and not on commercial interests. This historical pathway is the reason why space governance in Pakistan transformed into a model that was state-oriented and institutionally monopolistic, the type that is mostly not subjected to entry into the market and all-encompassing legislative control (Ali and Ayesha, 2022).
The institutional center of space governance in Pakistan is the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), which was created under the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission Ordinance, 1981. The Ordinance requires SUPARCO to perform research, develop space technology, as well as give recommendations to the federal government on issues related to space (Amir and Rehman, 2024). Nevertheless, the legal context that characterizes the power of SUPARCO is still very limited and programmatic. The Ordinance does not create a licensing system and does not offer statutory channels of authorization and constant observation, apportionment of liability, and control of the actors of the private space. Consequently, SUPARCO is more of an operational and advisory institution as opposed to being a space regulator on its own.
The current law tools that are applicable to space activity in Pakistan are fragmented and indirect. Operations of the satellites are regulated by executive notifications, the spectrum allocation regulations provided in the Pennsylvania Telecommunication (Re-organisation) Act of 1996, and the security clearances provided by the federal authorities (Yoo and Keung, 2022). This regulatory fragmentation brings about legal ambiguity, especially in areas like launch authorization, insurance requirements, international liability indemnification and registration of space objects. More importantly, Pakistan does not have a coherent Space Activities Act that may serve to streamline these functions into a rational law.
Although Pakistan has caught up with these domestic shortcomings, it is a signatory to several high-profile treaties on space, such as the Outer Space Treaty, 1967, the Liability Convention, 1972, and the Registration Convention, 1975. The instruments in question contain binding commitments, most prominently in the Outer Space Treaty in Article VI, to license and constantly monitor national space operations. Although Pakistan is complying on the formal level internationally, the lack of enforcing the laws is a problem with regard to effective compliance, risk management, and international responsibility (Rehmat, 2025). As a result, the governance structure of space in Pakistan is characterized by a severe lack of contact between international obligations and legislative potential, thus highlighting the necessity to reform the legislation on a massive scale.
There has been a significant shift in the space governance system of India from a more state-provided scientific venture to a more commercial and regulations-oriented system. During its early years, the space operations in India were centrally managed by the Indian Space Research Organization under the Department of Space without any full statutory framework that would regulate the involvement of non-governmental entities. This state-centric model worked up to the time when space activity became commercialized and began to include commercial satellite offerings, launch marketplaces, and individual innovation, which revealed the fundamental constraints of policy-oriented regulation.
The latest and largest advance in consolidation of legislation is the Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017, the first attempt by India to transform its international responsibilities into national law in a systematic manner (Gohil, 2021). The Bill is specifically meant to implement India’s obligations under the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. Section 3 of the Draft Bill provides a state prerogative on any space activity, whereas Sections 4 and 5 provide a licensing policy on non-governmental organisations and is a reflection of the Article VI requirement for authorization and ongoing oversight (Bhatia and Krishnan, 2023). Even though the Bill is still pending implementation, it is a clear indication that a normative change towards rule-based regulation has taken place.
One of the peculiarities of the emerging framework of India is the systematic orientation of authorization, licensing, and supervision. The Draft Bill gives the central government authority to make the terms of the license, compliance, and/or suspension or revocation of the authorization against the national security and treaty non-compliance. This centralized supervisory paradigm highlights the Indian focus on sovereign control, especially with dual-use technologies and strategic sensitivities. Meanwhile, the recent institutional changes, including the creation of Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Center (IN-SPACe), indicate that India is serious about allowing the private sector into India and preserving a regulation of the Indian market (Gopalakrishnan, 2022).
In the development of the Indian regulator, commercialisation plays a central role. The Draft Bill specifically makes space launches, satellite activities and space-based services accommodate, which is unlike the monopoly of the state. Nevertheless, it is offset by a high liability regime. Section 13 makes the Government of India squarely responsible in respect of international liability, whereas Section 14 permits the indemnification and insurance requirement for licensees. Such a mechanism embodies a practical way of handling state responsibility in international law whilst facilitating commercial development.
More importantly, the Indian experience demonstrates a model of transition of regulations into a legislatively ambitious but institutionally tentative framework. To Pakistan, India provides a regionally similar framework of how an emerging space power can strike a compromise between commercialisation, international responsibility and national security by formalising domestic legislation.
The case of the United Kingdom exemplifies an ideal case of a well-developed, treaty-adhering, and commercially focused country space law regime. The basis of this legal framework is the Outer Space Act, 1986, which incorporates the obligations under the Outer Space Treaty, 1967, the Liability Convention, 1972, and the Registration Convention, 1975, into domestic law. Section 1 of the Act authorizes the licensing of any space activity by UK nationals, and Sections 3 and 4 are subject to the responsibilities of the authorization and constant supervision, respectively. Therefore, the implementation of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty. This is guaranteed by liability and indemnity provisions in the provisions of Sections 10 and 12, which fulfill the international obligation by the UK under Article VII of the state being accountable towards any damage caused due to space objects (Newman, 2022).
The modernization of the regime using this foundation is the Space Industry Act, 2018, which is designed to adapt to the increased commercialisation of space. It directly regulates commercial launching, spaceport operations and suborbital flights, providing a legal framework of private activity regulations. Section 4 asks operators to obtain licenses to launch or return space objects, whereas Section 5 permits the Secretary of State to impose requirements to deal with safety, environmental protection, and insurance. The two laws form a comprehensive, harmonious law that incorporates both governmental and business operations.
The UK Space Agency serves as the institutional control organ in the role of the licensing authority and overseer. The Agency also makes sure that international treaty requirements are addressed, licenses are being requested, operating risks or headed, and it is at the forefront of inter-agency consultation on national security (Entradas, 2016). This institutional transparency is the opposite of the disaggregated models of governance in emerging space states, which provide predictability and legal confidence.
Space tourism is heavily controlled in commercial launches and spaceports to maintain the safety and integrity of operations of the people. It requires operators to adopt risk management measures, take up insurance and comply with technical standards, with the legislation providing the Secretary of State with the power to interfere in situations where there is a breach of the regulations (Alshaikh, 2025).
The UK system is also concerned with sustainability and environmental stewards. The Space Industry Act regulations mandate that space debris is mitigated, spaceports are environmentally impact assessed and that the spaceports adhere to orbital traffic management standards Zehchariah et al., 2025). This holistic feature incorporates safety, commercial innovation and long-term sustainability, which can be used as an example by other countries.
Most importantly, the UK has shown how well-developed laws can strike the right balance between sovereign powers, commercial enabling and international standards that can be used as an example to Pakistan in its quest to establish its national space laws.
Comparative review of national space legislation shows that there is great disparity in coverage, the structure, and complexity of regulations between Pakistan, India, and the United Kingdom, with direct consequences on operational regulation, international adherence, and commercialisation.
Pakistan has a mostly fragmented framework in terms of scope and structural design, and it is based on the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission Ordinance, 1981, which enables SUPARCO to research and advise the government but has no statutory powers over licensing, private participation, or liability. Conversely, the Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017 of India and the Outer Space Act, 1986 of the UK, as well as the Space Industry Act, 2018, follow a comprehensive framework with authorization, supervision, liability, and commercial facilitation integrated into a single law. The regulatory powers of India are centralized in the Department of Space and the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Center (IN-SPACe), and the UK has the Secretary of State and the UK Space Agency as the main regulators of the sector that are exercised by executive powers and a statutory power to enforce.
These differences can also be explained by licensing and authorization mechanisms. Although there are no formal licensing procedures, the regulation is left to SUPARCO and the federal government of Pakistan. Section 45 of the Draft Bill gives specific conditions of government authorization necessary for any non-governmental space activity as compared to the UK system under Sections 1 to 4 of the Outer Space Act, in which licensing is required for launch, return and operation, compliance conditions and risk mitigation.
There is also a dissimilarity in liability regimes and insurance requirements. There is no legal indemnification or insurance law in Pakistan. In India, Sections 13 and 14 of the Draft Bill make the state liable internationally while requiring the licensee to insure or indemnify. Section 10 and 12 of the Outer Space Act and Space Industry Act of the UK place strong insurance requirements to guarantee adherence to the Liability Convention to safeguard the state as well as a third party.
Pakistan is still developing regulation of its private and commercial participants, India via the facilitation of IN-SPACe, and the UK with licensed commercial space launches, spaceports and suborbital flights.
In Pakistan, registration, monitoring and supervision of space objects are not much practiced. India’s Draft Bill complies with the UN Registration Convention, whereas the UK obliges licensed operators to register space objects and report to the UN under Section 7 of the Outer Space Act.
Lastly, in Pakistan, national security and dual-use technology control are informal. In India, it is partly institutionalized through government grants, and in the UK, it is systematized, where it is provided that intervention in the launch and operation of technology that pose civil-military or strategic threats can be undertaken.
This comparison table has highlighted the legislative loopholes in Pakistan and the lessons learned by India, which has had a developing system, and the UK, which has a mature, commercially well rounded, and internationally compliant regime, which can be viewed as a blueprint for the consistent and sustainable reform of space laws in Pakistan.
The space law regime in Pakistan is an undeveloped, fragmented and reactive aspect, putting the country at a very high risk of regulations and international level risks. A keen analysis shows the loopholes and lack of clarity in the laws that weaken the coherent rule. Although the SUPARCO Ordinance, 1966 set up the space agency of Pakistan and entrusted it with a research and advisory role, it lacks any form of statutory provisions, licensing, the involvement of the private sector, liability control and constant monitoring of space activities in the country. In contrast to Section 45 of the Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017 in India (Sections 41314) or the UK (Sections 1012) and Section 45 of the Space Industry Act, 2018 discussed more, Pakistan does not have codified provisions of authorization, registration, or mitigation of risks and thus, has a lack of regulation and ad hoc decision-making. There are also institutional constraints that contribute to governance issues. SUPARCO has an overlap between the technical execution and regulation because it primarily acts as an operational and advisory institution that does not have its own regulatory powers. No special regulatory body exists to check compliance, apply standards or synchronise in civil, commercial and security spheres. In turn, the system of governance is poorly suited to deal with dual-use technologies, commercial launches, or other emergent players in the private sector.
Lack of any well-developed legal framework creates legal and international risks. According to Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, 1967, Pakistan is internationally responsible for all national space activity. Unless domestic laws are established to provide licensing, supervision, liability and registration requirements, Pakistan risks future liability concerns of the Liability Convention, 1972 as well as non-compliance concerns of the Registration Convention, 1975. Investor confidence and opportunity to engage in the private sector is demoralized by a regulatory vacuum resulting in delaying commercialisation and technological innovation.
Pakistan, in comparative terms, has legislative and institutional shortcomings that underscore the urgency in the enactment of a detailed Space Activities Act. By relying on the new model of India and the established, commercially integrated regime of the UK, Pakistan can seal the normative gaps, demystify the supervisory roles, and comply with the outer space environments global obligations, becoming less prone to legal, financial and strategic risks in a highly competitive and complex atmosphere.
The comparison of the experiences of India and the United Kingdom provides Pakistan with essential lessons on how to create a consistent and future-oriented national space law. Among the most prominent lessons, there are best practices in the field of licensing, authorization and oversight. Section 4 of the Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017, of India requires a government license for all space operations, and Section 5 sets the conditions of the license and the supervising processes. In the UK, a similarly strict licensing regime is applied, such as the use of pre-launch approvals, safety assessments, and post-launch operation by the Section 1 to 4 of the Outer Space Act, 1986 and Sections 4 to 5 of the Space Industry Act, 2018. Such organized and authorization practices can be used by Pakistan to bring in clarity in regulations and accountability in their operations.
Part of the balance between sovereign control and commercial innovation comes out as another effective lesson. IN-SPACe, with its balanced attitude towards dual-use technologies and national security, enables involvement of the private sector, but maintains central control over it. The UK model involves strict licensing and freedom of commerce where spaceports, private launches and orbital activities are allowed under governmental regulation. In the case of Pakistan, commercial facilitation and sovereign control are the two aspects that may be merged to revive the investment made by the privates without affecting national security.
It is necessary to ensure that the international liability and registration standards are followed. In the Draft Bill of India (Sections 1314) and the Outer Space Treaty 1967 Article VI and Article VII of the Liability Convention 1972, India and the UK provide insurance and indemnification systems. Pakistan needs to enact domestic liability and registration practices to fulfill its obligations and in order to reduce financial and diplomatic risks.
Lastly, long-term governance is associated with sustainability and responsible use of space. The UK, via the Space Industry Act, requires debris reduction, environmental impact analysis and orbital management, which puts business activities in line with the wider international requirements. Pakistan is able to integrate such statutory regulations in order to facilitate sustainable operation and environmental friendliness.
All these together give Pakistan a pattern to follow: organized permission, standardised liability, enabled business players and incorporating sustainability, which will make up the basis of a consistent Space Activities Act that is in line with international practices.
The development of the Pakistani Space Activities Act is urgent to align the national space regulation of Pakistan and the international requirements, business needs and policy matters. These goals and principles must focus on ensuring adherence to Articles VI and VII of the Outer Space Treaty, 1967, the Liability Convention, 1972, the Registration Convention, 1975, and to ensure sustainable, safe and commercially viable space activities. The legislative framework should be based on principles like authorization, supervision, risk management, environmental stewardship and transparency.
Space activities should be broadly defined with an encompassing scope of government, non-government activities, launching satellites, space infrastructure ground-based, spaceport, and newer commercial services such as small satellite constellations, or orbital flights. Definite definitions, similar to those in Section 2 of the Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017, India, give the law an edge and restrict the scope of regulation.
An independent statutory organization, such as the IN-SPACe of India and the Space Agency of the UK, a National Space Regulatory Authority (NSRA), must be created to license, authorize and oversee the continued operation of such efforts. The NSRA would maintain inter-agency control, compliance with civil, commercial and security standards and would be the main point of contact with international organisations.
The NSRA would be empowered by licensing, authorization, and consistent supervision to issue licenses and place operational requirements and suspend or revoke approvals, as shown in Sections 4 and 5 of the Draft Bill of India and in Sections 1 and 4 of the UK Outer Space Act.
The mechanisms of liability, insurance and indemnification would incorporate state liability into international liability in the Liability Convention, which would impose an obligation on the licensees to take reasonable insurance and indemnification in the state of India, as provided in Sections 13 and 14 of the Draft Bill and in the UK in Sections 10 to 12 of the Outer Space Act.
Registration and international reporting would be consistent with the UN Registration Convention, which requires Pakistan to have an international space object registry, and submit information to the UN Secretary-General.
Licensing and operational control should include national security, export control and dual-use regulation, as this will help the government to limit activities that compromise strategic interests.
Lastly, enforcement, penalties, and dispute resolution would offer legal corrective measures for breaches, such as administrative fines, civil liability, and special dispute resolutions, and assure effective compliance and reduction of risks. Together, this proposed framework will fill the legislative gap in Pakistan, balance domestic and international requirements, and create a coherent and future-neutral space governance framework.
The success of the proposed space activeness act by the Pakistani government will depend on how the proposed act will fit within the United Nations space treaty regime and how it will be in line with the existing trends in the region and global. The Outer Space Treaty is the basis of compliance, including, but not limited to, Article VI, which obliges state authorisation, and ongoing supervision of national space activities, and Article VII, which provides state liability in the event of damages brought about by space objects. Moreover, Articles II–III of the Liability Convention, 1972 and Articles II–IV of the Registration Convention, 1975 have to be followed by domestic systems of indemnification and insurance of space objects, as well as their registration. These obligations are provided in the proposed framework by a NSRA that has the authority to license, oversee, and register all national space activities with statutory liabilities and insurance reflecting best practices in India under Section 45 of the Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017, Sections 1–4 of the UK’s Outer Space Act, 1986, and Section 45 of the UK’s Space Industry Act, 2018.
Consistency with the regional and global regulatory trends will see the space law in Pakistan not only being treaty compliant, but also business friendly. The new Indian regulatory framework balances the sovereign regulation and facilitation of the private sector, whereas the UK combines the established commercial licensing, debris management, and sustainability requirements. Through the use of similar risk management procedures, authorization procedures, and environmental protections, Pakistan can develop a legal climate that would allow private investment without jeopardizing strategic and international compliance.
More importantly, the harmonization of domestic law with international and comparative practice minimizes the uncertainty of the law, exposure to international liability, and builds credibility in international space governance arenas. This will be a way of making sure that Pakistan is no longer in a fractured, state-centric model, but rather with a sensible and visionary space law regime, which is capable of funding both strategic goals and commercial advancement.
At present, there is no inclusive legislative framework for space activities in Pakistan, which has caused gaps in regulations, possible international liability, and limitation of commercial and technological growth. The comparative study of India and the United Kingdom show that in order to have effective legislation on national space, it should be clearly authorized, licensed and supervised, codified liability and insurance provisions, the involvement of the private sector, and compliance with international treaties, such as the Outer Space Treaty, Liability Convention, and the Registration Convention. Including sustainability, mitigation of the debris, and environmental conservation in the statutory provisions would be in line with the new international requirements.
Based on them, the proposed Pakistani Space Activities Act ought to create a centralized institutional power, decrease the ambiguity of governance, and find a balance between domestic control and international responsibility. This framework would help Pakistan to achieve strategic, commercial, and scientific goals in an organized, responsible, and progressive legal framework that can match the needs of an ever more complex and competitive outer space environment.