G. Madhavan Nair seems to think so. Nair, the chairman of the Indian space agency ISRO, told attendees of an Indian Law Institute seminar that “International Space Law” is losing its relevance because of new developments, such as orbital debris and space weaponization. The space law he refers to is the series of treaties anchored by the Outer Space Treaty (OST) that governs, at the broadest level, what countries and their representatives can and cannot do in space. “There is a need to replace the entire set of treaties by a comprehensive space law,” Nair said.
The idea of revisiting or replacing the OST and related treaties is not new, although it’s rare to hear the head of a space agency make such a suggestion. (Usually, such calls come from space advocates concerned about sovereignty and property rights issues.) Actually making such a change, though, is easier said than done: there’s no broad consensus yet that the OST needs revision or replacement, and doing so could open up a very big bag of worms.
Well, one way or another the OST and other treaties/documents will be superceded by laws which make more sense after experience in (or with) space is gained.
The flowery rhetoric of OST and related treaties in particular reflected a different mentality when it came to space, and in any event was largely driven by the political interests of the United States and Soviet Union, the only real space powers of the time.
Changing law, even replacing a constitution, is part of the dynamic evolution of law and governance. If the damn thing doesn’t work or isn’t practical or is otherwise ignored, then replace it. Not to do so is foolish.
India broke the world anti-proliferation regime. Ironic that a former neutral in the Cold War and colonial possession would be the first to call for a rework of the space weapons ban and the anti-sovereignty treaty.