Abstract International space law stands at an inflection point where geopolitical fragmentation, enforcement deficits, and methodological limitations threaten the coherence of governance frameworks established in the 1960s. This article provides critical analysis of space law's evolution from 2023-2025, rigorously examining whether existing legal architecture can constrain state behavior or merely reflects underlying power distributions. Through systematic analysis of state practice, multilateral legal scholarship across jurisdictions, and enforcement mechanism deficiencies, this study demonstrates that contemporary space law operates simultaneously as: (1) a constraining normative framework with demonstrated efficacy in specific domains; (2) an incomplete governance system requiring urgent institutional development; and (3) a contested arena where competing visions of space order—liberal internationalist, sovereignty-maximizing, and equity-focused—struggle for dominance. The article advances an original analytical framework distinguishing between space law's "hard core" principles that command genuine compliance, "contested periphery" where state practice diverges fundamentally, and "enforcement vacuum" where principles exist without mechanisms. Employing comparative international law methodology and incorporating non-Western legal scholarship, the analysis reveals that effective space governance requires not merely treaty interpretation but institutional innovation, equitable participation mechanisms, and realistic acknowledgment of power asymmetries. The research demonstrates that the path forward demands abandoning illusory universalism in favor of graduated regimes that recognize capability differences while establishing meaningful enforcement for core principles protecting space as accessible commons. Keywords: International Space Law, Outer Space Treaty, Artemis Accords, Space Resources, Customary International Law, Legal Enforcement, State Practice, Global South Perspectives, Governance Fragmentation Methodological Note: This article employs sources in English, Mandarin (via translation), Russian (via translation), and incorporates perspectives from Western, Chinese, Russian, Indian, and Global South legal scholarship. The author acknowledges positionality limitations and attempts to present competing frameworks evenhandedly while advancing normative arguments transparently grounded in accessible multilateralism principles.
Hakimi Abdul Jabar (2025) studied this question.