Lesson Plan: Who Makes the Rules in Space? The Outer Space Treaty Today.

Subjects:

Civics/Government, Law/Legal Studies Electives

• This lesson examines the intricacies of international law and treaty making.

Grade Level:

9-12

Lesson Duration:

One to two class periods (of a traditional 45-60 minute class period)

• The moot court simulation (extension activity) adds an additional four class periods.

Essential Questions:

• For what reasons, activities and purposes might we need laws in outer space?
• Should resources or benefits captured from space be for public or private benefit?
• Is the Outer Space Treaty still relevant and enforceable?

Lesson Objectives:

Students will:

• Summarize and explain the text of primary source documents such as the Outer Space Treaty.
• Review key principles of the 1967 treaty and compare them to modern space realities.
• Recommend language and ideas for updating the Outer Space Treaty.
• Construct arguments and questions for a moot court about space law.

Materials:

• Retro Report video “Space Law: The Next Generation” (Transcript)
• Student Activity handout
• Outer Space Treaty | United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs

Procedure:

1. Distribute the Student Activity handout and have students participate in the Think-Pair-Share activity as an introduction to the lesson.
2. Show the Retro Report video “Space Law: The Next Generation” and have the students answer the questions on the handout.
3. After viewing the film, review the questions as needed. Then direct students to listen and follow along while you read the following introduction to the Outer Space Treaty. Tell them they should work to identify key words and main ideas in the excerpt. Ask student volunteers to identify key words/main ideas from the excerpt.
   1. For more information, see: Close Reading Strategy | Florida Department of Education.
4. Have students form small groups and assign each group an excerpt from the Outer Space Treaty to read. On the Activity handout, students should identify key words and main ideas for their excerpt, and then choose a spokesperson that will report the main ideas of their group’s assigned excerpt to the class.
5. Finally, have students discuss at least three updates that they would make to the Outer Space Treaty with their small groups, then share with the class, as time allows. As an alternative, or if students need additional support before being able to discuss potential updates, tell students that the Outer Space Treaty was drafted in 1967, an era dominated by government-run space programs. Today, private corporations are greatly involved in terms of technology and participation in the global economy. Have students review the following key principles of the 1967 treaty and compare them to modern space realities, identifying “Potential Question Areas.” The goal is to examine how cleanly these 1967 rules apply to 21st-century situations, identifying where the text leaves open questions or areas of debate.
   1. 1967 Treaty: Article II: No nation-state is allowed to claim ownership or sovereignty over the Moon, planets, or asteroids. 21st Century Reality: Private companies are developing technology to land on asteroids, extract valuable raw materials and bring them back to Earth to sell for a profit. Reference: Asteroid-mining startup AstroForge raises $13 million, books launch for test mission  | Space.com (2022)
      Potential Question Area: If a nation or company cannot legally own a celestial body, how does the treaty rule apply to the ownership of resources extracted from that body?
   2. 1967 Treaty: Article VI: International law treats private companies as extensions of their home country; as the responsibilities of their own governments. 21st Century Reality: Private corporations now launch and manage thousands of commercial satellites at the same time. Reference: Launch monster: SpaceX has lofted more satellites than everyone else in history, combined | Space.com (2026)
      Potential Question Area: The treaty requires governments to provide “continuing supervision” over private activities. What questions arise when applying this 1967 requirement to companies operating massive, automated satellite networks today?
   3. 1967 Treaty: Article VII: The nation that launches an object into space is legally responsible for any damage that object causes to another country. 21st Century Reality: Untraceable Space Debris: Millions of fragments of old, broken satellites and rocket parts are orbiting Earth at high speeds, occasionally colliding with and destroying active space hardware. Reference: “A Potential Minefield” in Earth’s Orbit Has Scientists Sounding the Alarm Over Hidden Objects Threatening Critical Satellites | The Debrief (2026)
      Potential Question Area: When damage to active satellites is caused by tiny, untraceable fragments, who is liable?

Extension Activity:

1. 1. Space Law Moot Court: Students simulate a case before the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, to explore disputes involving international space law. The following provides teachers with an explanation of the International Court of Justice, ways to separate a class into roles for the moot court, sample moot court cases, and guidelines to run the moot court in class.
   2. Resources: 
      1. Moot Court teaching strategy | Landmark Cases
      2. Outer Space Treaty | United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs
      3. Close Reading: The Antarctic Treaty (excerpts for close reading)
      4. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (recommended section Part VII: High Seas p. 53-66) | United Nations
      5. Article: Space Holds Allure for Businesses. But How Will Disputes Be Settled? | Retro Report
      6. 19-minute United Nations film What is the International Court of Justice? The Role and Activities of the ICJ  (resource for moot court preparation)
   3. Moot Court Cases: Teachers are free to create their own Moot Court cases. The following are suggested hypothetical moot court case prompts that can be used for this simulation:
      1. Case #1: Russian Federation v. People’s Republic of China. The Russian Federation launches a space station into outer space in order to help facilitate a mission to Mars. While in orbit, the space station is damaged by space junk. The space station is too severely damaged to be safely used. Upon investigating the damage, the Russian Federation determines that the space junk is from Chinese satellites. Russia has asked China to provide compensation for the lost space station, but China argues that although the satellites may have been built in China they routinely build satellites and sell them to other countries. China argues that since the space junk satellites may have been owned by other nations and therefore should not need to compensate Russia. Applicable Law: Outer Space Treaty Articles VI and VII.
      2. Case #2: United States of America v. Russian Federation. The Universal Mining Company LLC, a private enterprise incorporated in the United States, operates a commercial resource extraction facility on the moon in coordination with NASA. Concurrently, the Sputnik Moon Mining Company is incorporated in the Russian Federation by a close friend of the Russian President, who is a minority investor in the mining company and stands to benefit financially. The United States has filed a claim against the Russian Federation on the grounds that the Russian President’s minority ownership stake in the Sputnik Moon Mining Company makes the company a governmental entity and not a private company.
         1. Teachers can search the Space Law Moot Court page from the European Space Agency for case ideas.
   4. Organizing Moot Court in Your Classroom: Classes should be divided into judges and legal teams.
      1. Judges: The International Court of Justice has 15 elected judges and may have an additional 2 ad hoc judges hearing cases. Classes can modify the number of judges to a smaller number, but make sure that the number of judges is an odd number. The judges may be selected by the teacher or elected by classmates. The ICJ has a President and Vice President to run the court proceedings. The President and Vice President may be selected by the teacher or elected by the other judges.
      2. Legal Teams: Legal teams will represent the countries involved in the case(s). Legal teams should have 2-3 members, although legal teams can be larger based on teacher discretion.

• Moot Court Timeline: 

1. 1. Day 1: Assign jobs (Judges and Legal Teams). Provide the legal teams and judges with the case(s) to be argued. Judges and legal teams should spend the remainder of the class period researching so they understand the issue to be argued. Legal teams should look at examples of international law (Outer Space Treaty, Antarctic Treaty and maritime law are good examples) that will help them to find precedents and examples that can be used to build their case.
   2. Days 2 and 3: Legal teams should spend Day 2 and the first half of Day 3 writing their argument, which must be submitted to the judges. Legal teams should spend time preparing for their rebuttal by anticipating the opposing legal team’s arguments. They should also prepare for oral arguments by preparing to answer questions from judges. Legal team written arguments should be finalized and submitted to the judges by the second half of Day 3 so the judges can read the arguments and finalize preparations for oral arguments. Judges should spend Day 2 reading over the Outer Space Treaty and generating a list of questions that they would like to ask the legal teams during oral arguments. Each judge should have a minimum of 5 questions prepared for each legal team and should be prepared to ask at least one question during oral arguments.
   3. Day 4: Oral arguments Day – Have the judges sit in the front of the room in a semicircle. Oral arguments in total should last between 15-30 minutes, teacher discretion is used to set the official times for a moot court. The argument structure:
      1. Legal Team 1 (who brought the argument) Opening argument –  6-10 minutes, based on teacher discretion.
      2. Legal Team 2 (who the complaint is against) Opening argument – 6-10 minutes, based on teacher discretion.
      3. Legal Team 1 Rebuttal – 3-5 minutes, based on teacher discretion
      4. Legal Team 2 Rebuttal – 3-5 minutes, based on teacher discretion
   4. Have a timekeeper in the classroom during oral arguments that lets the legal teams know when they have three minutes and one minute remaining during the opening argument. The timekeeper should let the legal teams know when they have one minute remaining during the assigned rebuttal.
   5. At the conclusion of oral arguments, the judges deliberate and choose the victorious argument. The decision on the winner is based on a majority vote of the judges. The judges should provide a written opinion about the case addressing the issues argued by the two legal teams.
   6. The President of the Court or Court Tribunal announces the winner of the moot court verbally.

About the Author:

Ryan Werenka teaches Social Studies at Troy High School in Michigan. He was named 2021 Michigan History Teacher of the Year by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History and was awarded Michigan’s James Madison Memorial Fellowship in 2025.

Standards

College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies

• D2.Civ.7.9-12. Apply civic virtues and democratic principles when working with others.

• D2.Civ.9.9-12. Use appropriate deliberative processes in multiple settings.

• D2.Civ.10.9-12. Analyze the impact and the appropriate roles of personal interests and perspectives on the application of civic virtues, democratic principles, constitutional rights, and human rights.

• D2.Civ.11.9-12. Evaluate multiple procedures for making governmental decisions at the local, state, national, and international levels in terms of the civic purposes achieved.

• D2.Civ.12.9-12. Analyze how people use and challenge local, state, national, and international laws to address a variety of public issues.

• D2.Civ.13.9-12. Evaluate public policies in terms of intended and unintended outcomes, and related consequences.

• D2.Civ.14.9-12. Analyze historical, contemporary, and emerging means of changing societies, promoting the common good, and protecting rights.

• D4.1.9-12. Construct arguments using precise and knowledgeable claims, with evidence from multiple sources, while acknowledging counterclaims and evidentiary weaknesses.

• D4.2.9-12. Construct explanations using sound reasoning, correct sequence (linear or non-linear), examples, and details with significant and pertinent information and data, while acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the explanation given its purpose (e.g., cause and effect, chronological, procedural, technical).

• D4.3.9-12. Present adaptations of arguments and explanations that feature evocative ideas and perspectives on issues and topics to reach a range of audiences and venues outside the classroom using print and oral technologies (e.g., posters, essays, letters, debates, speeches, reports, and maps) and digital technologies (e.g., Internet, social media, and digital documentary).

• D4.4.9-12. Critique the use of claims and evidence in arguments for credibility.

• D4.5.9-12. Critique the use of the reasoning, sequencing, and supporting details of explanations.
• D4.6.9-12. Use disciplinary and interdisciplinary lenses to understand the characteristics and causes of local, regional, and global problems; instances of such problems in multiple contexts; and challenges and opportunities faced by those trying to address these problems over time and place.

Common Core Literacy Standards

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.4 Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.4 Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including analyzing how an author uses and refines the meaning of a key term over the course of a text (e.g., how Madison defines faction in Federalist No. 10).