In September 2023, Elon Musk tweeted he had denied access to his Starlink satellites in Russian controlled zones, thus preventing Ukraine from targeting the Russian fleet anchored in Crimea. Should he have agreed to the request, he argued, his company would have been “complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation”.
Elon Musk’s satellites have been active in Ukraine since 2022, following the request of access to the service from Ukrainian authorities after the Russian invasion of the country. His satellites now play a crucial role in the conflict, being used for various types of military operations by the Ukrainian armed forces. He offered the same service in October 2023 in the context of the war between Israel and Hamas, promising access to his satellites for humanitarian purposes amidst the blackout ordered by Israel in Gaza.
Over the years, advanced technology allowed Elon Musk to launch a huge number of small but efficient satellites in outer space and made him almost unrivalled in the market. The New York Times reports that over 4,500 of his satellites are currently in orbit, constituting more than 50% of existing satellites. In other words, millions of people around the world, whether in peace or war time, rely daily on Starlink. In Ukraine, around 42,000 Starlink terminals are used not only by the military, but also by the civilian population, hospitals and aid organisations. Elon Musk’s power to shut down the satellites at his own whim is thus highly problematic.
This raises key legal questions: What law regulates satellite use, especially in situations of armed conflict? Can Elon Musk (or his company) be held accountable? What about the role of states?
International law applies in outer space. Under the law of armed conflict, the use of satellites is regulated by the same principles as land or maritime warfare. For instance, only military objects can be targeted. Satellites, including Elon Musk’s, if they bring a military advantage to a party to an armed conflict, could then arguably be the object of an attack.
The Outer Space Treaty regulates satellites and provides that states are responsible for national space activities carried out by private entities. The purely commercial use of satellites is however not covered by the convention and public international law does not oblige private actors. So far, Elon Musk’s control over his satellites thus remains largely unchecked.
The launch of satellites will continue to increase and the consequences for the military and civilian population will need to be clearly evaluated. From a strategic point of view, one should definitely question the extensive reliance of states on technologies developed and owned by private companies, even more so when their leaders are as erratic as Elon Musk.
In the 2024 Summit of the Future, the UN will discuss space governance. The regulation of satellites, in war and peace, including those privately owned, needs to be a core part of the conversation if we want to avoid a potentially catastrophic Star Wars scenario.
