This is the first of a three-part series which will use the recent launch of Kenya’s ClimCam satellite as a case study on international cooperation, benefits-sharing, and the importance of developing a legal ecosystem for ensuring the peaceful uses of space. On April 11, 2026, Kenya, in partnership with Egypt and Uganda, launched an AI-powered climate camera jointly aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9.This satellite would eventually reach the International Space Station, being used to provide several key climate resilience capabilities including:
● Real-time monitoring: It passes over East Africa at least four times a day, providing near real-time AI processed data.
● Disaster Management: The camera is designed to track droughts, monitor air quality, and provide early warning systems for floods.
● Resource Tracking: It assists in analysing water levels (such as Lake Victoria) and monitoring crop health.
The mission was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations “Access to Space for All” programme, an initiative designed to increase space capacity for emerging space nations through technical support and development. The program is offered jointly with Airbus Defence and Space as technical partner providing the necessary capability training. This project marks a major step in African space collaboration, revealing profound implications for space governance, sovereign accountability, and socio-economic developmental rights.
1 Distinct Legal Interpretations
Initial Perspective: The Treaty Harmonisation Model
This perspective advocates for treaty compliance, wherein States are required to create a predictable and enforceable legal environment so as to shield stakeholders, and especially space agencies and their national administrations, from liability. When dealing with a multi-state asset such as ClimCam, success will depend on formalising the stakeholders rights and obligations. This requirement is most evident in the Article 6 provision of the Outer Space Treaty which establishes that states bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including those conducted by non-governmental entities, requiring authorisation and supervision by the appropriate state party. This provision supports the domestication and ratification argument by providing a clear legal framework for regulating private space activities, ensuring states and their constituents remain accountable for their actions in outer space.
Alternative Perspective: The Proactive Customary & Sovereign Autonomy Model
The alternative perspective would posit that international customary law is a viable form of ratifying the outer space treaties. Customary law is defined by consistent state practice and opinio juris, the latter which is the belief that such practice is legally obligatory. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognises customary international law as general practice accepted as law, (meaning the more you do it the more it becomes an accepted practice with legal implications) regardless of whether it has officially been codified in any legal text. Since international space law falls under the broader public international law frameworks, customary international law is recognised as a proactive means to establish sovereignty despite existing treaty architectures, which some scholars would regard as rigid and outdated. Customary law is expressed in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute.
This perspective echoes sentiments recently made during the inaugural Africa Space Law and Policy conference which was held in May of 2026, where participants agreed that space governance remains a stumbling block for a region that has already embedded itself in the space community of nations. You can read more about this event in this recent article. Rather than wait for formal treaty ratification in order to establish space legitimacy, African states could opt into a collaborative operational project such as ClimClam and develop legal precedent through bilateral MOUs, data-sharing protocols, interoperability and other technical standards. This allows African states and other emerging or aspiring space nations to advance sovereign legal authority through concrete resource-solving actions, as opposed to passive compliance with 20th century legal regimes.
2. Status of the UN Treaties in East Africa
When considering the foregoing, we need to establish the current status of treaty ratification. The three nations behind the ClimCam consortium represent varying levels of engagement with the foundational UN space treaties as follows:
1.Outer Space Treaty (1967)
2.Rescue Agreement (1968)
3.Liability Convention (1972)
4.Registration Convention (1975)
5.Moon Agreement (1979)
Country:
Egypt
1.Ratified
2.Ratified
3.Signed, not ratified
4.Not party
5.Not party
Kenya
1.Ratified
2.Not party
3.Ratified
4.Not party
5.Not party
Uganda
1.Ratified
2.Not party
3.Not party
4.Not party
5.Not party
Firstly, a definitional exercise on the difference between signing and ratifying a treaty. The former signifies a first step, where a state declares its commitment to continue the treaty making process. The latter concerns the formal acceptance and commitment to the treaty, hence creating legal obligations for the state.More specifically, ratification is where the treaty’s provisions are validated domestically, through the drafting of legislations and policies. It's the difference between supporting from the sidelines, and actually entering the arena. A state can either show solidarity, or actually make effect to the treaty by making its provisions part of its own national legal frameworks. Universal ratification matters for purposes of jurisdiction, liability management, and global alignment.
Regarding jurisdiction, Article 8 of the Outer Space Treaty determines that states retain legal jurisdiction over a space object. This becomes tricky to determine when more than one state is concerned, and a lack of clear treaty status creates a jurisdiction vacuum (pun intended), when and if a legal dispute arises. On the matter of liability, the Liability Convention also prescribes different types of liability, ranging from absolute liability (Article 2) to fault-based liability (Article 3). For joint missions launched via foreign entities (e.g. SpaceX via Airbus/ISS), unratified states lack the formal state-level protections necessary to navigate international liability claims. Finally, and pertaining to global alignment, the domestication of outer space treaties is the inflexion point at which any state transitions from a passive consumer to an active contributor. Submitting to the multilateral system promotes the foundational principle of international cooperation and prevents space powers from monopolising orbital rules, Essentially, it grants states an active voice in international discussions concerning important space developments, and signals participation to the broad international legal fora.
Now that we have concluded the legal background surrounding the case study, the next part of the series will analyse more closely the benefits-sharing principle. We will examine why this principle is vital to outer space activities, and how Africa specifically benefits from the products and services derived from the global commons.