Which option reflects a proposed approach to Outer Space Treaty governance?

• A. Modify the Outer Space Treaty to allow territorial ownership on celestial bodies or withdraw from it.
• B. Ban all weapons in space with strict enforcement.
• C. Permit weapons in space only for defensive purposes.
• D. Maintain the status quo with no changes.

Answer: (A)

This question is about how space governance could evolve through international law. The proposed route—changing the Outer Space Treaty to allow territorial ownership on celestial bodies or withdrawing from it—directly targets the framework that governs who can claim space resources and how states interact in space. It signals a fundamental shift in governance from non-ownership and non-claim norms toward an updated, negotiable system that accommodates ownership or a renegotiated set of rules. In contrast, banning all weapons in space, or allowing weapons only for defensive purposes, are policy choices that operate within or alongside the existing framework rather than overhaul its structure. Keeping the status quo leaves the current governance rules intact without addressing how rights and sovereignty in space might evolve. Thus, modifying the treaty to permit ownership or withdrawing to renegotiate embodies a governance-focused approach to Outer Space Treaty rules.