The Silent Refugees: Legal Protection for Communities displaced by space debris and  orbital collision 

Abstract

The proliferation of space debris and potential orbital collisions pose unprecedented risks to satellite-dependent terrestrial populations, yet international law remains silent on the status of communities displaced by satellite system failures. This paper examines the critical gap in the international legal framework governing space activities and refugee protection. While the Outer Space Treaty establishes state responsibility for space activities and the Liability Convention imposes liability for damage caused by space objects, these frameworks fail to address forced displacement or provide remedial pathways for affected populations.[1] Similarly, the 1951 Refugee Convention excludes environmental and technological disaster victims from its protective scope.[2] This paper argues for an expanded interpretation of state responsibility under the Liability Convention and proposes a supplementary protocol recognizing “space-displaced persons” as a distinct category requiring international protection. Drawing on emerging scholarship regarding climate displacement,[3] this research advocates for proactive legal mechanisms before orbital debris renders displacement inevitable.

Introduction

Over 34,000 tracked objects orbit Earth, and millions of smaller fragments pose a collision risk to operational satellites and spacecraft.[4] The 2009 Iridium-Cosmos collision highlighted the catastrophic potential of orbital debris, resulting in thousands of additional fragments and raising fears about cascading collisions, sometimes known as Kessler Syndrome.[5] Modern societies rely significantly on satellites for communication, navigation, weather forecasting, and disaster management.[6] Millions of people could be affected if these services are disrupted, especially in areas that rely on satellite-based infrastructure for essential services. Communities displaced by satellite failures or debris impacts are known as “Silent Refugees” since their displacement is usually unreported and unrecognized under present international protection frameworks. Unlike climate refugees, their forced displacement is caused by technological hazards rather than natural factors, resulting in unique legal and jurisdictional issues. The Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention establish state responsibility for damage caused by space objects but do not provide mechanisms for compensating displaced communities or protecting affected populations.[7] The 1951 Refugee Convention explicitly excludes technologically displaced persons from asylum protections. This article analyzes the legal protection gap facing space-displaced communities and proposes actionable, human-centered reforms to international space and humanitarian law.

The Rise of Space Debris and Human Vulnerability

Historical Overview of Space Debris
Space debris accumulation intensified following catastrophic incidents. The 2009 Iridium-Cosmos collision generated over 2,300 trackable fragments, marking the first accidental hypervelocity impact between intact satellites.[8] China’s 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) test produced approximately 3,500 debris pieces and was widely condemned by the international community.[9] Russia’s 2021 destruction of Cosmos 1408 created over 1,500 fragments, forcing ISS astronauts to shelter and increasing long-term risk to LEO.[10] The 1978 Cosmos 954 crash in Canada remains the only case involving terrestrial impact and compensation, which was resolved diplomatically through a settlement based on the 1972 Liability Convention.[11]

Current Statistics and Trends
The current space debris environment is escalating in complexity due to an exponential increase in orbital traffic, particularly from mega-constellations.[12] Space surveillance networks track over 54,000 objects larger than 10 cm, while approximately 1.2 million fragments between 1 and 10 cm and 130 million fragments between 1 mm and 1 cm remain untracked.[13] In 2024, multiple fragmentation events added thousands of new debris objects, demonstrating that current mitigation efforts alone are insufficient.[14] In some low Earth orbit (LEO) bands, the density of active satellites now approaches that of space debris.[15] The scientific consensus is that without intervention, the debris population will continue to grow due to cascading collisions, a scenario known as the Kessler Syndrome.[16] Experts agree that a shift toward stricter mitigation standards and the implementation of active debris removal is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of space activities.[17]

Causes of Orbital Debris
Human activities—rocket launches, satellite deployment, and weapons testing—generate most debris, while collisions and material degradation perpetuate exponential growth.[18] Mega-constellations intensify risks despite mitigation protocols, threatening Kessler Syndrome scenarios.[19]

Human Dependence on Satellite Systems
Modern civilization depends critically on satellites for GPS navigation, telecommunications, weather forecasting, and disaster management.[20] The 2022 KA-SAT cyberattack demonstrated how satellite failures precipitate terrestrial crises.[21] Developing nations face disproportionate vulnerability due to limited terrestrial infrastructure alternatives.

Human Vulnerability to Space Debris
Growing space debris, comprised of defunct satellites and rocket parts, poses a significant threat to communities dependent on satellite infrastructure for essential services, particularly small island states and landlocked nations.[22] The danger lies not only in the disruption of critical communications, healthcare, and disaster response systems, but also in creating “silent refugees”—persons displaced by space incidents who lack recognition under international law and are left without legal remedies.[23] This legal void, often called a “juridical vacuum,” persists because existing frameworks, such as the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, do not adequately cover indirect harms like forced displacement, and no dedicated tribunal has adjudicated such claims.[24] Compounding this issue are the increasing congestion of Earth’s orbit and weak international regulations, which create vulnerabilities for affected populations and weaken accountability for those responsible.[25]

Current International Legal Framework
The existing architecture of international space law, built during the Cold War’s techno-optimistic era, fails to address the humanitarian consequences of orbital debris proliferation. It remains state-centric, rendering invisible the terrestrial communities whose livelihoods depend upon—and are endangered by—orbital infrastructure.

The Outer Space Treaty (1967) establishes state responsibility for national space activities and the obligation to avoid “harmful contamination” of outer space.[26] Yet Article IX’s environmental mandate contemplates contamination abstractly, without recognizing harms to affected populations. No rights accrue to individuals or communities suffering displacement from satellite service failures.

The Liability Convention (1972) imposes absolute liability for surface damage and fault-based liability for in-orbit collisions.[27] However, it excludes indirect harms and limits standing to states. In the Cosmos 954 incident, Soviet satellite debris crashed in Canada in 1978, resulting in a $3 million diplomatic settlement in 1981 limited to cleanup costs.[28] The recent Otero v. NASA (2024) case, involving ISS debris crashing through a Florida home in March 2024, marks the first formal debris damage claim filed by a private party.[29] Yet, like Cosmos 954, it addresses only direct physical impact—communities losing telemedicine, communication, or navigation services have no standing under current international law.

The Refugee Convention (1951) protects persons fleeing persecution on limited grounds such as race, religion, or political opinion.[30] Those displaced by debris-induced infrastructure collapse—the “silent refugees”—fall entirely outside this definition. Similarly, UNOOSA’s Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (2007) and Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines (2019) remain non-binding, lacking enforcement mechanisms or rights for affected populations.[31]

Legal Gaps and Shortcomings
No case law addresses space-induced displacement, exposing this framework’s inadequacy. Beyond Cosmos 954 and the pending Otero claim, no litigation exists for cascading harms leading to forced migration. The only two documented cases involving space debris damage concerned direct physical impact and cleanup costs, not community displacement or indirect service losses.

Critical failures emerge. First, international law recognizes no category of space-displaced persons, leaving protection to domestic discretion. Second, no tribunal exists to hear displacement claims from orbital activities. When Venezuela’s VeneSat-1 satellite failed in March 2020, rural communities lost access to telecommunications, internet, and broadcasting services, yet no international legal mechanism existed to address citizens’ loss of satellite-dependent services—the Liability Convention addresses only state-to-state claims for physical damage, leaving service-dependent populations without recourse.[32]

Third, the legal architecture ignores indirect harms—healthcare disruption, communication loss, agricultural failures—that drive displacement. The Liability Convention’s drafters, working in an era of minimal orbital congestion, never envisioned debris clouds threatening entire satellite constellations. Fourth, soft law’s unenforceability allows states to prioritize national ambitions over mitigation. Finally, vulnerable populations—especially small island developing states, landlocked nations, and remote indigenous groups—bear disproportionate impacts with little diplomatic leverage.

Recent Developments and Proposals
Emerging scholarship urges amending the Liability Convention through a supplementary protocol recognizing indirect harm and displacement, extending standing to individuals and non-governmental organizations. The 2022 UN General Assembly Resolution 77/121 on reducing space threats through responsible behaviors, though non-binding, signals growing recognition that space debris mitigation implicates human welfare and security, not merely orbital management.[33] The resolution emphasizes the need for international cooperation and transparency in space activities, reflecting shifting expectations toward greater accountability. Whether these incremental steps evolve into enforceable protections for space-displaced communities remains uncertain, but they mark a normative shift in how the international community conceptualizes responsibility for orbital activities and their terrestrial consequences.

Silent Refugees and Proposed Framework

Defining the ‘Silent Refugees’ Phenomenon
“Silent Refugees” are communities displaced by satellite system failures caused by space debris impacts, yet unrecognized under existing international protection frameworks.[34] Unlike traditional or climate refugees, they face displacement through technological collapse—losing telecommunications, navigation, and essential financial infrastructure. Small island developing states are especially vulnerable: when debris destroys satellite systems, entire populations face economic paralysis and forced migration. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor the Outer Space Treaty addresses this form of displacement, creating a legal vacuum where technologically displaced persons lack protection.[35]

Theoretical Basis for Recognition
International legal principles compel recognition of Silent Refugees. The humanitarian principle in Article 6 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to life and dignity, obligating states to prevent foreseeable harms.[36] The doctrine of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) imposes higher duties on spacefaring nations whose debris-generating activities disproportionately endanger others.[37] The precautionary principle mandates preventive action where orbital activities risk transboundary harm.[38] As environmental law evolved to include climate-displaced persons, outer space law must now recognize debris-induced displacement.

Proposed Legal Framework
(a) Recognition and Classification: Define “Space-Displaced Persons” (SDPs) as a UN-recognized category through a UNGA Declaration or amendment to the Liability Convention, specifying displacement triggers and protection standards.

(b) Liability and Redress: Establish an International Space Claims Commission applying strict liability principles from the Liability Convention and the “polluter pays” doctrine to assign responsibility for debris-induced displacement.[39] The Cosmos 954 incident illustrates the insufficiency of diplomatic settlements—partial compensation without binding precedent—highlighting the need for formal adjudicative mechanisms.[40]

(c) Funding Mechanism: Create a Global Space Debris Liability Fund financed by state contributions proportional to launch activity, operator fees, and insurance premiums, under UNOOSA supervision.

(d) Integration with Existing Regimes: Adapt frameworks from the Global Compact on Refugees and the Paris Agreement to technological displacement contexts, ensuring coordination between humanitarian and environmental law.[41]

Governance and Implementation
UNOOSA should maintain an SDP registry linking debris events to displacement claims, in line with UN Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities.[42] Collaboration with UNHCR can ensure emergency relief and reintegration programs. Integration with SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) will embed orbital sustainability within global development policy.[43]

Ethical and Policy Imperative
Recognizing Silent Refugees is not merely a legal reform—it is an ethical obligation. As human reliance on space infrastructure deepens, ignoring debris-induced displacement risks rendering the most vulnerable populations invisible and rightless. International law must evolve to ensure that as humanity expands its technological frontier, justice and protection extend beyond Earth’s surface to those affected by the failures of our shared orbital environment.

Conclusion

The Silent Refugees: Legal Protection for Communities Displaced by Space Debris and Orbital Collisions highlights a critical gap in international law. Current space and refugee frameworks fail to recognize populations displaced by technological and orbital failures, leaving them without protection or redress. Establishing “space-displaced persons” as a recognized category, coupled with liability mechanisms, funding structures, and cross-sectoral integration with humanitarian and climate law, is essential. Such a framework would ensure accountability for launching states, provide timely assistance, and prevent vulnerable communities from being overlooked. As humanity’s dependence on orbital infrastructure grows, legal evolution is not merely aspirational but necessary—protecting those whose displacement stems from space hazards is both a moral and legal imperative, bridging technology, governance, and human rights in a rapidly expanding extraterrestrial frontier.

Footnotes

[1] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies art. VII, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205. ↩
[2] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 1(A)(2), July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137. ↩
[3] Jane McAdam, Climate Change, Forced Migration, and International Law 3 (Oxford Univ. Press 2012). ↩
[4] NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, Orbital Debris Quarterly News, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2023). ↩
[5] J.-C. Liou & N.L. Johnson, Risks in Space from Orbiting Debris, 311 Science 340 (2006). ↩
[6] Space Foundation, The Space Report 2023 (2023). ↩
[7] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205; Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, 961 U.N.T.S. 187. ↩
[8] The Aerospace Corp., A Brief History of Space Debris, https://aerospace.org/article/brief-history-space-debris (last visited Oct. 9, 2025). ↩
[9] Jeff Foust, China’s ASAT Test: The Debris Speaks, Space News (Oct. 19, 2024), https://spacenews.com/chinas-asat-test-debris-speaks/. ↩
[10] Sandra Erwin, Russia’s ASAT Test Creates More Than 1,500 Pieces of Trackable Debris, Threatening ISS and Other Satellites, Space News (Nov. 15, 2021), https://spacenews.com/russias-asat-test-creates-more-than-1500-pieces-of-trackable-debris-threatening-iss-and-other-satellites/. ↩
[11] Paul G. Dembling, The Cosmos 954 Incident and the Law of Outer Space, 3 J. Space L. 129 (1979). ↩
[12] ESA Space Environment Report 2025, EUR. Space Agency, https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/ESA_Space_Environment_Report_2025 (last visited Oct. 9, 2025). ↩
[13] European Space Agency (ESA) Space Debris Office, Environment Statistics (Aug. 2024 update), Space Debris User Portal, European Space Agency. ↩
[14] Id. ↩
[15] Id. ↩
[16] Kessler’s Syndrome: A Challenge to Humanity, Frontiers Space Technol. (Nov. 27, 2023), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/space-technologies/articles/10.3389/frspt.2023.1309940/full (last visited Oct. 9, 2025). ↩
[17] Global Implementation of Active Debris Removal (ADR), UNOOSA (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/copuos/stsc/2025/ListOfTechnicalPresentations/2_Tuesday4th/AM1_-_JAPAN_Item5_Global_implementation_of_active_debris_removal_Nobu_Okada_as_of_2_Feb.pdf (last visited Oct. 9, 2025). ↩
[18] Donald J. Kessler & Burton G. Cour-Palais, Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt, 83 J. Geophys. Res. 2637 (1978). ↩
[19] Jonathan C. McDowell, The Low Earth Orbit Satellite Population and Impacts of the SpaceX Starlink Constellation, 11 Astrophys. J. Lett. L28 (2020). ↩
[20] Space Foundation, The Space Report 2023 (2023). ↩
[21] ENISA, Cyber Security of Satellite Communications (2023). ↩
[22] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205. ↩
[23] B.I.G.R.N.P. Kumar, Space Debris and Environmental Hazards: A Legal Analysis of Orbital Pollution and Global Regulatory Challenges, 10 Int’l J. L. Mgmt. & Human. 427, 428-31 (2023). ↩
[24] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, 961 U.N.T.S. 187. ↩
[25] U.N. Office for Outer Space Affairs, Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (2007), https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/st_space_49E.pdf. ↩
[26] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies art. IX, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205. ↩
[27] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects arts. II-III, Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, 961 U.N.T.S. 187. ↩
[28] Settlement of Claim Between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for Damage Caused by Cosmos 954, Apr. 2, 1981, 18 I.L.M. 899 (1979). ↩
[29] Mica Nguyen Worthy, Florida Family Files Claim Against NASA After Space Debris Crashes Through Home, NPR (June 28, 2024), https://www.npr.org/2024/06/28/nx-s1-5021605/nasa-space-debris-claim-florida; Jonathan O’Callaghan, Space Junk Crashed Into a Florida Home. Who Pays?, N.Y. Times (Apr. 24, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/science/space-junk-home-florida.html. ↩
[30] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees art. 1(A)(2), July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137. ↩
[31] U.N. Office for Outer Space Affairs, Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, U.N. Doc. A/62/20, annex (2007); Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, U.N. Doc. A/74/20, annex II (2019). ↩
[32] Venezuela Loses Contact with Chinese-Built Satellite, SpaceNews (Mar. 25, 2020), https://spacenews.com/venezuela-loses-contact-with-chinese-built-satellite/. ↩
[33] G.A. Res. 77/121, Reducing Space Threats Through Norms, Rules and Principles of Responsible Behaviours, U.N. Doc. A/RES/77/121 (Dec. 12, 2022). ↩
[34] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees art. 1(A)(2), July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137. ↩
[35] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205; Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, 961 U.N.T.S. 187. ↩
[36] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. ↩
[37] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development princ. 7, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), annex I (June 14, 1992). ↩
[38] Id. princ. 15. ↩
[39] Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects art. II, Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389, 961 U.N.T.S. 187. ↩
[40] Claim Against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for Damage Caused by Soviet Cosmos 954, Can.-U.S.S.R., Apr. 2, 1981, 20 I.L.M. 689 (1981). ↩
[41] U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Global Compact on Refugees, U.N. Doc. A/73/12 (Part II) (2018); Paris Agreement, Dec. 12, 2015, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1. ↩
[42] United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities, U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.1/L.366 (2018). ↩
[43] G.A. Res. 70/1, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, U.N. Doc. A/RES/70/1 (Sept. 25, 2015). ↩