Inside COPUOS: How the United Nations Is Shaping Lunar Governance
Even as pressures on global multilateralism mount, the United Nations remains essential for international coordination. Nowhere is this more evident than at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) — the only multilateral forum that consistently convenes all major spacefaring nations to discuss the governance of outer space.
In this post, we explore Open Lunar’s role as a Permanent Observer to COPUOS. We speak with Hasan Abbas — member of the Pakistani delegation to COPUOS, former Chair of the Group of 77, Co-Chair of the COPUOS Action Team on Lunar Activities, and Open Lunar’s newest Affiliate — about how the forum functions in practice and how today’s debates are shaping the future of lunar governance.
Since 2023, the Open Lunar Foundation has served as a Permanent Observer to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Established in 1959, COPUOS remains one of the largest committees in the United Nations system and the premier multilateral forum for developing norms to govern activities in outer space.
The Committee’s work is guided by the Outer Space Treaty, and COPUOS continues to serve as a central mechanism for interpreting and operationalizing the Treaty’s commitments— peaceful use, non-appropriation, due regard, and international responsibility— in light of evolving technological and commercial realities. In recent years, for example, the Committee adopted the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines, marking an important step toward practical coordination and responsible conduct in orbit.
The creation of the Action Team on Lunar Activities Consultation in June 2024 signals that governance of the Moon will be a defining agenda item for the coming decade. As national space agencies and commercial actors plan new lunar missions, questions of transparency, coordination, safety, and stewardship are becoming more pressing.
Open Lunar’s Role as a Permanent Observer
As a Permanent Observer, Open Lunar contributes expert technical, operational, and legal input through designated COPUOS channels, including conference room papers (CRPs), side events, and participation in working groups focused on lunar issues.
Read more about Open Lunar’s engagements at UN COPUOS.
Our workstreams are closely informed by ongoing discussions within COPUOS, particularly around how to implement the Outer Space Treaty in a lunar context.
In particular, our flagship project — the Lunar Ledger — responds to governance gaps identified through stakeholder engagements across COPUOS with agencies and member states. A recent CRP outlines our consultations and the governance principles informing the Ledger’s design.
We also convened a dedicated event at COPUOS to present the Lunar Ledger and solicit input from member states, ensuring alignment with multilateral priorities. Our Lunar Ledger advisory board reflects this commitment to coordination and geographic diversity, bringing together experts including Dr Guoyu Wang, Martin Reynders, Dr Ulpia Elena Botezatu, and Hasan Abbas.
Read more about how the Ledger is informed by our engagements at UN COPUOS here.
Why COPUOS Matters Now
Questions persist about the role and relevance of the United Nations — particularly in the space sector, where domestic regulations present a more tangible interpretation of global agreements, and commercial actors are moving at unprecedented speed. At the same time, multilateral institutions face real pressures, including funding constraints that are affecting the work of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA).
Against this backdrop, we speak with Hasan Abbas — member of the Pakistani delegation to COPUOS, former Chair of the Group of 77, Co-Chair of the Action Team on Lunar Activities, and Open Lunar Affiliate. In his many roles within the UN system, he deeply understands how multilateral processes function in practice: why consensus makes for durable outcomes, and how progress now may look different to the treaty-making that defined the early era of COPUOS.
Below is our conversation with Hasan Abbas, edited for clarity and concision.
Can you explain why fora like UNCOPUOS remain relevant?
COPOUS is the only UN-mandated global forum dedicated to the peaceful uses of outer space. It is the one forum where all member states, especially developed or developing, come together. This also allows all member states — or all relevant stakeholders — who have different views to come to a platform where they can share those views, and possibly find a uniform discourse where they can come to an agreement on things.
The other main strength of platforms like COPUOS is that consensus means that every country agrees on a shared position. Even though some might strongly feel one way towards something, or some might not be very inclined towards other things, it still allows an opportunity for discourse.
Forums like COPUOS also allow us to bridge law, policy, and practice. This is very rare in that it connects legal interpretations with technical realities and capacity building, which is essential for implementable outcomes.
Finally, to return to the point about consensus — that should be considered an asset and not a defect. Consensus is slow, but it produces durable outcomes, which are especially important where verification becomes difficult. Consensus allows the process to move ahead, although sometimes it can take a while.
A lot of people discuss the ambiguity inherent in the Outer Space Treaty — how do you think about the role of COPUOS in helping clarify that ambiguity?
First, it’s important to recognise where COPUOS stems from: it is a subsidiary body under the UN General Assembly. So it is not a separate entity like the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which is a separate, stand-alone organisation within the UN system.
Since COPUOS is under the UN General Assembly and it is a subsidiary body, it is often considered to be bound by the UN General Assembly rules of procedure. That being said, with the Outer Space Treaty being as fundamental as it is, it guides all of our conversations, not just in Vienna and COPUOS, but also in Geneva, where we have other platforms on space security and the ITU (International Telecommunications Union).
Through COPOUS, states reduce ambiguity through consistent positions, which get recorded into COPOUS reports and move on to UNGA resolutions, which help build a common interpretation over time. Ambiguity gets cleared over time, because there is an entire process within COPUOS that starts with the Science and Technical Subcommittee (STSC), moves to the Legal Subcommittee (LSC), then moves towards the COPUOS plenary, then to the UNGA.
So you might look at the entire chain as something that can take more time, but over time, it has helped filter through a lot of these ambiguous questions that started as ideas or helped shape behaviours. When we talk about non-binding instruments, or legally binding instruments COPOUS has proven to be a pathway where principles can move into guidelines, into best practices, and can then shape national implementations, which helps gradually narrow down the interpretive space. So it takes a while, but this platform continues to deliver.
One more point that I would like to highlight is that much of the ambiguity can sometimes be operational — COPOUS can agree on definitions for terminology and technical definitions, thresholds, and norms.
The first two decades of COPUOS are usually considered the treaty-binding era when all the laws — the five treaties — were created. The next 20 years is sometimes broadly defined as the resolution-making era. From the early 2000s until now, it's been more focused on guidelines— as you have seen with the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, or the Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space. But, throughout the process has also been confidence-building. That has helped standardise notification, information exchanges, and consultation procedures. So, it might look ambiguous, but overall, the strength of COPUOS has been to facilitate clarifying the ambiguities inherent to the OST.
Are there ways to update principles or clarify them to account for current realities not taken into account during treaty drafting via COPUOS?
In practice, yes, that can happen, because, again, COPUOS moves by consensus, so if there are any updates that can always be introduced within COPUOS. If there is an agreement, whether it's an amendment or principle, you can update any of the treaties or existing guidelines. But one also has to be practical in terms of today, of whether that is really possible at the moment. One thing I can highlight in this regard — where COPOUS has moved forward, is the Action Team on Lunar Activities. This started less than 2 years ago as an idea within the working group of the STSC. That graduated into an agreement in COPOUS. Then in January of 2025, ATLAC was formally formed with the election of the co-chairs, so it's already in its second cycle.
When you talk about the commentary approach, it can consolidate interpretive notes on the Outer Space Treaty principles in light of modern operations — like mega-constellations, servicing, lunar activities. This has been a consistent conversation that happens whether we talk about due regard, harmful interference, jurisdiction control, responsibility, or liability.
Each idea is anchored within the OST principles. But it is modernised as per the needs of the time, so we are having new conversations. There's an expert group on space situational awareness, for example.
Until there's a need for a new treaty, how do you harmonise existing principles to lead towards better formulations? Is there a need to create legally binding obligations, or are there ways to utilise mechanisms that currently exist? For example, how do you think about enforceability, and where does that fit into the work that COPUOS is doing?
There's currently no discussion on a legally binding treaty. The moment might not be right for member states to come together. But from a purely national perspective, or from a developing country perspective, I think that is the one mechanism where you can ensure the responsibility of other states. This is why we still have a lot of these core conversations within COPUOS that stem from these legally binding obligations. I would not foreclose future binding instruments, but I also am practical, and recognise that it's not an easy conversation.
In that environment, how do you see ATLAC adapting to those practical realities? Are there concrete challenges that you foresee in lunar governance that the action team is discussing?
Historically, within the COPUOS architecture, the action team is — in a way — the lowest rung. So the action team is the starting point of any conversation and can historically be more flexible. At the moment, we have heard from a lot of member states that highlight challenges when they are thinking about or planning lunar missions. Member states come to ATLAC, and present those challenges. The next step is to focus on where there is common ground and then draft recommendations. We also have expert-driven exchanges to come up with recommendations to facilitate these discussions further.
Within ATLAC, once we have these challenges, we hope to harmonise them, collect them, and then — with the agreement of all member states — move towards identifying specific recommendations. If we've heard a lot of member states talk about the need to have more uniform exchange of information, or more data available regarding planned launches, we can discuss what kind of information can be shared, or standardise the information that can be shared. These kinds of recommendations are one of the things that we are working on eventually.
The first part is to recognise common challenges for everyone. We have until 2027 to present the final report. We are still in the process of collecting these written submissions and presentations.
What happens after 2027? Will ATLAC continue in a different form?
In 2027, once ATLAC submits its final report, one of the recommendations would be a follow-up mechanism. The mandate already mentions the possibility of an international committee or body which will continue the specific work on the challenges highlighted. For now, ATLAC's mandate is specifically on identifying the challenges and developing recommendations which can facilitate the consultations forward.
I’d like to spend the last bit of time discussing your role in the Group of 77 — what is the history of the group, and what role does it play in COPUOS?
The group of 77 is the largest intergovernmental group within the UN and includes all developing countries. When G77 was formed, it consisted of 77 countries, but now it's 134 countries in total. 70 countries — out of the 135 — have their missions in Vienna. I was the coordinator on Outer Space Affairs from January 2023 until February 2025.
Within COPUOS, the Group of 77 has consistently pushed for the collective benefit of developing countries. This allows this big block of countries to work together and establish common positions, which helps get substantive outcomes within COPUOS. One big example with this, of this would be the space law for new space actors.
It's coalition power within the consensus system as well, which facilitates the group to share outcomes through agenda framing. It's also an equity anchor, which keeps development, access, and capacity building at the centre of conversations, so sustainability doesn't become a new barrier to entry. It also ensures that the big principles for the group of 77 — like, non-appropriation, benefit of all countries, and international cooperation — remain central to the conversation, and not just ceremonial language.