In early July 2025, Norway published its eagerly awaited for a new space law, which had recently been introduced in Stortinget (the Norwegian Parliament). With this latest proposal, Norway joins the three other Nordic countries that have adopted or are in the process of adopting new space legislation: Denmark in 2016, Finland in 2018, and Sweden, which is yet to pass a new law; however, it has published a proposal to update its space law in 2021. This new Norwegian space law proposal is based on a 2019 report titled “” (in English, “On the right track”) as well as a r from the Norwegian Government from 2019 on the Norwegian goals in the space industry.
This new proposed space law also marks the beginning of the end of the oldest and perhaps shortest regulation governing space activities worldwide: . This regulation, signed shortly before Norway ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, consisted of three simple articles. Article 1, the main article of the Act, states that it is not permitted, without the authorisation of the “relevant ministry” (“Uten tillatelse fra vedkommende departement” in Norwegian), to launch space objects from Norway, including Svalbard and Jan Mayen, from Norwegian ships or aircraft, or by Norwegian nationals or persons resident in Norway. Article 2 clarifies that the ministry may, among other things, issue regulations to control the sector referred to in the previous article. Article 3 concludes the law by stating that it shall take effect immediately.
The advantages and disadvantages of such a short law are discussed in detail in the new proposal. The primary issue is the perceived lack of information on how to obtain the required permission and what duties a space operator must fulfil once the permission is granted. Furthermore, questions arise, such as which governmental branch is the ‘competent ministry’? The 1969 space regulation does not provide answers to these questions. Nevertheless, the granting of permission to suggests that the law has so far fulfilled its goal of regulating Norwegian space activities. As such, the primary question is the goal of the new space law.
It should be noted, however, that at this stage, the new law is still being considered in the Norwegian Stortinget, and as such, changes might still be made before its final adoption. For example, the Trade and Industry in November. These included, among others, the requirement to clarify the terms “war,” “crisis,” and “extraordinary circumstances,” as well as questions about the phrasing of the liability provisions. Following this, the proposed new space law passed its first reading and has recently undergone its . It is expected to be adopted sometime in 2026, if it passes the .
Overview of the New Act
The new proposal is divided into eight chapters with a total of 29 provisions. The proposal also contains a detailed commentary on each provision as well as feedback from various stakeholders. The goal of the act is threefold. It argues that the “[t]he objective is to facilitate the safe and sustainable use of outer space.” However, there is also a clear view throughout the document that this new act is there to create a more “stable administrative framework for licences,” something the proposal argues that the 1969 Act does not fully achieve. Furthermore, the law is designed to “cover current regulatory needs while also being flexible enough to allow for the development of future space activities” (skal dekke dagens reguleringsbehov og samtidig oppnå såpass smidighet at den åpner for utvikling av fremtidige romaktiviteter in Norweigan). To achieve these goals, inspiration is drawn from several current space laws, primarily focusing on the and space acts, while noting that the is less relevant due to its ongoing revision process. The Norwegian proposal also considers the as an inspiration. This inspiration is evident throughout the law, as many Sections follow similar regulatory ideas and wording to the mentioned frameworks.
Highlights of the Proposed Law
The first Chapter, which sets out the purpose and scope of the new law, contains the same geographical boundaries as the 1969 law. It holds that the geographical scope of the law encompasses the territory of Norway, Svalbard, and Jan Mayen, as well as Norwegian citizens. However, the wording for legal persons has been changed from “person resident in Norway” to “legal person established in Norway” (from “person hjemmehørende i Norge” to “juridisk person etablert i Norge”). This change to the wording of the authorisation requirement for judicial persons is in line with other Nordic space laws. Finland requires authorisation for judicial persons based in Finland, Denmark applies this rule to Danish judicial persons, and Sweden has extended its authorisation requirements to Swedish natural and judicial persons since 1982, even if this is less relevant to the current proposal. In addition to the change in wording for legal entities, the geographical scope of the Norwegian proposal is extended to include its Antarctic areas, with Bouvetøya and the Norwegian dependencies in Antarctica explicitly mentioned. Noting here that Norway has territorial claims over three areas in Antarctica (), which were frozen by the . Again, this extension to include Antarctic dependencies diverges from the 1969 Act and, interestingly enough, from the 2019 report as well.
Chapter 1 also contains a Section on definitions; however, unlike Denmark, it does not address the delimitation of outer space (or "verdensrommet"). This has been discussed in the feedback part of the proposal. For example, the Norwegian Space Centre argued that “the lack of a definition of where outer space begins may give rise to various challenges in light of the expected increase in traffic in the upper airspace, including vehicles that commute between the airspace and outer space.”
Chapter 2 deals with the conditions for authorisation and the transfer of ownership. Particular attention should be paid to Section 6, which contains a list of conditions for authorisation. Although the conditions follow a similar pattern to the newer Nordic laws, for example, by including provisions on environmental aspects, they can be considered vague. For example, 6(b)(3) provides for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be carried out, but does not specify for which environment: space, terrestrial, or both. In addition, Section 6 also contains other vagueness’s, such as 6(a), which stipulates that the “operator has the necessary expertise and sufficient financial resources to carry out the activity in a responsible manner” (“Operatøren har nødvendig kompetanse og tilstrekkelige økonomiske ressurser for å utøveromaktiviteten på en forsvarlig mate” in Norweigan). However, the necessary expertise and sufficient financial resources are not defined within the Act itself, leaving these terms open to interpretation.
A similar ambiguity in the law is found in Chapter 4, Obligations of the operator, Section 11, environmental conditions, which states:
Space activities shall:
a. not cause disproportionate damage to the environment
b. as far as possible, not result in space debris, including fragments, waste and discarded or lost objects from human activities in outer space
c. not unnecessarily or unreasonably hinder or prevent other lawful activities.
The law doesn't explain what it means by “disproportionate damage” or “unnecessary or unreasonable hindrance.” It is also not clear how “as far as possible” should be interpreted.
However, the commentary contained within the proposal document provides some insight into the chosen vagueness. For example, it is argued that the wording in paragraph “a” was selected because all space activities have an impact on the environment. The question of how significant this impact may be should be determined through a cost-benefit analysis. The result of this analysis is flexible enough to be adjusted over time, “with the increase in knowledge and technology.” This may reflect the aim of creating a law that is flexible enough to regulate the presence and the future of space activities in Norway. Similar arguments are also put forward concerning paragraph “b,” pointing out that “[b]ased on current technology, it is not possible to have a total ban on space debris.” Here, too, we see a realistic view of what is currently possible in the industry, while remaining flexible to adapt to the future. Nevertheless, the question remains whether this new law provides the desired legal certainty, as the vague wording is unlikely to achieve that goal.
In contrast to the vagueness found in the previously mentioned provisions, other chapters, such as Chapter 3 on the registration of space objects, represent an improvement over the previous 1969 regulation. Similar to Section 4 of the , Section 6 of the Finnish Act and Chapter 5 of the Danish Act, Section 9 of the Norwegian proposal emphasises the obligation under Article II of the to register its space objects. The Section also lists information the operator must include in the register, including the object's orbits and registration number. Nothing about registration was noted within the 1969 Act.
Similarly, Chapter 5, particularly Section 15, contains liability considerations that were largely absent from the Norwegian Act of 1969. The new proposal clarifies that the operator is liable for all damage caused to aircraft or on the Earth's surface, regardless of fault or negligence, except if the injured party “acted with intent or gross negligence” or when the injured party “was injured while participating in a space activity.” The provision thus largely follows Article II, VI and VII of the . This new proposal, however, deviates from the proposal in “Rett i Bane,” which contained a Section for cases that would not fall under the scenario mentioned in Section 15. The 2019 report argued that in such cases, liability would be determined under Norwegian general law. Even if it may ultimately be best to remove this Section from the proposed law, it remains unclear how compensation between private actors should be regulated if the provisions of domestic space law do not cover them. Chapter 5 also contains the right to redress under Section 16 and the insurance obligation under Section 18.
The remaining chapters address considerations on supervisory provisions in Chapter 6, which appear to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the ; administrative measures and sanctions in Chapter 7; and final provisions in Chapter 8.
Similar to other Nordic space laws, it is perhaps not surprising that there are no specific provisions for the Arctic, except that Jan Mayen and Svalbard have been included within the scope of the law. This is despite specific references to Norwegian interests in the Arctic and Antarctic in the 2019 report, as well as in the main body of the proposal. The report stated that the government aims to “facilitate the sustainable exploitation of Norway's geographical advantages for space activities on mainland Norway, Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Queen Maud Land within the framework of Norwegian foreign, defence and security policy interests.” The text of the background to the proposal contains some specific references to Arctic interests. Nevertheless, the proposal does not consider that the mentioned interests in the Arctic would require separate provisions.
Possible provisions on space mining are also not included, despite Norway signing the in May of this year. Neither does it mention any of the newer space activities, such as space tourism.
Conclusion
Although the author regrets the end of the Norwegian Act of 1969, which she considered clear, concise, and to the point, the argument that greater legal certainty is needed speaks in favour of a new Act. The latest proposal largely achieves its objectives: creating a law that meets today's requirements while also being forward-looking in terms of the space industry's safety and sustainability. It follows a similar structure to other recent Nordic laws but includes some innovative ideas regarding operator requirements. Nevertheless, the question remains whether the ambiguities in certain Sections, some of which have been highlighted in this commentary, could lead to undesirable outcomes as the space sector in Norway continues to grow. Furthermore, the lack of consideration of the legal aspects of space mining may require new legislation in the future should Norway wish to engage in such activities. However, as the issue of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty is still under discussion, it is not entirely surprising that it is not mentioned. For now, it will be interesting to see how the final act will look and if it gets adopted by the Stortinget next year.
Judith S. Jahnke, DCL Candidate at the 51ԹInstitute of Air and Space Law, Editor of the Annals of Air and Space Law.
In keeping with 51Թ’s commitment to academic freedom, the Institute of Air and Space Law supports the free expression of ideas in its publications. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official positions or views of the Institute of Air and Space Law, the Faculty of Law, or 51Թ. Furthermore, authors represent only themselves; they do not represent their countries of nationality nor any organizations with which they may be affiliated.