From Sea to C: A Covenant for Space Security
If orbit isn’t an ocean, what rules should guide it? The answer may lie in a new covenant of C's to navigate its perils.
Nova at the edge of the Atlantic. Freedom and peril in the same wave.
I live most of my life far from the ocean.
But in the summers my family often travels to Nova Scotia to spend time at the edge of the sea. My dog, Nova, in particular, loves it—jumping through the waves and swimming out as far as she dares, reminding me that the ocean is vast, open, and unpredictable, tamed only to some extent by centuries of law and custom.
Space is often described the same way: a cosmic sea, free for navigation, shared by all, beyond the borders of nations, and in need of rule. It’s a metaphor that feels natural, even reassuring.
This is where I was, listening to the second session of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) via UN Radio, when a Russian quip caught my ear: “there is no c in space.” I chuckled, thinking it was a translation issue, because obviously there is a “c” in space. Then I realized he meant “sea.”
“International maritime law doesn’t apply to outer space because there is no sea in space.”
The room laughed, but the point was serious. Russia was making a broader argument: not all terrestrial law applies in space. Just as maritime law is irrelevant without a sea, they argued, so too is international humanitarian law in orbit because, as they put it, “in outer space, there is no armed conflict.”
The quip works because it’s true: orbit isn’t an ocean. But as an analogy, it risks blinding us to what really matters. If we wait until conflict erupts to decide which rules apply, it will already be too late.
And yet maybe Russia is right: maybe we don’t need the “sea” in space, with its history of naval dominance, colonial expansion, and environmental degradation. Maybe what space needs is not the sea at all, but a covenant of C’s: a set of shared responsibilities to prevent harm and keep orbit safe.
The C’s of Space Security
The Outer Space Treaty is the foundation of space governance: a set of principles rooted in peaceful use, due regard, responsibility, and restraint. But principles alone don’t guide behaviour in the moment. The “C’s” offer one way forward: Care, Communication, Consent, Constraints, and Clarity.
They’re not abstract ideals. The C’s grow directly out of the Outer Space Treaty and the debates now unfolding in the OEWG, and they echo the direction of my own work: moving away from narrow notions of security rooted in weapons and deterrence, toward frameworks that foreground human well-being, vulnerability, and shared responsibility.
Silence in space is deadly.
Care, not as sentiment but as responsibility to others.
Article IX calls on states to avoid “harmful contamination” and to show “due regard” for others.
Care means testing responsibly, minimizing debris, and protecting the civilian services that depend on satellites. It isn’t softness; it’s foresight and discipline, grounded in the recognition that harm in orbit cascades quickly.
Communication, not as chatter but as crisis prevention.
The OST envisions consultation when activities might cause interference.
Communication makes this routine rather than exceptional: pre-launch notifications, points of contact, and clear explanations of unusual maneuvers can prevent suspicion from hardening into crisis. In space, silence is dangerous.
Consent, not as deference but as discipline.
Article VI makes states internationally responsible for their activities, including those of commercial actors.
That responsibility means risky proximity operations or interference should not proceed without notice or agreement. Consent makes “due regard” real by ensuring actions aren’t imposed unilaterally.
Constraints, not as limitation but as the line between use and abuse.
Article IV bans nuclear weapons in orbit and military activities on celestial bodies, reflecting a shared understanding that some capabilities are too destabilizing to tolerate.
The same spirit of restraint must extend to today’s high-risk practices: destructive anti-satellite tests, or co-orbital, electronic, and cyber tools that can disable satellites. These may not be nuclear weapons, but their consequences can be just as dangerous.
Constraints draw the line between use and abuse.
Clarity, not as transparency for its own sake but as visibility to prevent escalation and underpin accountability.
Articles VI and VII establish liability for damage, but accountability depends on knowing who did what.
Shared situational awareness and common definitions make it harder to misinterpret accidents as attacks. Clarity shrinks the space for ambiguity to be weaponized.
A Covenant of C’s
The C’s aren’t a substitute for treaties, nor a way to dodge the hard legal work ahead. They are a covenant of C’s: practical commitments rooted in the Outer Space Treaty that states can take up now, while keeping the door open for future binding rules. This matters because the OEWG has been stalled between camps: some demanding new treaties on weapons, others insisting on voluntary norms of behaviour. A covenant of C’s offers a way to link the two. By grounding restraint and responsibility in day-to-day practice, states can reduce risks in the near term while building the habits, trust, and verification experience needed for eventual legal agreements.
This approach also helps to transform the language of “responsible behaviour,” which has become a fault line at the OEWG, with some states rejecting it as vague or politicized. A covenant of C’s rooted in shared responsibilities offers an alternative.
Not the sea, but the C’s.
It keeps the focus on practice, not judgment. Instead, it emphasizes what each state already owes to the stability of orbit: duties of care, communication, consent, restraint, and clarity. These aren’t Western norms; they are responsibilities already implied by the Outer Space Treaty. Framed this way, conduct becomes less about abstract labels and more about the concrete task of keeping satellites working for everyone who depends on them.
From Sea to Shining C
Maybe there is no sea in space. But just as oceans became safer once we accepted that freedom required rules, orbit too will only stay open if we build in the right guardrails. That doesn’t mean copying maritime law wholesale; space is different, more fragile, more entangled with life on Earth. It means agreeing on the basics: Care to minimize harm, Communication when intentions could be misread, Consent before pushing too close, Constraints on the most damaging activities, and Clarity so operators know what to expect. These aren’t soft ideals; they are the hard disciplines that keep a fragile environment working when billions of people depend on it.
When I watch my dog plunge into the Atlantic, I’m reminded of both the freedom and the peril of the sea. Russia was right: there is no sea in space. But there can be C’s — shared responsibilities to help mitigate the perils of orbit. Without them, space risks becoming far more dangerous than any ocean.
Russia was right: there is no sea in space. But there can be C’s.