Astro-Securitization: When Security Logic Ascends to Outer Space

The twenty-first century is characterized by the incessant aspiration of states to enhance influence and accumulate prowess in the military, political, economic, and technological spheres. It is intrinsically linked with the exploration of outer space for strategic purposes, to fulfill the national security objectives of states. Being an essential medium of power and progress, space faring as well as non-space faring nations comprehend the strategic importance of space. As a result, the use of space for multiple conflicting pretensions has ramifications for the global and regional security environment. As far as the securitization of outer space is concerned, the security dimension of space can be rooted in the Cold War era, which has now surfaced to prominence in the present era. Globally, the space policy of various states is progressively susceptible to the dynamics of securitization due to certain security developments, like the outer space nexus by policy elites. Additionally, framing access to outer space is now regarded indispensable for military, environmental, and economic security state dimensions, buttressing the link between outer space and security imperatives of states.

The space domain is constantly transforming into a contested and congested domain driven by the rapid development of military space capabilities and growing state focus on the strategic significance of outer space. Astro-securitization has turned the cosmos into a chessboard of power, but one who holds the winning move remains an enigma.

The twenty-first century is characterized by the incessant aspiration of states to enhance influence and accumulate prowess in the military, political, economic, and technological spheres. It is intrinsically linked with the exploration of outer space for strategic purposes, to fulfill the national security objectives of states. Being an essential medium of power and progress, space faring as well as non-space faring nations comprehend the strategic importance of space. As a result, the use of space for multiple conflicting pretensions has ramifications for the global and regional security environment. As far as the securitization of outer space is concerned, the security dimension of space can be rooted in the Cold War era, which has now surfaced to prominence in the present era. Globally, the space policy of various states is progressively susceptible to the dynamics of securitization due to certain security developments, like the outer space nexus by policy elites. Additionally, framing access to outer space is now regarded indispensable for military, environmental, and economic security state dimensions, buttressing the link between outer space and security imperatives of states.

Securitization: The Space Power Nexus

In security studies, the Copenhagen School landmark contribution is the theory of securitization developed by the imminent scholars Ole Waever, Barry Buzan, Jaap de Wilde and other related researchers. Formerly espoused by the Ole Waever, securitization provides a novel perspective on the onerous discourse on “threats to security” by interlinking speech with security, therefore disregarding security as either subjective or objective in nature. For the securitization of an issue, the determination of existential threats, exceptional countermeasures, and justification of rule-breaking behavior are considered the three prerequisites. For the social construction of something as a threat, speech acts of securitization should have a particular rhetorical structure, extrapolated from historical connotation of defense, threat, urgency, survival and war. In crux, the categorization of politicized and non-politicized issues as part of “security” metamorphoses that issue into a critical security concern that must be addressed with exigency.

Besides securitization, the theory of space power is another significant theoretical framework. Primarily influenced by Collin S. Grey, space power theory explicates the way space brings about the strategic effectiveness for winning, influencing, and deterring conflict. Grey particularly focuses on space control which implies freedom of action in the fourth domain of warfare-space, as well as its denial to adversaries. Concomitantly, the pursuit of space power by key space faring nations fully resonates with the securitization of outer space as states deem it crucial for gaining a strategic advantage over the adversary.

Conceptualizing Astro-Securitization

The nexus of space power and securitization as can be viewed as “astro-securitization,” which can be defined as the process through which outer space is framed as a domain of strategic competition and existential vulnerability which legitimizes exceptional measures to seek, as well as consolidate, space power. The referent object remains the “state” which protects from space-based and space-related threats, whereas government and political leaders act as securitizing actors. Inevitably, it brings a “normative shift” of outer space from the “global commons” to a “contested domain or “fourth domain of warfare,” leading to the “spatialization of power,” rendering cislunar spaces and orbital regimes as strategic terrain. The “multi-vector” nature of astro-securitization can make it either extra-terrestrial—with focus on quest for resources or positional advantage in outer space, or orbital-terrestrial—proclivity to further terrestrial operations through space-based assets.

Astro-Securitization in Action

The inclination of major powers towards space warfighting capabilities is evident from various institutional developments. Key examples include development of China’s Strategic Support Force (SSF) in 2015, which was dissolved and reorganized as People’s Liberation Army Aerospace Force (ASF) in 2024, Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) in 2015, US Space Force (USSF) in 2019, and Japan’s Space Operations Squadron in 2020. Their space security policies and strategies alongside ever-enhancing development of space military capabilities imply astro-securitization by these actors. In addition, key official state documents integrate outer space into the core security agenda. For instance, US Space Force Doctrine Document 1 (SFDD-1) renders space as warfighting domain, China 2022 white paper frames space as integral for technological sovereignty and national security, and Law of the Russian Federation On space activities N 5663-1 enshrines technical, scientific, and military utility of outer space for Russia.

The use of space technologies for target identification, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), and navigation for armed force is rapidly making it more securitized domain. In turn, space has emerged as an arena of potential conflict, and the condition seems to aggravate further due to the ineffectiveness of current treaties and laws of outer space. The ever-accelerating reliance on orbital navigation, communication, and security systems has made astro-securitization inevitable. The democratization of lethal weapon systems such as anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons coupled with the development of ground-based lasers, cyber hacking, and small kamikaze satellites are enhancing threats for space-based systems. The formation, testing, as well as deployment of dual-use satellites, coupled with counter space weapons to enhance military prowess, are other key indicators of astro-securitization.

The space domain is constantly transforming into a contested and congested domain driven by the rapid development of military space capabilities and growing state focus on the strategic significance of outer space. Astro-securitization has turned the cosmos into a chessboard of power, but one who holds the winning move remains an enigma.