About the Manfred Lachs Moot
The Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition is the world’s most prestigious space law competition, organised by the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) since 1992. Named after Judge Manfred Lachs, the distinguished Polish jurist who served on the International Court of Justice and was a pioneer of space law, the competition challenges law students to argue cutting-edge disputes arising from humanity’s activities in outer space before a simulated ICJ bench.
What makes the Lachs Moot uniquely compelling is the extraordinary distinction of its final bench: the World Finals are judged by sitting or former judges of the International Court of Justice. No other moot court competition offers its finalists the experience of arguing before actual ICJ judges, making it one of the most prestigious advocacy experiences available to any law student worldwide.
The competition operates through regional rounds — Asia-Pacific, European, North American, and African — with regional winners advancing to the World Finals held at the International Astronautical Congress (IAC), the world’s premier gathering of space professionals. Problems engage with the most challenging issues in contemporary space law: satellite collisions and debris, commercial space mining, military uses of space, space tourism liability, mega-constellation regulation, and the governance of activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
What Sets the Lachs Moot Apart
ICJ Judges as Finals Bench
The only moot where World Finals are judged by actual sitting or former ICJ judges — an unparalleled advocacy experience and professional credential.
Space Law Frontier
Problems address legal issues that no court has yet decided — satellite collisions, space resource extraction, orbital debris liability — requiring creative application of existing law to novel facts.
IAC World Finals
Finals held at the International Astronautical Congress, placing you among the world’s space scientists, engineers, agency heads, and industry leaders.
Emerging Field
Space law is one of the fastest-growing areas of international law, driven by commercial space expansion, and the Lachs Moot is the primary gateway to this career path.
Competition Structure
Teams & Eligibility
Teams consist of two to four members from any university worldwide. Two oralists argue each round, with teams preparing written memorials for both Applicant and Respondent. Students may compete multiple years if still enrolled. Many universities maintain Lachs Moot teams that train junior members alongside experienced competitors.
The Problem (Compromis)
The IISL releases an annual compromis simulating a dispute between fictional states before the ICJ. Issues involve the application of space treaties, customary international law, and general principles to factual scenarios drawn from real-world space developments. Problems are written by leading space law academics and practitioners, often reflecting controversies currently under discussion at the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS).
Regional Rounds
The competition features four regional rounds: Asia-Pacific (the largest, typically in a different Asian city each year), European (held at various European institutions), North American, and African. Regional rounds are independently organised but follow common rules. Top finishers from each region qualify for the World Finals. Each regional round has its own memorial and oralist awards.
World Finals
The World Finals take place at the IAC during its annual congress (held in a different city each year). Semi-finalists and finalists argue before a bench of three sitting or former ICJ judges. The atmosphere is electrifying — arguments about satellite collisions and lunar mining delivered to the world’s highest judicial authority. Awards include the Manfred Lachs Trophy, Best Memorial, and Best Oralist.
Legal Frameworks & Subject Matter
The corpus juris spatialis consists of five treaties negotiated under COPUOS:
- Outer Space Treaty (1967): The “constitution” of space law. Key provisions: freedom of exploration and use (Art. I), non-appropriation (Art. II), activities in accordance with international law (Art. III), state responsibility for national activities (Art. VI), liability for damage (Art. VII), jurisdiction and control over objects (Art. VIII), consultation and mutual assistance (Art. IX), international cooperation (Art. XI).
- Rescue Agreement (1968): Elaborates Art. V OST. Obligations to rescue astronauts, return space objects. The definition of “astronauts as envoys of mankind” and its implications for non-governmental space travellers.
- Liability Convention (1972): Elaborates Art. VII OST. Absolute liability for damage on Earth or to aircraft in flight (Art. II); fault-based liability for damage in space (Art. III). Claims Commission procedure (Art. XIV–XX). The only treaty invoked in a real claim: Cosmos 954 (1978).
- Registration Convention (1975): Elaborates Art. VIII OST. Obligation to register space objects, national registry and UN registry. Jurisdiction and control follow registration. Issues with in-orbit transfers and mega-constellations.
- Moon Agreement (1979): Extends OST principles to the Moon and celestial bodies. The “common heritage of mankind” principle (Art. 11). Extremely limited ratification — only 18 parties, no major space-faring nation. Its legal significance remains debated.
- Declaration of Legal Principles (1963): Predecessor to the OST, adopted by UNGA Res. 1962 (XVIII). Often cited as evidence of customary law.
- Broadcasting Principles (1982): Direct television broadcasting by satellite. Contentious — some states view as aspirational, others as binding.
- Remote Sensing Principles (1986): Earth observation from space. “Sensed state” access to data concerning its territory.
- Nuclear Power Source Principles (1992): Safety framework for nuclear-powered space objects.
- Space Benefits Declaration (1996): International cooperation, particularly for developing countries.
- Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (2007): Non-binding but increasingly treated as establishing due diligence standards. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) guidelines supplement these.
- Long-term Sustainability Guidelines (2019): 21 guidelines adopted by COPUOS on the long-term sustainability of outer space activities.
- Debris as a legal problem: Over 36,000 tracked debris objects, millions more untracked. Kessler Syndrome risk. No binding treaty specifically addresses debris, creating a major legal gap.
- Liability for debris damage: Liability Convention Art. II (absolute liability on Earth), Art. III (fault in space). Proving causation (identifying the debris source) and establishing fault for in-space collisions are major analytical challenges.
- Active debris removal (ADR): Legal issues: jurisdiction over another state’s debris, non-interference principles, dual-use concerns (ADR technology as potential ASAT capability).
- Due diligence: The evolving standard — do debris mitigation guidelines constitute a due diligence obligation? Arguments from ICJ environmental law jurisprudence (Pulp Mills, Certain Activities in the Border Area) applied by analogy.
- OST Art. IX: Obligation to conduct activities with due regard to corresponding interests of other states. Consultation obligation for potentially harmful activities. The space equivalent of the no-harm principle.
- OST Art. II (non-appropriation): “Outer space… is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” Does this prohibit extraction of resources, or only territorial claims?
- National legislation: US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (2015), Luxembourg Space Resources Law (2017), UAE Space Law (2020), Japan Space Resources Act (2021). These assert the right of nationals to own extracted resources — controversial under Art. II.
- The Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group: Building Blocks for the Development of an International Framework (2019) — a significant soft law contribution.
- The Artemis Accords (2020): US-led bilateral framework for lunar cooperation. Safety zones, resource extraction, heritage site protection. Not a treaty under international law but an increasingly influential framework.
- Moon Agreement Art. 11: Resources as “common heritage of mankind” — requiring an international regime. Minimal ratification weakens its authority, but it remains part of the legal landscape.
- OST Art. IV: Nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction prohibited on celestial bodies and in orbit. The Moon and celestial bodies used exclusively for peaceful purposes. But: no prohibition on conventional weapons in orbit or military use of space more generally.
- Anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons: No specific treaty prohibition. UNGA resolutions calling for restraint. The 2022 US commitment not to conduct destructive direct-ascent ASAT tests. The debris implications of ASAT testing.
- “Peaceful purposes” debate: Does “peaceful” mean “non-military” or “non-aggressive”? The prevailing interpretation permits non-aggressive military uses (reconnaissance satellites, GPS, communications).
- Self-defence in space: UN Charter Art. 51 applies (OST Art. III). But the application of jus ad bellum and jus in bello to space operations raises novel questions about proportionality, distinction, and precaution.
- Transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBMs): UNGA Resolution 65/68, GGE reports on space TCBMs. The proposed PPWT (Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space Treaty) — Sino-Russian draft, Western objections.
- Registration and jurisdiction: Registration Convention/OST Art. VIII establish that the state of registry retains jurisdiction and control. Complexities arise with multi-state ventures (ISS model), in-orbit transfers, and commercial constellations registered in flags-of-convenience states.
- State responsibility for private actors: OST Art. VI — states bear international responsibility for national activities, whether by governmental or non-governmental entities. The “authorisation and continuing supervision” obligation. How does this apply to private space companies (SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab)?
- Liability regime: Liability Convention claims process (diplomatic channels, Claims Commission). The inadequacy of the regime for modern multi-party scenarios. The Cosmos 954 precedent.
- ICJ jurisdiction: The compromis assumes ICJ jurisdiction by special agreement. In reality, no space dispute has reached the ICJ. The hypothetical application of ICJ procedures to space cases is a core analytical exercise.
Research Strategy
The Space Law Research Challenge
Space law research differs fundamentally from other fields because there is virtually no judicial precedent. No international court has decided a space law case. The Cosmos 954 claim (Canada v. USSR, 1978) was settled diplomatically, not adjudicated. This means your arguments must be built primarily from treaty text, UNGA principles, state practice, scholarly commentary, and reasoning by analogy from general international law. The absence of precedent is both the challenge and the intellectual excitement of the Lachs Moot — you are arguing issues of first impression before the world’s highest court.
Primary Sources
UN Space Treaties (full text on UNOOSA website). COPUOS documents — Legal Subcommittee reports, working group papers, national submissions. These reveal state practice and opinio juris on emerging issues. UNGA Resolutions on space — both the five sets of principles and annual resolutions on specific topics. National space legislation (compiled in UNOOSA database) — evidence of state practice on commercial activities, liability, registration.
Secondary Sources
Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL): The definitive article-by-article commentary on the space treaties. Essential reference. Manual on International Law Applicable to Military Uses of Outer Space (MILAMOS) and Woomera Manual — for military use questions. Journal of Space Law, Air & Space Law, Proceedings of the IISL — the leading space law journals. The annual IISL Proceedings (published in the Proceedings of the International Institute of Space Law) contain papers by the field’s leading scholars.
Analogical Reasoning from General International Law
Because space law has so little precedent, analogical reasoning from general international law is essential. Maritime law analogies (freedom of the high seas ↔ freedom of outer space; deep seabed mining ↔ space resource extraction; UNCLOS Part XI ↔ Moon Agreement Art. 11) are frequently deployed. Environmental law principles (no-harm, due diligence, precautionary principle) apply by analogy through OST Art. III. ICJ jurisprudence on state responsibility, attribution, and dispute settlement provides the procedural and substantive framework for space disputes.
Memorial Drafting Guide
Writing for the Frontier
Lachs Moot memorials address issues that courts have never decided. This requires a distinctive approach: you must build arguments from first principles, using treaty interpretation (VCLT Art. 31–32), state practice, soft law, scholarly authority, and analogical reasoning. Your memorial must persuade the Court that your interpretation of the law is not only correct but also workable, fair, and consistent with the objectives of the space law regime.
Treaty Interpretation as the Core Skill
Most Lachs Moot arguments turn on the interpretation of space treaty provisions. Master the VCLT framework: Art. 31(1) — ordinary meaning in context and in light of object and purpose; Art. 31(2) — preamble, annexes, related agreements; Art. 31(3) — subsequent agreements, subsequent practice, relevant rules of international law (systemic integration); Art. 32 — supplementary means (travaux préparatoires, circumstances of conclusion). The travaux of the Outer Space Treaty are available in COPUOS records and are frequently decisive.
Structure for Novel Legal Issues
When addressing issues with no precedent, structure your argument: (1) identify the applicable treaty provision and its interpretive context; (2) survey state practice and opinio juris (national legislation, COPUOS statements, UNGA voting records); (3) apply relevant soft law principles and guidelines; (4) reason by analogy from established international law; (5) invoke policy considerations (sustainability, equity, technological development) that support your interpretation. This layered approach demonstrates that your position, while novel, is firmly grounded in legal method.
Key Memorial Traps to Avoid
Common errors that cost marks in the Lachs Moot:
- ✦ Treating the Moon Agreement as universally binding without addressing its ratification status.
- ✦ Conflating non-appropriation (Art. II OST) with non-use — the treaty permits use of outer space; it restricts sovereignty claims.
- ✦ Ignoring the Liability Convention’s dual regime (absolute vs. fault-based) and applying the wrong standard.
- ✦ Over-relying on domestic space legislation as evidence of customary international law without addressing the persistent objector doctrine or the limited number of space-faring states.
- ✦ Failing to address OST Art. VI (state responsibility for private actors) when the problem involves commercial entities.
Oral Advocacy Masterclass
Arguing Before ICJ Judges
The World Finals bench consists of sitting or former ICJ judges — jurists of the highest international standing. This demands the most formal advocacy register in any moot court competition. Address the bench as “Mr/Madam President, Members of the Court.” Maintain the demeanour of state counsel before the ICJ: respectful, authoritative, precise. These judges have decades of experience with international law advocacy — they will immediately notice and appreciate genuine command of the material.
Managing Novelty in Oral Argument
ICJ judges will probe your position with hypotheticals designed to test the boundaries of your interpretation. “If your reading of Article II is correct, what prevents a state from claiming an entire asteroid?” “Under your liability framework, who bears the cost of a cascade event affecting dozens of satellites?” Prepare for these boundary cases. The best approach: acknowledge the novelty, ground your response in treaty text and principle, and explain why your interpretation produces workable outcomes. Never bluff about non-existent precedent — these judges will know.
Technical Fluency
Space law arguments require basic technical literacy. Understand orbital mechanics (LEO, MEO, GEO, the concept of orbital slots), the physics of space debris (relative velocity, cascade risk), how satellite registration works, the technical aspects of resource extraction on the Moon or asteroids, and the basic operation of remote sensing systems. Judges may ask technical questions to test whether your legal arguments make physical sense. “You argue that the Respondent could have avoided the collision — at what orbital altitude did this occur, and was avoidance manoeuvre feasible?”
Time Discipline
With strict time limits (typically 20–25 minutes per team), allocate time ruthlessly. Prioritise your two strongest arguments and prepare to sacrifice weaker points if judicial questioning consumes time. Always reserve 2 minutes for a strong conclusion. In the World Finals before ICJ judges, ending mid-sentence because time expired is a significant failure of advocacy.
Advanced Winning Strategies
Strategy 1: Master Treaty Interpretation
In the absence of judicial precedent, treaty interpretation is the primary analytical tool. Develop deep expertise in the VCLT framework and its application to space treaty provisions. Every major argument in the Lachs Moot can be framed as a treaty interpretation question. The team that most persuasively interprets the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention — using text, context, object and purpose, subsequent practice, and travaux — wins the interpretive battle and usually the round.
Strategy 2: Build the Custom Argument Carefully
Customary international law arguments are common in the Lachs Moot but difficult to execute well. Identifying sufficient state practice among the small number of space-faring nations is challenging. Build your custom argument with precision: identify specific examples of state practice (legislation, diplomatic statements, COPUOS positions), demonstrate their generality and consistency, and separately establish opinio juris. The ILC Conclusions on Identification of CIL (2018) provide the authoritative methodology.
Strategy 3: Analogical Reasoning Excellence
The best Lachs Moot teams excel at reasoning by analogy. Identify the closest parallel regime (law of the sea for maritime space analogies, environmental law for debris/sustainability issues, Antarctic Treaty System for governance of commons) and explain the analogy clearly: “The regime applicable to deep seabed mining under UNCLOS Part XI provides an instructive parallel for space resource extraction, because both address resource exploitation in areas beyond national jurisdiction where the common heritage principle has been invoked.” Then address the disanalogies before your opponent does.
Strategy 4: Policy-Forward Arguments
Space law is a field where policy considerations carry unusual weight because the law is still developing. Arguments about sustainability, equitable access, technological development, and the long-term habitability of the space environment resonate with judges who understand that today’s legal interpretations will shape the space governance regime for decades. Frame your legal arguments within a policy narrative: “The interpretation we propose not only follows from the text and object of the Treaty, but also serves the fundamental objective of ensuring outer space remains accessible for the benefit of all states.”
Strategy 5: Know Your Judges
At the World Finals, the bench consists of named ICJ judges. Research their separate and dissenting opinions, their academic publications, and their positions on interpretive methodology. An ICJ judge known for textualism will respond differently to an object-and-purpose argument than one known for teleological interpretation. This is not manipulation — it is the basic advocacy skill of knowing your audience and framing your arguments accordingly.
Preparation Roadmap
Phase 1: Foundations (Weeks 1–7)
Weeks 1–3: Space Law Fundamentals
Read all five UN space treaties. Study the Cologne Commentary on the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention. Read foundational texts: Lyall & Larsen’s Space Law, von der Dunk’s Handbook of Space Law.
Weeks 4–5: General PIL Framework
Review treaty interpretation (VCLT), state responsibility (ILC Articles), customary international law identification (ILC Conclusions), and ICJ procedure. These underpin every space law argument.
Weeks 6–7: Problem Analysis & Deep Research
Comprehensive analysis of the compromis. Map issues to applicable law. Begin COPUOS document research. Identify relevant national legislation and UNGA resolutions.
Phase 2: Memorial Drafting (Weeks 8–14)
Weeks 8–10: First Drafts
Write Applicant and Respondent memorials. Focus on treaty interpretation arguments, custom claims, and analogical reasoning. Build layered authority for each point.
Weeks 11–12: Revision & Expert Review
Seek feedback from space law academics or practitioners if possible. Refine arguments, strengthen citation, address counterpoints. Check technical accuracy of space-related facts.
Weeks 13–14: Final Polish & Submission
Proofread, check citation format, verify compliance with word limits and formatting rules. Submit early to avoid deadline stress.
Phase 3: Oral Preparation (Weeks 15–20)
Weeks 15–17: Oral Outlines & Practice
Convert memorials to oral presentations. Run mock rounds with challenging judicial questions. Practice handling technical questions about orbital mechanics and space operations.
Weeks 18–20: Competition Readiness
Intensive practice mimicking regional/finals conditions. If advancing to World Finals, research the ICJ judges on the bench. Polish closing statements and prepare contingency arguments.
Recommended Resources
Core Treaties & Instruments
Outer Space Treaty (1967), Rescue Agreement (1968), Liability Convention (1972), Registration Convention (1975), Moon Agreement (1979), all on UNOOSA website.
Essential Texts
Cologne Commentary on Space Law (CoCoSL); Lyall & Larsen — Space Law; von der Dunk — Handbook of Space Law; Hobe, Schmidt-Tedd & Schrogl — Cologne Commentary.
Databases
UNOOSA (unoosa.org) — treaties, national legislation, COPUOS documents. ESA Space Debris Office. IISL website. NASA Orbital Debris Program Office.
Journals
Journal of Space Law, Air & Space Law (Kluwer), IISL Proceedings, Space Policy, German Journal of Air and Space Law, Annals of Air and Space Law.
Military Space Law
MILAMOS Project (McGill), Woomera Manual, Tallinn Manual (cyber/space overlap), the PPWT draft treaty text, UN GGE reports on space TCBMs.
Industry & Policy
SpaceNews, The Space Review, Secure World Foundation publications, Hague Space Resources Governance Working Group, Artemis Accords text.
Career Impact
The Lachs Moot is the undisputed gateway to a career in space law — one of the most dynamic and rapidly expanding fields in international law. The combination of ICJ judges on the finals bench, the IAC setting, and the IISL network creates professional connections that are genuinely unique in the legal profession.
Space Agencies
Legal departments at NASA, ESA, JAXA, ISRO, CNES, DLR, and national space agencies recruit space law specialists. The Lachs Moot is the primary credential they look for.
International Organisations
UNOOSA (UN Office for Outer Space Affairs), ITU (International Telecommunication Union), COPUOS delegations. Space law expertise is rare and highly valued.
Commercial Space Industry
SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, OneWeb, Planet Labs, Astroscale — the commercial space industry needs lawyers who understand the regulatory and liability framework. A booming and well-compensated practice area.
Law Firms
Firms with aerospace practices (Hogan Lovells, DLA Piper, Bird & Bird, BryceTech) recruit from the Lachs Moot. Space law is a growing niche within larger international law practices.
Academia
LLM/PhD programmes at McGill (Air & Space Law), Leiden, Cologne, Adelaide, and Nebraska. Academic positions in space law are growing as universities establish dedicated programmes.
Defence & Security
Military space law advisers, space operations legal counsel for armed forces, NATO Space Centre. The legal dimensions of space security are an increasingly important specialty.
Frequently Asked Questions
Final Word
Ad Astra Per Legem — To the Stars Through Law
The Outer Space Treaty opens with a vision: the exploration and use of outer space “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries… and shall be the province of all mankind.” This is more than aspirational language — it is a legal commitment that shapes every argument you will make in the Manfred Lachs Moot.
Space law stands at a pivotal moment. Commercial space activities are expanding at unprecedented speed. Mega-constellations are transforming the orbital environment. Nations are planning permanent lunar bases and asteroid mining operations. Military space capabilities are proliferating. The legal framework negotiated in the 1960s and 1970s must now be interpreted and applied to realities its drafters could barely imagine.
The Manfred Lachs Moot prepares you to be part of this defining moment in international law. The advocacy skills, doctrinal expertise, and professional network you develop here will equip you for a career at the frontier of legal practice — literally and figuratively. Whether you end up advising a space agency, representing a commercial launch provider, negotiating at COPUOS, or clerking at the ICJ, the foundation you build in this competition will serve you for a lifetime. Aim high — the final frontier needs its lawyers.