Asteria Advisory is pleased to announce its participation in Corporate Jet Investor Malta 2026, taking place on 9–10 June 2026 at the Westin Dragonara Resort in Malta.

The event brings together key stakeholders from across the international business aviation industry, including aircraft owners, operators, financiers, legal professionals, tax advisers, manufacturers, brokers, and service providers. It has established itself as an important forum for discussing market developments, regulatory trends, investment opportunities, and the future of business aviation.

As part of Asteria Advisory’s continued commitment to the aviation sector, attendance at Corporate Jet Investor Malta provides an opportunity to engage with industry leaders, exchange insights, and strengthen relationships within the global aviation community.

Business aviation continues to evolve rapidly, driven by developments in sustainability, financing structures, operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, and emerging technologies. Events such as Corporate Jet Investor Malta provide a valuable platform for exploring these developments and understanding how they may shape the future of aircraft ownership and operation.

Asteria Advisory’s aviation practice focuses on aircraft registration, ownership structures, aviation-related corporate services, regulatory advisory work, and support for aircraft transactions. Participation in industry events forms an important part of maintaining awareness of market developments and ensuring that clients benefit from current industry knowledge.

We look forward to meeting colleagues, clients, and fellow professionals from across the business aviation sector in Malta this June. Anyone attending is welcome to reach out and plan a meeting during or around the event.

Can Soft Law Save the Space Environment?

The rapid expansion of space activities is transforming outer space from a relatively accessible frontier into an increasingly congested operational environment. What was once dominated by two superpowers during the Cold War era is now occupied by numerous States, private operators, mega-constellations, scientific missions and commercial ventures. This growth has brought an unavoidable consequence: space debris. Sustainability in outer space governs this issue and wider emerging issues.

From defunct satellites and fragments from explosions or collisions, to abandoned rocket bodies and microscopic debris travelling at extraordinary speeds, orbital congestion has become one of the defining legal and operational challenges of modern space governance.

At the same time, missions venturing deeper into the solar system raise concerns regarding planetary protection and contamination of celestial bodies.

The legal question is therefore no longer whether sustainability matters in space activities, but whether the current international legal framework is capable of addressing these risks effectively.

The Outer Space Treaty: Broad Principles, Limited Specificity

The cornerstone of international space law remains the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), often described as the “Magna Carta” of space law.

Although the Treaty was adopted at a time when space activity was limited, several of its provisions remain highly relevant to sustainability and debris mitigation.

Article I: Space for the Benefit of All

Article I guarantees the freedom of exploration and use of outer space for all States. However, this freedom is not absolute.

The Treaty frames outer space as the “province of all mankind”, implying that activities should be conducted in a manner that preserves access and usability for present and future generations.

This principle increasingly supports sustainability-oriented interpretations of the Treaty.

Article VI: Responsibility and Supervision

Article VI establishes that States bear international responsibility for national space activities, including those conducted by private entities.

This provision has become especially significant in the modern era of commercial space operations.

States are required to authorise and continuously supervise activities carried out under their jurisdiction. In practice, this enables debris mitigation measures to be incorporated into national licensing and regulatory systems.

Article VII and the Liability Convention

The liability framework established by Article VII OST and the Liability Convention creates indirect incentives for responsible conduct.

Launching States may incur liability for damage caused by their space objects. Although these provisions do not specifically prohibit debris creation, they reinforce the need for careful operational behaviour.

Article IX: Due Regard and Harmful Contamination

Perhaps the most important sustainability-related provision is Article IX OST.

States must conduct activities with “due regard” to the interests of other States and avoid harmful contamination of outer space and celestial bodies.

The provision also introduces consultation obligations where planned activities may create risks of harmful interference.

Although Article IX does not expressly regulate space debris, it increasingly serves as the legal foundation for sustainability discussions in international space governance.

The Limits of Hard Law in Space Governance

Despite the growing urgency of debris mitigation, the adoption of new binding treaty rules has proven politically difficult.

Space activities now involve a broad range of actors with divergent geopolitical, commercial and strategic interests. Achieving consensus on binding obligations has therefore become increasingly challenging. This has created a governance gap.

The existing treaties establish broad principles, but do not provide detailed operational standards for debris mitigation, remediation or space traffic management. As a result, international governance has increasingly relied on “soft law”.

Why Soft Law Has Become Central

Soft law instruments are non-binding frameworks, guidelines and standards that encourage coordinated behaviour without creating formal treaty obligations.

In the space sector, soft law has proven particularly attractive because of its flexibility.

Unlike treaties, soft law can evolve quickly alongside technological developments and industry practice.

Examples include:

• The IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines;
• The UNCOPUOS Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines;
• The UNCOPUOS Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities.

These instruments have become increasingly influential despite lacking binding force.

The Long-Term Sustainability (LTS) Guidelines

The 2019 UNCOPUOS Long-Term Sustainability (LTS) Guidelines represent one of the most important modern developments in international space governance.

The Guidelines seek to promote safe, sustainable and responsible space operations through international cooperation, information-sharing, capacity-building and technical coordination.

Importantly, they operationalise the broad obligations contained in the Outer Space Treaty.

The LTS Guidelines cover:

• policy and regulatory frameworks;
• safety of space operations;
• international cooperation and capacity-building;
• scientific and technical research.

They also encourage the development of Space Situational Awareness (SSA) capabilities and information-sharing systems that support emerging Space Traffic Management (STM) practices.

These mechanisms are increasingly critical to preventing collisions and managing orbital congestion.

Can Soft Law Become Binding?

One of the most fascinating aspects of international space governance is the gradual evolution of soft law.

Although guidelines are not legally binding in themselves, they may influence State behaviour over time.

Soft law can acquire legal significance in several ways:

1. National Implementation

States may incorporate international guidelines into domestic legislation, licensing systems and regulatory frameworks.

Once implemented nationally, these standards become binding on private operators.

2. Development of Customary International Law

Where consistent State practice is accompanied by a belief that such practice is legally required (opinio juris), soft law principles may gradually contribute to the development of customary international law.

Whether current debris mitigation practices have reached that threshold remains open to debate.

Nevertheless, soft law increasingly shapes expectations regarding responsible conduct in space.

Planetary Protection and COSPAR

Sustainability concerns are not limited to orbital debris.

As exploration missions extend to the Moon, Mars and beyond, planetary protection has become a critical component of space governance.

Planetary protection focuses on preventing:

• forward contamination (introducing Earth organisms to celestial bodies);
• backward contamination (bringing extraterrestrial material into Earth’s environment).

The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) has developed the internationally recognised Planetary Protection Policy, which provides detailed contamination-control standards for space missions.

Although non-binding, the COSPAR Policy is widely treated as the operational standard for compliance with Article IX OST. It demonstrates once again how soft law fills the gaps left by broad treaty provisions.

The Future of Space Sustainability

The current space law framework reflects a broader structural reality: international space law remains heavily dependent on cooperation, evolving norms and soft law mechanisms.

At present, a rigid and comprehensive binding treaty regime for space sustainability may be politically unrealistic.

However, the growing congestion of orbital space and increasing reliance on space infrastructure will continue to intensify pressure for stronger governance mechanisms.

Future developments may include:

• stronger national debris mitigation regulation;
• enhanced international coordination mechanisms;
• operational space traffic management systems;
• harmonised technical standards;
• eventual codification of existing soft law principles.

The challenge facing the international community is therefore not simply technological. It is legal, political and institutional.

The sustainability of outer space ultimately depends on whether States and private actors are willing to treat the space environment as a shared domain requiring long-term stewardship rather than short-term exploitation.

---

Dr Geraldine Spiteri is the founder of Asteria Advisory, focusing on maritime, aviation and space law matters. This article forms part of Asteria Advisory’s ongoing commentary on emerging legal developments affecting international transport and space governance.

---

Autonomous shipping is no longer a distant concept confined to prototypes and technology expos. It is rapidly becoming an operational and regulatory reality. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has now taken a significant step forward with the development of the International Code of Safety for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS Code), marking a major milestone in the governance of autonomous maritime operations.

As technology accelerates, the maritime sector finds itself at a familiar crossroads: innovation moving faster than regulation.

---

What Are Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships?

The IMO defines Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) as vessels capable of operating with varying degrees of autonomy, ranging from automated onboard systems to fully autonomous ships operating without human intervention.

Importantly, autonomy is not binary.

The IMO has identified different levels of autonomy, including:

• ships with automated decision-support systems;
• remotely controlled vessels with crew onboard;
• remotely controlled vessels without crew onboard; and
• fully autonomous ships capable of making operational decisions independently.

This layered approach reflects the reality that maritime autonomy will likely evolve gradually rather than through an immediate transition to entirely crewless vessels.

---

The Regulatory Challenge

The development of MASS raises fundamental legal and operational questions.

Many existing international maritime conventions were drafted on the assumption that a vessel would always have:

• a master onboard;
• a physical crew;
• and direct human decision-making at sea.

Autonomous shipping challenges those assumptions directly.

The IMO’s regulatory scoping exercise, completed in stages between 2021 and 2022, examined how existing treaties — including SOLAS, COLREGs, STCW, and liability frameworks — might apply to autonomous operations.

Questions identified include:

• who constitutes the “master” of an autonomous vessel;
• how watchkeeping obligations are fulfilled remotely;
• liability allocation following incidents;
• cybersecurity risks;
• and how safety obligations apply where human intervention is limited or absent.

These are not merely technical issues. They go to the heart of maritime law’s structure.

---

The MASS Code

In May 2026, the IMO adopted the first non-mandatory MASS Code — a goal-based framework intended to guide the safe operation of autonomous ships.

The current roadmap anticipates:

• a non-mandatory implementation phase;
• an experience-building period;
• and eventually the development of a mandatory MASS Code linked to SOLAS amendments.

This gradual approach reflects the complexity of balancing:

• innovation;
• commercial realities;
• safety obligations;
• cybersecurity concerns;
• and the human element of shipping.

---

Cybersecurity and Operational Risk

One of the most significant concerns surrounding autonomous shipping is cybersecurity.

As vessels become increasingly dependent on:

• remote connectivity;
• AI-assisted navigation;
• automated systems;
• and data-driven decision-making,

they also become more vulnerable to digital threats.

Cybersecurity is therefore no longer simply an IT concern — it is becoming a core safety and operational issue for the maritime industry.

---

The Human Element Remains Central

Despite growing automation, the IMO has consistently emphasised that the human element remains central to maritime safety.

Even highly automated operations will require:

• remote operators;
• technical oversight;
• emergency intervention capabilities;
• and updated training frameworks.

This raises important future questions for:

• STCW compliance;
• certification;
• remote operation centres;
• and the evolving role of seafarers ashore and at sea.

---

Beyond Technology: A Structural Shift

Autonomous shipping is not simply about removing crews or introducing advanced navigation systems.

It represents a broader transformation in how shipping may operate:

• commercially;
• legally;
• operationally;
• and environmentally.

“The implications extend beyond vessels themselves to ports, insurers, classification societies, flag states, financiers, and maritime legal frameworks, including evolving considerations surrounding ship registration and flag state oversight.

As with previous technological transitions in shipping, regulation will play a decisive role in determining how quickly — and how safely — these technologies are integrated into global trade.

---

Looking Ahead

The development of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships marks one of the most significant regulatory evolutions currently facing the maritime sector.

The challenge is no longer whether autonomous operations will emerge.
It is whether international legal frameworks can evolve quickly enough to govern them effectively. Many of the governance questions emerging in autonomous shipping — from AI-assisted operations to remote decision-making — also resonate increasingly within wider discussions surrounding space law and autonomous systems

At Asteria Advisory, developments in maritime regulation, transport innovation, and emerging operational frameworks remain central to how we approach our maritime advisory services and monitor the future of the industry.

Bridging Earth and Space: Reflections from Leiden

Earlier this month, I had the privilege of attending and presenting at the Earth–Space Sustainability Conference hosted by Leiden University. The conference brought together legal scholars, policymakers, scientists, and industry professionals to explore one of the most pressing questions of our time: how do we ensure that the expansion of human activity into space remains sustainable, responsible, and equitable?

Set against the historic backdrop of Leiden, the discussions were anything but abstract. They were grounded in urgency, shaped by rapid technological advancement, and framed by a growing recognition that space is no longer a distant frontier — it is an operational domain.

The Governance Gap: A Familiar Story

A central theme emerging from the conference was the governance gap in outer space. As satellite constellations expand and orbital congestion increases, existing legal frameworks — many drafted in a different geopolitical and technological era — are being stretched beyond their original design. This is not unfamiliar territory.

From a maritime perspective, we have seen similar tensions before. The development of the law of the sea, particularly under frameworks such as United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, reflects a gradual but necessary evolution from fragmentation to structured governance.

The question now is whether space law will follow a similar trajectory — or whether it will require entirely new models of cooperation and enforcement.

---

Due Regard and Shared Responsibility

In my presentation, I explored how principles such as “due regard” — well-established in maritime law — may offer a conceptual bridge for addressing competing uses of outer space.

Outer space, much like the high seas, is a domain where multiple actors operate simultaneously, often with overlapping interests and limited coordination. The challenge lies in balancing freedom of use with responsibility towards others, including future generations.

There is also a growing narrative around “common concern of humankind”, echoing broader environmental and sustainability discussions. While not yet crystallised into binding obligations in space law, this concept signals a shift: from sovereignty-driven activity to stewardship-driven governance.

From Theory to Practice

What made the conference particularly compelling was its interdisciplinary nature. Scientists spoke of orbital debris and planetary protection. Lawyers debated liability, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Industry participants highlighted operational realities and commercial pressures.

The takeaway is clear: space sustainability is not a purely legal problem. It is a systems challenge requiring alignment between law, technology, and policy.

For practitioners, this raises important considerations:

• How do we translate evolving principles into practical compliance frameworks?
• How do we ensure that innovation does not outpace regulation to the point of systemic risk?
• And how do we maintain a balance between accessibility and accountability?

---

Why This Matters for Asteria Advisory

At Asteria Advisory, the convergence of marine, aviation, and space law is not theoretical — it is increasingly operational.

The same clients navigating ship and yacht registration, aircraft operations, and cross-border regulatory frameworks are now also looking upward. The boundaries between sectors are becoming more fluid, and so too must the legal and advisory services that support them.

Attending and presenting at the Earth–Space Sustainability Conference reinforced the importance of staying ahead of these developments. It also reaffirmed a core principle behind Asteria: building bridges between legal domains, industries, and emerging frontiers. The Conference paper and report are published here.

Looking Ahead

The conversations in Leiden will not end there. They form part of a broader, ongoing dialogue on how we govern shared domains — from the oceans to the skies, and now into space.

For Asteria Advisory, this is an area of continued focus. As legal frameworks evolve, so too will the need for clear, practical guidance that aligns innovation with responsibility. The horizon is expanding. And with it, the need for thoughtful, connected, and forward-looking legal practice.

Attending the IATA World Legal Symposium 2026 in Warsaw as part of my advanced studies provided an opportunity not only for academic engagement, but also to broaden the practical perspectives informing the work of Asteria Advisory.

Participation in international industry dialogue remains an essential part of maintaining a forward-looking advisory practice.

Bringing together aviation lawyers, airline counsel, regulators, insurers, and aviation stakeholders from across the world, the symposium offered a unique environment where regulatory theory meets operational reality.

Global Aviation Conversations

The aviation sector continues to evolve under significant commercial and regulatory pressure. Discussions throughout the symposium reflected how legal frameworks must adapt alongside technological development, sustainability objectives, and changing geopolitical dynamics.

Key areas of discussion included:

• competition and market access considerations;
• sustainability obligations and environmental regulation;
• liability allocation and risk management;
• operational resilience and regulatory oversight.

Exposure to comparative regulatory approaches and international perspectives provides valuable insight into how jurisdictions respond differently to shared industry challenges.

Learning as Strategic Investment

For Asteria Advisory, continued professional development is not an isolated academic exercise.

Engagement with international forums allows the firm to remain connected to emerging regulatory trends and industry expectations. Understanding how airlines, regulators, and advisors approach evolving challenges helps inform practical solutions for clients operating across jurisdictions.

Participation through university collaboration also creates opportunities to build relationships within the wider aviation legal community — an increasingly important factor in cross-border advisory work.

Supporting Asteria’s Aviation Practice

As Asteria Advisory continues to develop its aviation and transport asset advisory work, exposure to global conversations strengthens our ability to anticipate regulatory developments rather than simply react to them.

Events such as the IATA World Legal Symposium reinforce the importance of collaboration between academia, industry and practitioners in shaping sustainable aviation frameworks.

Continuous learning ultimately serves one objective: ensuring that client advice remains informed by both legal developments and real-world industry experience.

Looking Ahead: Aviation Law in a Changing Regulatory Environment

Aviation continues to evolve under increasing regulatory, environmental, and operational pressures. Here, international dialogue plays a critical role in shaping practical legal solutions.

At Asteria Advisory, we continue to monitor developments affecting aircraft registration, operational structuring, regulatory compliance, and cross-border aviation activities.

Engagement with global industry forums helps ensure that advice remains aligned with emerging standards and the expectations of regulators, financiers, and operators alike.

About the Author

Dr Geraldine Spiteri is Founder and Principal Advisor at Asteria Advisory, advising on aviation, maritime and transport asset regulation, including aircraft and vessel registration, cross-border structuring and emerging space law frameworks. She is currently pursuing advanced studies in Air and Space Law at Leiden University.

Related Insights

• Aircraft Registration Jurisdictions: Choosing the Right Registry
• Superyacht Registration Jurisdiction: Choosing the Right Registry

As AI embeds deeper into airport and aircraft systems, understanding failure modes is key to sustainable adoption

In 2026, artificial intelligence is no longer a peripheral experiment in aviation—it is becoming integral to ground operations, from gate assignment and taxi routing to predictive turnaround management and real-time resource coordination. AI in aviation ground operations is transforming efficiency in aviation operations.

Industry reports highlight AI’s ability to reduce departure delays, optimize fuel burn during ground movements, and enhance overall airport throughput, contributing to billions in potential annual savings across the global network.Yet this rapid integration brings new vulnerabilities. IATA’s 2026 risk assessments underscore converging threats: cyber exposure amplified by AI, over-dependency on digital systems, erosion of operational trust when outputs falter. The challenge of proving consistent productivity gains in safety-critical environments. Aviation’s deliberate pace—driven by rigorous certification and zero-tolerance for unmitigated risk—creates a natural tension with AI’s probabilistic nature.

Consider a realistic scenario in aircraft ground operations: an AI-enabled system supporting automated gate positioning, dynamic stand allocation, or coordinated turnaround sequencing encounters anomalous inputs. This could stem from sensor degradation in adverse weather, conflicting data streams from legacy and modern infrastructure, integration gaps between stakeholders, or edge cases not fully covered in training data.

The result? Misaligned recommendations that trigger gate backlogs, unnecessary aircraft repositioning, crew duty-time extensions, or cascading network delays. Such disruptions are rarely catastrophic in isolation, but they compound quickly: idling aircraft burn fuel, ground handlers face bottlenecks, passengers experience extended wait times or irregular deplaning processes, and connecting itineraries unravel.

Economic ripple effects follow—lost slots, compensation claims, reputational impact. These can also erode confidence in the very technology meant to deliver efficiency. Recent analyses from industry sources and observers note that while agentic AI and ambient intelligence promise proactive, autonomous orchestration, adoption remains constrained by the need for robust data foundations, clear governance, and human oversight.

Spotty results in early deployments often trace back to insufficient testing for black-swan conditions, inadequate fallback mechanisms, or underestimating the human factors in high-pressure decision loops.

Resilient Transformation – Key Points

• Strong Data and Integration Foundations — Ensure clean, contextualized data flows across siloed systems (airport, airline, ground handler) to minimize misinterpretation risks.
• Human-in-the-Loop Safeguards — Design AI as an augmentor, not replacer. Entities must provide transparent explanations, override options, and escalation paths for operators.
• Rigorous Scenario Testing — Simulate edge cases (weather extremes, cyber events, partial failures) during certification and ongoing validation, aligning with EASA/ICAO emerging AI frameworks.
• Phased, Modular Rollouts — Start with low-risk use cases, monitor performance metrics closely, and incorporate kill switches or graceful degradation modes.
• Governance and Change Management — Build cross-functional teams to maintain trust, train personnel on AI limitations, and establish incident-sharing protocols to accelerate industry learning.

These principles are not theoretical. They are the difference between isolated pilots that fizzle and scaled deployments that deliver sustained value. Organizations that invest in resilience engineering upfront avoid the “big bets, big failures” pattern seen in some enterprise AI initiatives.

The liabilities can be enormous – ranging from customer complaints to severe damage to an infrastructure.

How can Asteria Advisory help?

At Asteria, we partner with leaders in high-stakes sectors to navigate exactly this balance. We provide legal support for people who are turning AI’s promise into reliable, auditable reality without compromising safety or operational integrity.

Whichever aspect of aviation, the goal remains the same—deploy intelligence that enhances decision-making, anticipates disruptions, and fails gracefully when needed. Legal arrangements backing this need to be watertight. Parties need to know their rights and obligations.

As aviation evolves toward more intelligent, connected operations in 2026 and beyond, the organizations that thrive will be those that treat AI as a disciplined, governed capability embedded within resilient processes. The responsibility needs careful management and liabilities need containing.

Reach out—we’d welcome the conversation.

I recently had an interesting exchange with Charles Pace, Malta’s Director-General for Civil Aviation and Transport at Transport Malta during a meeting of the Women in Aviation, Marine & Transport Malta. We discussed the recognition of qualifications and experiential training of marine and aviation professionals.

One issue stood out: some of the most safety-critical professions — such as aircraft pilots and maritime captains — accumulate years of highly structured, regulated training and operational experience, yet much of this expertise is not formally recognised within traditional education frameworks.

This also applies to training certified by international industry authorities in aviation and maritime sectors, global systems are shaped by UN-backed organisations such as International Civil Aviation Organization and International Maritime Organization. These standards keep global transport systems running — but often sit outside national academic recognition pathways.

Skilled professionals can be discouraged from further study or progression because they need to repeat learning they already master, or cannot access programmes at all.

In a digital, skills-driven era, professional development should not hinge solely on traditional certificates. Experience, regulated training, and demonstrable competence must form part of the recognition conversation.

There is room here for smarter bridges between industry qualification systems and education frameworks — and that conversation is long overdue.

About the Author

Dr Geraldine Spiteri is Founder and Principal Advisor at Asteria Advisory, advising on aviation, maritime and transport asset regulation, including aircraft and vessel registration, cross-border structuring and emerging regulatory frameworks.

Follow our News & Updates on this blog to hear more when something shifts in this field.