## 3 Legal Challenges Posed by Mega-Constellations to Existing International Space Law Regime
### Transfer of Satellite Ownership in Orbit  
Currently, the transfer of satellite ownership in orbit is a common practice as compared to the initial days of space exploration, since it was not considered essential at the time [79], especially as few states were interested and had the capability to carry out space activities. Numerous explanations arise as to the development of the in-orbit ownership transfer trend, and some of these are as follows. The public procurement schemes have been faced with change, leading to public-private partnerships (PPP) [80; 81], which essentially involve privatization, outsourcing a private company to fulfil a particular service, which can be an on-orbit service to change the functionality of a satellite, assets sales between private firms, or even bankruptcy proceeding outcomes like the iridium LLC [82]. Furthermore, private entities can also be called upon to deliver space objects in orbit, like the turnkey satellite systems, as an additional option to providing on-ground deliveries [83]. The major space treaties make no mention of the concept of the transfer of ownership. The Outer Space Treaty [9] mentions ownership in a way that neither seems to allow for transfer nor results in any change with regard to an existing treaty. It states that the \"ownership of objects launched into outer space including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body and of their component parts is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to Earth\" [9]. This, however, does not restrict the transfer of ownership; rather, because of the restriction of a launching state being a state of registry, it creates complications in application. Despite the fact that the concept of ownership is interestingly absent from the Liability Convention [12], Rescue Agreement [13], and Registration Convention [14], the Moon Agreement [84] merely echoes the Outer Space Treaty: \"the ownership of space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations shall not be affected by their presence on the moon\". The ITU Trinity Treaty documents (the ITU Constitution [20], Convention [30], and Radio Regulations [28]) also provide legal instruments that are indispensable for space activities to protect against radio frequency interference but make no mention of or reference to the concept of ownership or the transfer of ownership. The UNDROIT Space Assets Protocol of 2012 [85] is the only relevant international treaty linked to space and ownership issues, primarily from a private international law perspective. It addresses, among others, the ownership of satellites, but it is not yet in force, with only four signatories--Burkina Faso, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. Thus, there is no legal basis upon which the concept of ownership can be argued, especially with space treaties relevant to satellite communications. It is therefore important that the protocol is discussed to clear any uncertainties, followed by encouraging states to ratify it. When an in-orbit transfer occurs between states or other entities that are covered by Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty, or when the acquiring party does not meet the definition of a \"launching state\" as defined by the Liability Convention and Registration Convention, the implications of the transfer become more complicated. This, therefore, requires an innate understanding of what is legally and factually possible in the exercise of sufficient jurisdiction and control in order to effectively transfer the ownership of satellites in orbit. From a legal perspective, the right to exercise jurisdiction and control is retained by the states on whose register [14] the space object is carried [9]. However, only a launching state can be a state of registry, and, regarding interstate agreements on the exercise of jurisdiction and control of a space object, the status of a launching state is required [14].