Does Asymmetry Challenge Stability? Governance Design in Multinational Space Cooperation

Kurzfassung

Large-scale multinational space projects involve complex political, economic, and institutional interests, making equitable collaboration between partners a persistent challenge, especially at program level. Lunar missions in particular have reflected power asymmetries between established spacefaring nations and emerging space actors, often yielding imbalanced decision making structures and unequal distribution of benefits. Such imbalances are not inherently problematic; contribution-based differentiation can be both rational and functional. However, the critical question is under what conditions these asymmetries generate unequal effects, such as reduced partner commitment, limited capacity development, constrained influence in decision-making, or long-term dependency structures. This paper examines the governance frameworks underlying past and ongoing multinational space programs to identify structural factors behind unequal partnerships. Focusing on the interaction between key international Agreements, treaties, and policy instruments, we analyze how legal language, institutional design, and political norms have shaped partner roles and obligations. The study pays particular attention to the position of emerging space nations and the mechanisms through which their interests are translated into multinational collaborations. The paper applies a structured scoring framework to four cases: the International Space Station (ISS) Intergovernmental Agreement, the Artemis Accords and their Lunar Gateway implementation core, the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), and India's Chandrayaan-3 mission, and complements this with twelve semi-structured expert interviews. These use cases are well-suited for analysis and comparison because they all represent long-standing multinational programs. Their institutional architectures offer empirical insight into how asymmetries can be structured to sustain cooperation over decades. Comparing these cases helps identifying how different governance architectures shape partner roles and influence. The comparative analysis is supported by a systematic literature review and qualitative expert interviews involving space governance specialists and project managers from space missions. By identifying the benefits and drawbacks of asymmetries in existing governance architectures, this paper proposes recommendations for designing more inclusive and balanced frameworks for future multinational space projects. The findings support the development of future treaty structures and partnership models that enable fairer participation of emerging space nations in global space exploration initiatives.