3.2 How Compliance Differs From Previous Practice
The preceding analysis of Articles 27–37 reveals a structural disjunction between what the BBNJ now requires and what has historically been practised in the authorisation of splashdown operations. Where environmental assessments have been conducted under domestic law, notably FAA environmental reviews under NEPA for SpaceX Dragon splashdowns in the Pacific Ocean, they have addressed hazards to persons, property, and national airspace rather than the marine environmental impacts of ocean impact in ABNJ; none have assessed the ecological state of the spacecraft cemetery, engaged cumulative effects on the ABNJ marine environment, or satisfied the equivalency requirements of BBNJ Article 29(4).(1) Federal Aviation Administration, Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision for SpaceX Dragon Reentry Relocation to Pacific Ocean (2025), https://www.faa.gov/space/environmental/nepa_docs; BBNJ, art. 29(4); De Lucia and Guo, "Assessing before Sinking," 1–29. Beyond the domestic EIA question, the record at the international level is entirely absent: no baseline assessment of the spacecraft cemetery exists; no cumulative impact assessment has been conducted across the over 260 objects deposited in the SPOUA since 1971;(2) De Lucia and Iavicoli, "From Outer Space to Ocean Depths," 366–70. no EIA report addressing marine environmental impacts of a splashdown operation has been submitted to the Clearing-House Mechanism since the BBNJ’s entry into force; no post-authorisation monitoring programme exists for the ecological condition of the South Pacific Oceanic Uninhabited Area; and no alternatives analysis addressing whether new materials, active debris removal, or graveyard orbit disposal could achieve equivalent space law objectives with lesser marine environmental impact has previously been required in connection with high-seas splashdown operations.(3) Aerospacelab, "Environmental Impact Assessment: Rose Mission and Rose Satellite," September 11, 2023.
The BBNJ establishes EIA requirements that are, in several respects, more procedurally rigorous than domestic equivalents, particularly in requiring independent scientific review, Clearing-House transparency, and post-authorisation monitoring.(4) Tanaka, "Reflections on the EIA in the BBNJ," 99–103. For an activity that has never previously been subjected to EIA under any framework, the transition to BBNJ compliance represents a fundamental recalibration of the legal obligations attending splashdown authorisation. This compliance gap is significant but surmountable. Article 38 of the BBNJ empowers the Scientific and Technical Body to develop EIA standards and guidelines compatible with existing relevant instruments, providing the institutional mechanism through which UNCOPUOS-compatible requirements could be progressively elaborated.(5) BBNJ, arts. 38(1)–(2), 29(3). The argument advanced in this thesis is that this pathway cannot be pursued unless launching States first acknowledge the BBNJ as an applicable legal framework for space debris activities in ABNJ, an acknowledgement that the analysis in Parts 2 and 3 above demonstrates to be legally required.