August 25, 2026
Close-up of the pandemic, wide-angle view of space: Two tests for the law
A Look Back at „Let's Talk About Law" in Leipzig on June 17 and in Karlsruhe on July 15
How well was our legal system prepared for a pandemic lasting several years? And who actually owns outer space? Two questions discussed over two evenings in a single format: In the last two moderated panel discussions before the summer break, the „Let’s Talk About Law“ series in Leipzig and Karlsruhe demonstrated just how diverse current legal issues can be, which questions our legal system has yet to answer definitively, and how much discussion both topics sparked among the audience.
Leipzig: A Legal System Without a Blueprint
On June 17, a discussion was held under the title „Crisis and Law“ Prof. Dr. Andrea Kießling from Goethe University Frankfurt and permanent experts for the Bundestag's Coronavirus Inquiry Commission and Malte Spitz organized by the Society for Civil Liberties (GFF) and moderated by Susann Böttcher, how the COVID-19 pandemic can be addressed from a legal perspective.
Kießling made it clear from the outset: Germany still does not have its own health crisis legislation. Existing disaster management laws are spread across 16 state laws and are ill-prepared for a pandemic lasting several years. Instead, the Infection Protection Act had to serve as the basis, even though, as of March 2020, it essentially contained only a few legacy provisions. Aside from quarantine measures, specific rules regarding mask-wearing and social distancing requirements were not added until November 2020.
Proportionality in the Public Vote
A recurring theme of the evening was the question of how to weigh the legal merits of individual measures. A direct audience poll revealed a clear pattern of opinion: The majority considered the mask mandate in supermarkets to be proportionate, whereas a majority did not consider school closures to be proportionate.
Malte Spitz He explained this as follows: In his view, the duration of the school closures—in some cases lasting one and a half school years—had been too long.
„The length of the school closures was too much. In the early stages, I thought they were the right thing to do. But especially when it comes to proportionality, alternative measures should have been found sooner—for example, early rapid testing in schools—so that in-person classes could resume. After all, the children were well aware of the whole situation. Looking back, I think the priorities were, in part, misplaced.“
Complaints, Communication, and Forgotten Groups
Spitz also reported on two lawsuits filed by the GFF—one challenging the nighttime curfews under the federal “emergency brake” measures and the other challenging the use of surveillance software during online exams. He criticized the fact that political measures were sometimes difficult for the public to understand. Unclear communication during the pandemic has eroded trust in decision-makers.
Kießling chimed in here and added that the requirement introduced in 2020—to set time limits on COVID-19 regulations and to provide new justification for them upon the expiration of those limits—had at least served an important oversight function.
Kießling also focused on the long-term communication of the federal government’s objectives during the pandemic:
„The goal has changed over the past two or three years. At first, the message from policymakers was that, in principle, we had to prevent almost every single infection. And at some point, the focus shifted entirely to maintaining the functionality of the healthcare system. […]. And that’s the first thing: Why are we doing this now? What is our goal, based on which we can determine when [the measures] will end?“
Both guests agreed: Groups such as healthcare and retail workers, as well as children, were often overlooked in the public debate. The Bundestag’s Coronavirus Inquiry Commission, in which Kießling serves as one of 14 permanent experts, has therefore since surveyed children using a separate, age-appropriate format. The commission’s final report, which includes recommendations for future crises, is expected by June 2027.
Karlsruhe: Law Beyond Earth
A month later, we turned our attention to another legal challenge, far from Earth: Prof. Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Political scientist and special advisor on political affairs to the European Space Agency (ESA) and Prof. Dr. Marcus Schladebach, a professor of aviation and space law at the University of Potsdam and a German delegate to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, visited our Karlsruhe location in July and discussed the question, „Who owns the Moon?“.
The Man Who Sold the Moon
The host kicked things off Alena Lagmöller Here's an anecdote: American Dennis Hope had the Moon and other celestial bodies registered as his property with the California Land Registry and has been selling small plots of the Moon for about 30 U.S. dollars since the early 1980s.
According to Schladebach, this does not hold up to legal scrutiny: While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits „national appropriation“ by states—it is silent on private individuals, which is why Hope sees a loophole for his business model. Nevertheless, his claim is not recognized. This is because the Moon and outer space are considered a sovereign-free common space that belongs to no one alone.
A set of principles from the Cold War
The basis of space law is the Outer Space Treaty, which was concluded in 1967 under the auspices of the United Nations. Schladebach placed it in its historical context: Following Sputnik (1957) and the first manned flights by Gagarin and Shepard (1961), the question arose—as it had previously with the law of the sea and aviation law—regarding binding rules for this newly explored domain.
Schrogl added the geopolitical perspective: Because during the Cold War, neither of the two superpowers knew who would ultimately win the race to the Moon and into orbit, the U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed to a kind of moratorium. No appropriation. For anyone. Out of this strategic uncertainty, space emerged as a „global common,“ a free public good belonging to all of humanity.
At just ten pages long, the treaty is more a work of legal philosophy than a law code, according to Schrogl:
„The Outer Space Treaty sets forth principles: there is no clear demarcation line between airspace and outer space. It has become established practice that we refer to an activity as “outer space’ at altitudes of 100 to 120 km. South Africa was the first country to incorporate [this boundary] into its national law. But—and this is very important—there is no internationally binding definition of where outer space begins. Surprisingly, though, it has worked. So far.”
Starlink and Data Centers in Space
The guests gained a clear understanding of the current situation: Alena Lagmöller explained the background of Elon Musk’s Starlink’s massive satellite networks—so-called “megaconstellations”—which are now placing tens of thousands of satellites into orbit. And the trend is on the rise: the number is expected to grow to as many as one million if planned data centers in space become a reality.
Although satellite positions and radio frequencies must be registered with the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva, both guests believe that the organization imposes few effective restrictions. Schrogl criticized the fact that Germany—unlike Austria, Finland, or Slovenia, for example—still does not have its own space law and has so far been approving license applications largely without scrutiny.
Both Schladebach and Schrogl cited the growing amount of space debris as the downside of the boom: Retired satellites are supposed to burn up in the atmosphere in a controlled manner, which now happens hundreds of times a month with mega-constellations—with consequences for the ozone layer that have not yet been fully researched but must be taken seriously. Schrogl drew a connection here to climate monitoring: Without satellites like the Copernicus system, key climate data simply could not be collected—data that forms the basis for the government’s legally mandated climate protection obligations, as articulated, for example, by the Federal Constitutional Court.
Military Use and a Sign of Hope
The military aspect was also discussed: As Schladebach explained, virtually any space technology can be used for „dual purposes“—that is, for both civilian and military applications—from navigation to Earth observation. The only specific prohibition in the Outer Space Treaty (Article 4) bans the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in orbit and any military use of the Moon; however, targeted anti-satellite tests, such as those conducted by China, India, and most recently Russia, are not covered by this provision. Such a Russian test forced the ISS crew into their escape capsules as a precautionary measure.
As a positive counterexample, Schrogl cited the unilateral testing moratorium that several countries, including Germany, have since announced.
These two evenings showcase what „Let’s Talk About Law“ is all about: We discuss how we experience the law in the context of everyday situations—free of charge, accessible to all, and in direct dialogue with the audience. Whether we’re addressing a global crisis or questions about the future beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
Both conversations were subsequently recorded as Live-on-Tape Podcast listen to. The next installment in the series will take place on September 9 in Leipzig will take place and will focus on the law and emotions.