First contact and the law: Are we legally prepared for extraterrestrial life?

Why lawyers should think about extraterrestrial life

Law and UFOs are not two subjects that most people would expect to see discussed together. The popular imagination tends to associate UFOs with science fiction and late-night television (and more recently, conspiracy theories) rather than serious academic inquiry.

Yet over the past three decades - and particularly since the renewed governmental interest in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) - a small but growing body of legal scholarship has begun asking an intriguing question: if compelling evidence of non-human intelligence were ever discovered, would our legal systems be prepared?

The question of whether ET might exist is primarily one for astronomers, astrophysicists and biologists. But the lawyer is not entirely removed from this conversation and could become immediately relevant if ET ‘landed’.

The question then arises as to how should law respond to an event that, while perhaps unlikely, would have profound consequences for governments, international institutions and society?

Law is, after all, a discipline that routinely prepares for low-probability but high-impact events. In the age of AI, we are currently witnessing how lawyers develop frameworks for new technologies before they are widely deployed.

Public lawyers consider constitutional responses to emergencies that may never arise. Environmental lawyers grapple with future risks whose precise timing is uncertain.

Thinking seriously about the legal implications of contact with non-human intelligence therefore sits comfortably within broader tradition of Law as a discipline of ‘anticipatory governance’.

What international space law already covers

Much of the existing literature has emerged from the field of space law. Scholars such as Gabriel Lafferanderie and Christopher Newman have explored whether existing international agreements - most notably the 1967 Outer Space Treaty - would provide an adequate legal framework if extraterrestrial microbial life, intelligent civilisations or even technological artefacts were discovered.

Many surprisingly practical questions arise. Which state, if any, would have jurisdiction over an extraterrestrial artefact recovered from the Moon or Mars? Who would decide whether contact should be initiated or information disclosed? Would biological material from another world constitute the common heritage of humanity, or could it become the subject of proprietary claims? How should potentially hazardous extraterrestrial organisms be quarantined?

Existing space law provides partial answers to some of these questions but leaves many unresolved.

These debates become even more pressing as space exploration increasingly shifts from purely governmental activity towards commercial enterprise. Private companies now have realistic ambitions to mine asteroids, establish lunar infrastructure and undertake crewed missions to Mars.

Legal regimes developed during the Cold War may not adequately anticipate the commercial, political and ethical challenges posed by discoveries beyond Earth.

What UAP investigations mean for legal accountability

More recently, legal scholarship has begun responding to a different development: the growing willingness of governments to investigate UAPs openly.

Congressional hearings in the United States, the establishment of dedicated investigative offices, and increased public reporting have transformed the debate from one centred primarily on extraterrestrial life to one concerned with governance, accountability and institutional decision-making.

Crucially, this shift does not require anyone to believe that UAPs represent alien technology. The legal questions arise regardless of the ultimate explanation. Governments have acknowledged that some incidents remain unexplained after investigation.

That alone raises important issues concerning transparency, classification, oversight and public confidence.

Lawyers are well placed to analyse questions such as:

• What standards of evidence should apply when evaluating extraordinary claims?
• When should governments disclose information, and when is secrecy justified on national security grounds?
• What mechanisms of independent oversight should exist?
• How should whistleblowers be protected while preventing misinformation?
• What role should international cooperation play where incidents cross national boundaries?

These are familiar legal questions to legal scholars, even if the factual context is unusual.

How legal systems deal with uncertainty

Perhaps the greatest contribution lawyers can make lies not in resolving whether extraordinary claims are true, but in examining how institutions should respond when confronted with uncertain or contested evidence.

Legal systems are built to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. Courts routinely evaluate conflicting testimony, assess expert opinion and distinguish between speculation and proof. Concepts such as burdens of proof, standards of evidence and procedural fairness have evolved precisely because certainty is often unattainable.

This makes legal scholarship particularly well suited to examining UAP investigations. Rather than asking whether unidentified phenomena are extraterrestrial, lawyers can ask whether investigations have been conducted fairly, whether evidential standards have been applied consistently and whether institutional processes inspire public confidence.

These questions resonate strongly with broader debates about public inquiries, scientific expertise and democratic accountability.

Lessons from legal history

There is also scope for fruitful dialogue with history, psychology and sociology. Throughout history, societies have struggled to interpret extraordinary events. Reports of witchcraft, spiritual manifestations, miraculous occurrences and moral panics have often generated profound legal responses.

Of course, it would be simplistic to equate modern UAP reports with historical witch trials or satanic panic allegations. The evidential contexts are entirely different. Nevertheless, both raise enduring questions about belief, institutional credibility and the dangers of both overreaction and unwarranted dismissal.

Legal history reminds us that institutions can err in multiple directions. They may become too credulous, accepting weak evidence and producing injustice, or too sceptical, dismissing legitimate concerns because they conflict with prevailing assumptions.

The challenge for legal systems is not to adopt a predetermined position but to establish procedures capable of evaluating unusual claims rigorously, impartially and transparently.

Why this matters now

Despite growing public attention, legal scholarship in this field remains remarkably sparse. Most publications are scattered across journals concerned with space law, aerospace policy and astrobiology, with relatively little engagement from mainstream legal academics.

This creates opportunities for interdisciplinary research. Public law scholars can explore accountability and constitutional oversight. International lawyers can examine the adequacy of existing treaties. Evidence scholars can analyse investigative standards. Socio-legal researchers can investigate public trust, institutional legitimacy and the communication of scientific uncertainty.

Importantly, none of this requires any commitment to the proposition that extraterrestrial intelligence has visited Earth. The research agenda concerns governance rather than belief.

Good law anticipates novel situations before they become crises, and it seeks to ensure that decisions are made according to principled procedures rather than political expediency or public pressure.

Whether future generations ultimately discover microbial life on Mars, detect an intelligent civilisation through astronomy, or simply continue investigating unexplained aerial phenomena, the legal questions will remain. Who decides? According to what rules? On what evidence? And subject to what oversight?

These are not science-fiction questions. They are legal questions, and they deserve serious scholarly attention.

Jonathan Doak is Professor of Criminal Justice and Associate Dean for Research in Nottingham Law School. Jonathan's main research interests lie in the broad fields of criminal justice and transitional justice. In particular, his research focuses on the rights of vulnerable parties, the construction of victims' rights as human rights, restorative justice, and criminal evidence.