There are a number of widely-signed treaties concerning outer space and travel into, colonization of, and exploration of space which many nations might find encumbering to their ambitions.
The Outer Space Treaty establishes a standard of international law in space. However, it contains a number of important provisions that seem very idealistic, and which might have been assented to because at the time it was ratified, they were not expected to become an issue in the near term. Additionally, some other treaties have serious effects on space exploration.
The OST forbids weapons of mass destruction in space: Would become a problem if somebody saw a major military advantage in doing this -- and notable because this might get outside the structure of mutually-assured destruction, under which we have survived decades of nuclear tension
That rule is also problematic because industrial nuclear explosives, such as terraforming explosives or Orion Drive pulse units, might be counted as weapons of mass destruction even though they are intended for peaceful purposes.
The OST forbids territory claims on celestial bodies: Becomes problematic once colonization or just the building of large, permanent installations is possible -- nation states may wish to annex settled areas into their sovereign territory.
The OST requires that states are responsible for and must direct and supervise nonstate actors: Becomes somewhat problematic if space travel becomes sufficiently casual.
The Limited Test Ban Treaty, which bans nuclear explosions in the Earth's atmosphere and in space: effectively bans the use of the Orion Drive, which would likely be an incredibly valuable technology since it is the only method of reaching anything approaching that level of performance with technology we can build today.
Both of these treaties have been signed by every country likely to enact space travel projects in the near term, and both of them were signed during the Cold War when international politics were very different.
Is there any distinct sign that people whose decisions matter are chafing at any of the restrictions of these treaties, likely to renege on them, or seeking withdrawal or exemption from them?