Nearly six decades after the Outer Space Treaty was ratified, key questions remain unresolved regarding sovereignty, resource extraction, and territorial claims on the moon. Issues such as whether a state can assert jurisdiction over lunar bases, if companies can profit from extraterrestrial resources, and if any entity can establish exclusive zones have yet to be clearly defined.
Efforts to clarify these matters faced challenges in the late 1970s when the Moon Treaty was introduced. This agreement declared lunar resources a “common heritage of humankind” and called for international oversight of their use. However, the treaty was adopted by only 17 countries, excluding major space powers including the United States, Russia (then the Soviet Union), and China. These nations opposed shared governance frameworks that might compel them to share technology or divide potential resource wealth.
According to Bleddyn Bowen, a professor of astropolitics at Durham University, the lack of practical methods for lunar mining and uncertainties about resource quantities have contributed to the current ambiguous status, which many countries find manageable. “It’s a gray area everybody’s happy with right now,” Bowen said.
A growing perspective in international space law accepts that while no one can claim ownership of the moon itself, states may have rights over resources they extract. This approach draws parallels to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, under which deep-sea mining is permitted despite the ocean floor being considered a global commons. Hussein Badreddine, a space law lecturer at the University of Sydney, notes that if extraction is allowed in the deep sea, similar principles could apply to outer space.
Several nations have enacted domestic legislation regulating space activities. The United States, for instance, passed a law in 2015 permitting private companies to mine extraterrestrial resources. The Artemis Accords, a framework of nonbinding principles endorsed by 76 countries, affirm that resource extraction from the moon, Mars, asteroids, and comets does not contravene the Outer Space Treaty. Additionally, China and over a dozen other states have agreed on plans for an international lunar research station.
Recent developments highlight concerns over potential territorial limitations related to lunar infrastructure. NASA’s expedited plan to deploy a nuclear reactor on the moon reportedly stemmed from fears that if China or Russia were to install a reactor first, they might declare exclusion zones that would restrict American astronauts' activities. Legal experts caution that such perimeter claims, even for safety reasons, could conflict with the Outer Space Treaty’s stipulation of unfettered access to space.
Diplomats warn that interpretations of the treaty permitting first arrivals to set rules could lead to de facto monopolies on lunar resources and territory. A United Nations working group is currently preparing to release guidelines on these issues, expected by next year.
In practice, sustained lunar exploration and development are likely to remain the domain of a small number of technologically advanced and well-funded countries. This concentration of capability may lead space-faring nations to negotiate their own arrangements. “If China and America are the two countries doing everything on the moon,” Dr. Bowen said, “they can basically sort out the rules between them.”