As interest in lunar exploration intensifies, questions surrounding ownership and resource rights on the moon have come into sharper focus. Although the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 established that the moon belongs to no one and outlawed national claims through occupation or use, emerging ambitions by nations and private companies are testing the boundaries of this framework.

The original treaty, agreed upon by more than 100 countries amid the Cold War space race, emphasized that space exploration should benefit all humankind and restricted the placement of nuclear weapons in orbit or on celestial bodies. However, it left unresolved issues concerning jurisdiction over lunar bases, commercial exploitation of resources, and the establishment of exclusion zones.

In recent years, several key players have made plans to establish lunar operations. The United States, China, and Russia are pursuing the construction of nuclear-powered bases near the moon’s south pole, capitalizing on deposits of helium-3, frozen water, and other valuable materials. Meanwhile, private entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have voiced ambitious visions ranging from lunar data centers to relocating heavy industry off Earth.

The competition raises concerns about whether the first entity to create a lunar foothold could effectively dictate terms and territorial limits, potentially contravening the treaty’s provisions on free access. In particular, NASA’s intensified plans to deploy a nuclear reactor on the moon came partly out of apprehensions that China and Russia might establish exclusion zones to restrict other actors’ movements.

Attempts to provide clearer legal guidelines have encountered challenges. The Moon Treaty of the late 1970s, which sought to designate the moon’s resources as the “common heritage of humankind” under international governance, gained minimal support and was rejected by major spacefaring countries. Without consensus, key issues remain unsettled.

Some legal experts advocate for an approach analogous to maritime law, which permits resource extraction in international waters while balancing national interests. Under this view, states and companies could own the materials they extract from the moon even if they cannot claim sovereignty over territory itself. The United States codified this principle in a 2015 law allowing space resource mining, and the Artemis Accords—a set of nonbinding guidelines signed by 76 nations—affirm that such activities do not infringe the Outer Space Treaty.

At the same time, China and a group of other countries have collaborated on a separate agreement to jointly develop an international lunar research station, reflecting divergent but overlapping ambitions.

Experts caution that if leading powers like the United States and China dominate lunar activities, they may effectively shape the regulatory environment to their advantage without broad international input. A United Nations working group is expected to finalize a set of guiding principles by next year, but practical enforcement may remain elusive.

For now, the combination of advanced technology, high costs, and limited participants has kept the status quo relatively stable, with countries and companies navigating the ambiguous legal framework as they race to secure a presence on the moon.