Who Owns The Moon's Resources? Examining Property Rights In The Era of New Space Economy

By Riddhima Dogra (IIIrd Year Student, Army Institute of Law)

Introduction

The Moon is no longer just a subject of scientific curiosity, it has now become an economic and strategic space, something for which even the law was not prepared. For decades, it was a mere symbol of prestige, a podium for countries to hoist their flags upon, claim dominance and assert their technological capabilities. But today, the moon is being reimagined as a hub for resources, a strategic base and a commercial project.

The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development defines the space economy as

“encompasses all activities and resources that contribute to human progress through the exploration, research, understanding, management, and utilisation of space.”

There is now a conceptual shift from exploration to utilisation, with a rise in private actors driving space activity. This in particular creates a challenge because international treaties bind states not corporations. State-led missions are often for public interest and national accountability, however, when it comes to private corporations, they operate with a clear motive of profit. This creates a challenge for international space law, as it was created at a time when such commercial ambitions were largely inconceivable. The law provides that no state can claim sovereignty over the moon. That being the case, the real question is not whether the Moon can be owned but whether the ownership of its resources is being normalised through practice before international consensus has been achieved.

The Foundations of International Space Law

The Outer Space Treaty, 1967

Any discussion on space resource ownership must begin with the Outer Space Treaty, 1967, which continues to define the outer limits of permissible conduct in space. This treaty serves as the constitutional foundation for activities in outer space.

Article I of the treaty makes the space, moon and other celestial bodies free for exploration for all countries without any discrimination and declares it to be a “province of all mankind”. Additionally, Article II establishes the principle of non-appropriation, explicitly prohibiting claims of sovereignty. Both of these articles bar territorial ownership while preserving open access to all.

The main concern for the drafting committee of this treaty was to prevent militarisation and sovereign control of states during the Cold War regime. The treaty remains silent upon matters of resource extraction. This is not a negligent omission but rather highlights the historical context of the era in which the treaty was drafted.

In 1967, the idea of practical, commercial or even scientific mining in space was science fiction. The treaty was drafted primarily as an arms control treaty during the height of cold war. The immediate purpose of the treaty was to prevent space race between the USA and USSR from becoming an armed conflict, thereby stressing upon the contention of the moon being a “province for all mankind”.

The Moon Agreement, 1979

While the Outer Space Treaty leaves resource extraction ambiguous, the Moon Agreement of 1979 (formally the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies) represents an attempt to clarify that ambiguity. Entered into force in 1979, the limited participation of states has made it a marginal instrument in international space law.

The Agreement was highly aspirational and exerted very little influence on contemporary space practice, rendering it an unsuccessful attempt by the international community to address resource exploitation.

Article 11 of the agreement characterises the moon and its natural resources as “common heritage of mankind” as well as calls for an international regime to govern the exploitation of the resources of the moon.

One of the main reasons behind this agreement's being unsuccessful was its low ratification, which ultimately undermined its authority. Major countries like the USA and the Soviet Union rejected the treaty, for it was very restrictive when compared to the Outer Space Treaty, as the clause “common heritage of mankind” was viewed as a barrier to free enterprise and resource extraction, illustrating the resistance of powerful states to restrictive resource governance.

Principle of Non-Appropriation in Resource Extraction

The law does not clearly prohibit resource ownership but it does not clearly permit it either. There are different views on the interpretation of “national appropriation” regarding resource extraction from celestial bodies.

A textual interpretation of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) clearly indicates that states are banned from claiming ownership over the moon. However, it remains silent on the issue of extracting resources and minerals per se, and therefore, a bare reading of the article does not explicitly support the debate between use and appropriation but rather creates loopholes for claiming sovereignty.

Scholars argue that Article II should be interpreted in the light of the common benefit principle under Article I. One way of understanding it could be by drawing an analogy to fishing in international waters. As per the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, no state owns international waters, however, the nationals of respective states are permitted to carry out activities like fishing in the international waters and any fish caught, would then belong to that respective national. In these terms, outer space may be equated to the international waters and resources of celestial bodies like fish. By interpreting both the laws, one can say that resource extraction is not prohibited and that states can claim sovereignty over these resources as long as the provisions of international space law are followed. However, this interpretation is yet again not perfect, as unlike the law of the seas, space law is not that comprehensive.

National legislations recognising private ownership of extracted space resources have been adopted by several countries, such as the United States’ Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, 2015 (Title IV),  Luxembourg’s Space Resources Law, 2017, and Japan’s 2021 Space Resources Act. These explicitly permit domestic entities to own resources obtained from celestial bodies. Such laws do not claim sovereignty over territory, but rather operationalise resource ownership, thereby advancing a functional interpretation of non-appropriation.

As more and more focus is being shifted to outer space, international bodies need to provide a framework that clearly specifies and regulates this new generation of outer space economy.

The Artemis Accords

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, along with 8 other space agencies of different states, signed the Artemis Accords in 2020, to establish a set a principles guiding space exploration and co-operation in the 21^st century. As of October 2025, it has a total of 59 signatory states. The principles framed apply to the civil agencies of signatory states as well, thereby acknowledging the role of civil/private players in the outer space economy. An important thing with respect to these accords is that they neither amend the principles of the Outer Space Treaty nor are they binding on states; rather, these principles rely heavily on the provisions of space law under the Outer Space Treaty.

Section 10 of the Artemis Accords affirms that “the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty”. This possibly allows the extraction of resources by signatory states without violating the principle of non-appropriation. However, as stated earlier and as notably argued by scholars, the Artemis Accords are non-binding soft laws. Regardless of this fact, the Artemis Accords do matter as they have the potential to establish customary laws and influence resource governance.

Creation of Safety Zones

Section 11 of the Accords provides for the concept of “safety zones”, although they lack a clear definition and purpose. In simpler terms, safety zones refer to areas surrounding lunar installations or operations where other actors are expected to refrain from interference to ensure operational safety and coordination. Although framed as coordination mechanisms aimed at preventing harmful interference, the Accords do not clearly define the legal status, scope, or duration of such zones. The concept and preliminary purpose of the safety zones raise concerns for being violative of the principles of the Outer Space Treaty, as repeated long-term use of such zones could, in fact, in future, lead to de facto exclusivity of states completely violating the prohibition of claims of national sovereignty provided under the Treaty.

Ethical Concerns

Beyond questions of legality, space commercialisation raises serious questions of fairness, usage and access. While the Outer Space Treaty formally recognises the concept of “province of all mankind”, several countries have passed national legislations that allow private companies to claim ownership of resources extracted. This creates a risk of monopolisation and the issue of unequal distribution of benefits. Some argue that outer space should be a common heritage for all, while others argue that legislation similar to that of Earth should be implemented in outer space, calling for sustainable management of resources while allowing private players to contribute to exploration and extraction.

Another critical concern is the environmental impact of these extractions. The area covering outer space is humongous however, any disruption to the cosmic environment could have unintended consequences, something for which no legislation, no international treaty would be prepared for. Unlike terrestrial mining, lunar extraction could generate debris plumes, alter the lunar surface irreversibly, and disrupt scientifically significant regions. The Moon lacks a regenerative ecosystem, meaning that environmental damage may be permanent. Furthermore, increased traffic and infrastructure raise the risk of orbital debris and contamination, concerns inadequately addressed under current space environmental governance regimes.

These concerns underscore the need for governance frameworks that maintain a balance between commercial innovation and principles of equity and fairness.

Way Forward

With the transition from exploration to utilisation, the need for a more comprehensive framework is greater than ever. The existing Outer Space Treaty does limit the territorial sovereignty of states, although it fails to incorporate the increasing role of private players, something which was uncalled for during the Cold War regime.

A multilateral licensing regime could require states to authorise private extraction only subject to international notification and transparency obligations. A benefit-sharing mechanism could be structured similarly to the International Seabed Authority model, where a percentage of proceeds contributes to a global fund supporting developing states’ participation in space activities. Additionally, an international registry of extraction sites could prevent overlapping claims and enhance coordination without recognising territorial sovereignty.

An important question still remains: can international law keep pace with the rapid expansion of space activities, or will emerging soft law practices redefine its principles?