In April 2020, the United States advanced a decisive step in shaping the legal landscape for lunar resource extraction. President Trump’s Executive Order reaffirmed U.S. policy on commercial recovery and use of space resources, explicitly rejecting the view that outer space constitutes “a global commons.” This stance underpins the Artemis Accords, a set of bilateral agreements modeled after the International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement, designed to facilitate commercial mining on the Moon. NASA’s release of the Artemis Principles further clarified operational concepts such as “peaceful purposes,” “space resources,” and “deconfliction of activities.”
The diplomatic outreach accompanying these initiatives targeted partners like Japan, Canada, Luxembourg, and the UAE, while excluding major space powers such as Russia, China, and India. Russia’s reaction to the Executive Order was pointed, likening the policy to colonialism and calling for legal scrutiny. China and Russia, meanwhile, continue to develop cooperative lunar resource projects, and the European Space Agency has announced plans to mine lunar regolith for water and oxygen by 2025. India’s Chandrayaan missions and Japan’s Hayabusa asteroid sample returns underscore the global momentum in space resource activities.
Luxembourg’s “Space-Resources.lu” initiative exemplifies how non-spacefaring states can position themselves as hubs for commercial space mining. Its 2017 law on exploration and use of space resources provides licensing procedures and legal certainty on ownership, encouraging investment. The UAE’s Federal Law No. (12) of 2019 similarly facilitates private space mining within its jurisdiction. These legislative frameworks mirror the U.S. approach, offering clarity to private operators in a sector often referred to as the “next gold rush.” Goldman Sachs in 2017 advised investors to look beyond established space industries toward ventures like asteroid mining, with market projections reaching $3.8 billion by 2025.
The U.S. position challenges long-standing interpretations of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which many read as affirming outer space as a global commons. Articles I and II of the OST emphasize free exploration and prohibit national appropriation. The Executive Order also rejects the 1979 Moon Agreement, instructing the Secretary of State to oppose any effort to treat it as customary international law. While “global commons” and “Common Heritage of Mankind” are distinct concepts, both inform debates on equitable resource governance.
Safety zones, proposed in the Artemis Principles, aim to implement Article IX of the OST by preventing interference in operations. However, even temporary “keep-out” areas could restrict other states’ access, potentially conflicting with the OST’s guarantee of free exploration. Without universal consensus, bilateral agreements on safety zones risk being perceived as territorial claims. The Hague International Space Resources Working Group’s Building Blocks acknowledge Article II’s relevance but offer limited guidance on avoiding de facto appropriation.
Equally significant are questions of benefit sharing. Article I of the OST calls for space activities to benefit all countries, yet the Artemis Principles omit mechanisms to ensure this. International law’s treatment of benefit sharing often defaults to non-binding commitments like capacity-building and information exchange. The Moon Agreement and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea incorporate stronger obligations, but these models face resistance from major spacefaring nations. The Vancouver Recommendations advocate mandatory benefit sharing, including monetary contributions to an international fund, while the Moon Village Principles encourage benefit sharing “through all feasible means.”
A narrow approach that excludes robust benefit-sharing mechanisms overlooks intergenerational equity and the potential to address global poverty through enforceable obligations. Terrestrial models such as the Alaskan Permanent Fund demonstrate how resource revenues can be distributed to citizens while maintaining operator profitability.
Multilateral discussions on space resource governance have been underway at the UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space since 2016. Proposals from Belgium, Greece, and the UAE support an international regime considering the needs and rights of all countries. The U.S., favoring agreements with “like-minded nations,” views the UN process as slow and cumbersome. Yet, future UNCOPUOS meetings will likely engage deeply with the Artemis framework. The Hague Working Group’s “adaptive governance” approach offers a path to detail, but broad multilateral consensus with clearly defined objectives remains essential to ensure equitable participation and to temper concerns of neocolonialism in lunar exploration.