INTRODUCTION
Ever since the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik-1, the world’s first artificial satellite, into orbit around Earth in 1957, ‘Space Exploration’ has become not only a tool for scientific advancement but also a geopolitical race. However, rapid technological growth and private sector involvement have turned this field into a potential mine of commercial activity.
One such potential practice is Space and Asteroid Mining. Space Mining is the extraction of resources like water, ice, and rare-earth materials from the Moon, asteroids, and other Celestial Bodies.
It can be estimated that a single 30-meter-long platinum-rich asteroid could contain $25 to $50 billion USD worth of platinum at today’s prices.[1]. Other than that, asteroids have been found to contain significant amounts of cobalt, nickel, iron, and other rare-earth metals. Water extracted from celestial bodies can also become essential for future space missions by aiding in the formation of oxygen or rocket fuel. The NASA radar, which was aboard India’s Chandrayaan-1, reveals that there is about 1.3 trillion pounds (600 million metric tons) of water ice in the Moon’s North Pole.[2]
While it is unclear if large-scale mining on celestial bodies is technologically possible, nations and private companies alike have invested in it. This advancement raises legal concerns about ‘Who owns resources extracted from outer space?’
Existing legal frameworks regarding space exploration were made during the Cold War and are not sufficient to fully govern the current ambitions regarding Space Mining.
This Article aims to synthesize the existing legal foundations of space law and the competing interpretations regarding resource ownership.
Existing Foundations of International Space Law
The Outer Space Treaty is the foundation of contemporary outer space regulation, adopted in 1967 under the auspices of the United Nations. The treaty declared[3] that Outer Space cannot be subject to national appropriation by claims of occupation and sovereignty. Outer Space is mentioned to be free for exploration by all states. The Outer Space Treaty has a mandate that no State shall place any weapon of mass destruction on any celestial body. The core principle of the Outer Space Treaty was the Principle of Non-Appropriation. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation or claims of sovereignty or occupation. This seemingly straightforward provision states that no country can legally own the Moon or Celestial land in the same manner that states exercise control over terrestrial land. But in the case of Space Mining, the treaty does not explicitly state whether resources extracted from space can be privately owned once extracted from their site. This distinction is stirring up conflict in emerging space affairs.
Some researchers argue that Space Mining does fall under appropriation, as extracting resources from a site can’t exist without ownership and control of that site. Wrench[4] argues that the principle of appropriation can be overlooked because he believes that entities can extract resources without violating the celestial bodies themselves. Therefore, the non-appropriation principle can be deemed flexible in terms of the interpretation defending space mining.
Many find parallels between the Outer Space Treaty, the Law of the Sea, and the Treaty of Antarctica. The Moon Agreement[5] was one such Treaty that tried to fill the loopholes in the Outer Space Treaty. Adopted in 1979 by the United Nations, the agreement declared the Moon and all of its resources to be a ‘common heritage of mankind’. Under this treaty, no state has the power or control to unrestrictedly appropriate any parts of the Moon, including its resources. This provision was put in place to prevent the monopoly of technologically advanced nations over the Moon. Despite its potential, the agreement garnered limited success since it was not ratified by the USA, Russia, or China.
The Rise of Unilateral National Space Mining Laws
Several countries have come forward in the last decade with their own regulations to state ownership of resources extracted from space. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015[6] is an important piece of legislation that allows U.S citizens and corporations the right to own and sell resources extracted from space. Luxembourg is the first country in Europe to come forward with national legislation of its own that permits private parties to own celestial resources that are extracted.[7] Several other countries have followed suit. The problem with such pieces of legislation is that they tend not to be in agreement with international legal principles and are unilateral. This further strengthens the monopoly of states to control celestial resources and eventually the celestial bodies themselves.
Artemis Accords and Right to Private Ownership of Resources
Artemis Accords[8] is a highly contemporary approach to the discussion of Space Mining. Artemis Accords are a compilation of non-binding legal principles concerned with the peaceful use of the Moon, Mars, and other celestial bodies. This interprets the Outer Space Treaty as being in favour of regulated resource mining from space. Along with this, there are other provisions as well that ensure the signatories of the Accords work scientifically and transparently.
Critics have argued that the Artemis Accords are largely contradictory, as the core principles of the Accords are directly in contrast to the foundation of the Outer Space Treaty. According to them, the provision in the accords that allows for private ownership of resources is paradoxical to Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty, which states that space resources can’t be subject to national appropriation.[9]
Forthcoming Problems in International Space Law
Ambiguity of Legal Principles: The international community has adequately understood different sets of space regulations and has observed the ambiguity surrounding definitions of ‘Non-Appropriation’ and ‘Private Ownership of Extraterrestrial Resources’. Unless a multilateral, binding piece of legislation is established, many unanswered questions will remain. An example of such ambiguity would be the matter of ‘Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty vs Space Resource Ownership under Artemis Accords’. These instances can discourage private investment. A binding multilateral treaty that holds clear stances on all contemporary issues related to space exploration is essential.
Environmental Protection: There is little to no provision governing the Environmental consequences of mining and extraction of resources from the celestial bodies. Despite certain states being quick to establish rules that allow ownership of the extracted resources, no constructive step has been taken to establish accountability for the consequences of such extraction.
Conflict Prevention: States and corporations can have conflicts over valuable extraterrestrial resources and no legal protocol has been installed that has the power to govern such issues.
Conclusion
The question of ownership of resources extracted from Space Mining is one of the most important yet unresolved issues in contemporary space law. Existing treaties with their vague definitions and provisions are inadequate to properly govern such dynamic issues. This has thus further allowed nations to build legislation of their own while interpreting International Space Laws in different ways.
At this pace, the intervention of the United Nations is necessary. The international community, represented by the UN, must clearly define the legal status of extracted space resources and clarify the relationship between commercial ownership and the policy of non-appropriation. If commercial mining of celestial bodies is allowed by the UN, legal safeguards must be declared to prevent exploitation. A piece of legislation that addresses environmental safeguards, mining limits, and mentions a procedure for transparent licensing and international dispute resolution is the need of the hour. It is hard to hit all the targets at once, and thus it will be a challenge to accommodate scientific innovations and commercial interests in provisions that are fair, environmentally accountable, and peaceful in nature.
Author(s)Name: Dikshita Deb (West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences)
References:
[1] Klotz I, ‘Tech Billionaires Bankroll Gold Rush to Mine Asteroids’ (Reuters, 24 April 2012) < https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-asteroid-mining-idUSBRE83N06U20120424 > accessed 12 June 2026
[2] NASA, ‘NASA Radar Finds Ice Deposits at Moon’s North Pole’ (NASA Science, 2 March 2010) < https://science.nasa.gov/missions/mini-rf/nasa-radar-finds-ice-deposits-at-moons-north-pole/ > accessed 12 June 2026
[3] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205, art II.
[4] John G Wrench, ‘Non-Appropriation, No Problem: The Outer Space Treaty Is Ready for Asteroid Mining’ (2019) 51(1) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 437.
[5] Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 3.
[6] US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Pub L No 114-90, 129 Stat 704 (2015), Title IV.
[7] Law of 20 July 2017 on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources (Luxembourg) (entered into force 1 August 2017) art 1.
[8] NASA, The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes (13 October 2020) <https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/>accessed 14 June 2026
[9] Frederick Boamah, ‘Artemis Accord – A Critical Analysis of Global Norm-Making in Outer Space’ (2025) 15 Advanced Space Law 58 < https://doi.org/10.29202/asl/15/5 > accessed 16 June 2026.