In my first article in this three-part series, I explored the legality behind the United States government’s announcement last month that it possessed controlled, space-based weaponry deployed in its operational sphere stretching from “the seabed to cislunar space.”
We used the 1966 Outer Space Treaty (OST) as a baseline, and pointed out that under Article IV of the OST, some weapons, including “conventional anti-satellite weapons,” and current ballistic missile systems, were permitted.
We also noted that no military bases, weapons testing or deployed military systems are allowed on the Moon, or in most of the cislunar space,” extending from Earth’s surface out to and including the Moon’s orbit and surface, as per Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty.
We concluded:
…later progress defining international space laws have mostly been “guidelines” lacking the force of international law or are simple national legislation such as the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, which legalized space mining for U.S.-based companies.
The binding foundation of the OST
As outlined in the December 19, 1966, Resolution adopted adapted by the General Assembly, “2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” the OST was expected to become the final word governing future space exploration.
Its key rules include:
-
- Exploration and use as the “province of all mankind” with free access on a basis of equality
- A ban on national appropriation of outer space or celestial bodies
- A prohibition on nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, on celestial bodies, or stationed in space “in any other manner”; and exclusive peaceful use of the Moon and other celestial bodies (no military bases, weapons testing, or manoeuvres there)
- States remain internationally responsible for national activities, including those of private companies, and must authorize and continuously supervise them
The OST was not created in a vacuum. It was the second in a series of three international agreements, each intended to serve as the cornerstone of future international law as administered through the United Nations.
The other two were:
-
- The 1959 Antarctic Treaty and its related agreements, which designated Antarctica as a scientific preserve, establishing freedom of scientific investigation, and banned all military activity on the continent. It endures to this day,
- The 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international treatythat establishes a legal framework for all marine and maritime activities. UNCLOS replaces the older “freedom of the seas” concept that goes back to the 17th century.
From 1968-79, three international agreements were added, specifically to bolster the OST.
-
- The 1968 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, which added to the general duties in Articles V and VIII of the OST and turned them into more specific, operational rules. Over 100 nations ratified the agreement.
- The 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, which builds upon the OST, emphasizing peaceful exploration of space. Approximately 100 nations ratified this agreement.
- The 1974 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, requires every launching state to maintain a national registry of space objects and to provide key identifying data to a central UN register maintained by the UN Secretary‑General. Entered into force on September 15, 1976, it has been ratified by dozens of states.
These three documents were generally conceded as progressing logically from the OST, helping to administer space law and effectively deal with liability issues.
The 1979 Moon Treaty
Then we get to the 1979 Moon Treaty.
Formally titled the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, the 1979 Moon Treaty entered into force in 1984 after only five countries ratified it, an unusual situation for any treaty intended to govern the actions of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of independent nations.
Article 11 of the Moon Treaty is the core problem for actual spacefaring nations. It says the Moon and its natural resources are the “common heritage” of mankind. Exploitation is not to proceed as ordinary national or private-sector mining. When exploitation becomes feasible, parties are supposed to establish an international regime to:
-
- Orderly and safely develop the resources
- Manage them rationally
- Expand opportunities to use them
- Equitably share the benefits, with special regard for developing countries and for states that contributed to exploration
But to spacefaring governments and industry, that sounded like a future UN or International Space Agency-style body that could license, tax, or redistribute lunar ice, metals, helium-3, or any other Moon resource, as they see fit.
U.S. industry groups, space advocates (notably the L-5 Society), and mining interests told the U.S. Senate that the Moon treaty would make private investment impossible and amount to an international socialist claim on the solar system.
As outlined in the October 24, 2011, Space Review post, “The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?,” the Jimmy Carter administration never pushed for ratification of the Moon Treaty, and the Ronald Reagan administration killed it.
Russia also disliked the treaty. As outlined in the January 25, 2023, McGill Institute of Space Law post, “The Moon Agreement: Hanging by a Thread?,” Russia did not want a strong international resource authority deciding who got any of the useful minerals its astronauts might have worked hard to dig up.
Currently, the Moon Treaty has only 17 state signatories, and none is a nation that can independently launch humans into orbit. It is generally considered a failed treaty.
What replaced the 1979 Moon Treaty?
The legal vacuum was filled by national statutes written by federal governments, which mostly allowed their citizens to mine what they wanted, for their own benefit.
The statutes included:
-
- The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (Public Law 114-90), signed by President Barack Obama on November 25, 2015. In space-law debates, it is usually cited for Title IV, which first gave U.S. companies a statutory right to own resources they extract in space.
- The Law of July 20, 2017, on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources took effect on August 1, 2017, in Luxembourg, which was the first European country and second country after the U.S. to pass a dedicated space-mining statute.
- The 2019 Japanese Space Resources Act also discussed mining in space and afforded companies from Japan the right to own resources they extract in space.
- The Federal Decree Law No. 46 of UAE Regulations on space activities (2023), part of the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) National Space Policy, established a comprehensive legal framework to support UAE’s commitment to international treaties and allows UAE citizens to own resources on the Moon.
Some nations, it seems, have decided that access to in-space resources is more important than limiting weapons in space.
The U.S. is leading the current wave of space commercialization with the Artemis Accords, a set of non-binding political principles for civil exploration and exploitation of the Moon, Mars, comets, and asteroids.
NASA and the U.S. State Department announced the Artemis Accords on October 13, 2020, with seven other founders: Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the UAE, and the United Kingdom. As of September 28, 2026, 76 countries have signed on.
After the 1979 Moon Agreement failed, there was no shared rulebook for mining, safety zones, or overlapping lunar bases.
The Accords fill that gap for the countries that signed, using the U.S./Luxembourg reading of the 1968 Outer Space Treaty, which argued that you may own extracted ice or minerals mined on the Moon, but you may not own the Moon.
That is the opposite of the 1979 Moon Treaty’s “common heritage” language. In essence, the core nations with access to space got what they wanted; the right to access resources using the Artemis Accords.
But the Artemus Accords did not discuss “on-orbit space control weapons.”
For discussion of how that situation might look to an outsider, check out Part 3 of this analysis, which will land in this space soon.
(Chuck Black – BIG Media Ltd., 2026)
