By — Anisha Jyotirmayee
Abstract:
The geopolitics of resources from the Moon is becoming an increasingly relevant topic within the realm of international space governance. In light of the discovery of water on the Moon, especially in the polar areas, there is growing interest in the possibility of using the resources from the Moon in the future. However, the terms of the Outer Space Treaty rule out any possibility of sovereignty of any state over celestial bodies without settling the issue of the exploitation of such resources. This article will examine the nexus between space law and technology in relation to the use of lunar resources.
Introduction:
The Moon is becoming increasingly important as an object of scientific research and international collaboration. Alongside scientific objectives, attention has also turned towards the possible use of lunar resources, particularly water and other volatiles found in or around the lunar polar regions. According to NASA, evidence of water has been found on both the sunlit and shaded regions of the Moon, while studies continue on the accessibility, presence and origin of water on the Moon. The Moon is accessible for exploration and use by all nations and cannot be owned by any nation according to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. However, at the same time, one needs some specific skills and funds in order to gain access to the Moon. The geopolitical significance of lunar resources therefore lies not simply in the resources themselves, but in the relationship between legal equality, technological capability and participation in emerging systems of space governance.
Lunar Resources and the Importance of the Polar Regions:
Water is one of the most important resources in discussions of future lunar exploration. NASA’s review of lunar research records evidence of water ice in permanently shadowed regions and notes that the distribution and behaviour of lunar water remain subjects of continuing scientific investigation through the SOFIA mission. The potential importance of lunar water is connected to its possible uses in future exploration. NASA states that lunar water could potentially provide resources for breathable air and rocket fuel, although substantial further investigation is required to determine the location and quantity of accessible deposits.
This distinction is important. The existence of lunar water is established, but large-scale commercial extraction of lunar resources is not an established industry. Current activities remain focused on scientific investigation, technological development and determining how resources could potentially be used. Consequently, the Lunar South Pole has emerged as a location worthy of exploration. India’s Chandrayaan-3 made in-situ observations at the high-latitude southern pole, and ISRO has also indicated that knowledge of the Moon’s thermal environment would be critical to the study of ice-water stability and exploration. As a result of this, geography is becoming increasingly significant for space activities on a global scale. Some places of interest might bring scientific benefits or natural resources that can be exploited. However, this does not entail that countries have put forward any territorial claims.
The Outer Space Treaty and Ownership of Space:
The primary legal act which governs the issue is the Outer Space Treaty signed back in 1967. Article I of the treaty states that exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, should be done for the benefit of all humankind and the interests of all the people on the entire globe. The same article also states that outer space and celestial bodies can be explored and used by all countries on an equal footing. There will be freedom of access to all parts of celestial bodies. Article II sets the principle of non-appropriation. No governmental claim to sovereignty, use, occupation, or otherwise will ensure national ownership of outer space. So, a distinction must be made between the utilization of the Moon and ownership of it. States can engage in the exploration and use of the Moon, yet owning this satellite will be impossible for them. The legislation covering outer space also deals with private initiatives. Article VI says that the states bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including those of nongovernmental entities. Such activities are authorized and supervised by states. It becomes especially relevant today when commercial actors engage in lunar exploration. Private companies are not outside the sphere of international space law just because they are not governments; their activities are still related to the responsibilities of the states where they are located.
The Unresolved Question of Resource Utilization:
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits national appropriation, but it does not develop the regulatory scheme for each aspect of future resource utilization. This has led to the ongoing legal debate over resource utilization in compliance with the Treaty. The UN legal discussion about space resources said that the issues in the legal context of resource exploitation include the connection between resource activities and the principles of international space law and how future activities by public and private actors should be regulated. The problem is not only whether a state can “own” some parts of the Moon. The question is whether the extraction and utilisation of some resources can be separated legally from the appropriation of the celestial body itself. Different states and scholars interpret the question in different ways. It is more correct not to assume that the problem is already legally resolved but to regard lunar resource regulation as an area with different legal constructions.
The Moon Agreement and the Question of Benefit-Sharing:
The Moon Agreement of 1979 can serve as a model for governing lunar resources. Article 11 calls the Moon and its natural resources “the common heritage of mankind” and prohibits states, international organizations, or private entities from claiming sovereignty over the Moon or its resources. Moreover, the Moon Agreement indicates that exploitation will only take place under the auspices of an international regime. This regime aims to achieve regulated use and management of lunar resources, as well as facilitate the equitable sharing of benefits from such resources.
This introduces a distributive dimension into lunar governance. The question becomes not only whether resources can be utilised, but also how the benefits of such utilisation should be distributed. The Moon Agreement therefore provides an important reference point for debates concerning developing countries and the distribution of benefits from space activities. It should not, however, be described simply as the “international law governing lunar mining.” Its provisions represent one treaty-based approach to lunar resource governance, and its proposed international regime has not become the universally accepted framework for future resource utilisation.
Artemis Accords and Operational Governance:
Another example of a modern framework regarding lunar exploration is the Artemis Accords. As noted by NASA, the Accords were created in 2020, and they serve as additional support for the Outer Space Treaty and other international space-related treaties. The Accords specifically address space resources. They state that the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty and that resource extraction should be conducted consistently with the Treaty.
The Accords also introduce the concept of temporary “safety zones” for coordinating activities and avoiding harmful interference. According to NASA, these areas should be viewed as so-called temporary zones that are formed based on the type of operation. In addition, the Accords clarify that the use of such zones will be based on the principle of free access to all celestial territories. Therefore, it cannot be said that the safety zones are the same as territorial claims. It is indicated in the Artemis program that the main purpose of this term is to provide coordination of various activities and to avoid interference with other missions. Thus, their significance in the geopolitical sense is related to the problem of coordination of numerous activities in cases when overlapping takes place.
Conclusion
The geopolitics of lunar resources includes various aspects, starting from scientific opportunities, dealing with international legislation and addressing various technological developments. It is proven that water exists on the Moon but needs to be studied more. The Outer Space Treaty states that outer space cannot belong to any state but can be explored and used by countries in the world. On this basis, the Moon Treaty offers a new approach based on the idea of common heritage. The Artemis Agreement regulates how the resources will be managed, including the creation of temporary areas of protection. The main issue is not acquiring the Moon, but defining how to ensure that the future use of resources will follow international law and guarantee the cooperation and responsibility for conducting lunar activities.
Author’s Bio:
Anisha Jyotirmayee is a student of Journalism and Media Studies at O.P Jindal Global University. Starting with an interest towards literature, she started writing research-based articles that defined and addressed real social issues.