Claiming the Cosmos: The Legal and Ethical Issues Of Space Ownership

When people talk about exploring space, the focus is usually on science, technology, and the excitement of discovering something new. But as space travel becomes more advanced, another question has started to appear: Who owns space? And who gets to use the things we might find there, like minerals on asteroids or ice on the Moon? 

These questions are becoming urgent as countries and private companies are planned for space mining and long-term missions. The challenge is that our space laws were written decades ago, and they may no longer be enough to address today’s realities.

I. The Foundation: The Outer Space Treaty

The Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967 is the oldest and most important law governing space activity. It describes outer space as the “province of all mankind,” meaning it belongs to everyone equally. No country is allowed to claim any part of space as its territory, and no one can own a planet, moon, or asteroid, “by claim of sovereignty, use, occupation, or any other means.” 

In simple terms, the treaty treats space as a global commons, meaning no nation or private institution owns it.,

The treaty was created during the Cold War, when world powers feared that space could become a new battlefield. Its main goal was to promote peace, cooperation, and fairness. However, while it succeeded in preventing military conflict in space, it left many questions about space ownership unanswered.

One of the biggest gaps is that the OST never directly states whether extracted resources (like mined ice or metals) can be owned. It bans territorial claims, but it does not explicitly ban taking and keeping resources. This lack of clarity causes different countries to interpret the treaty to their benefit.

II. A New Era of Space Commerce

One major concern is what happens when someone takes resources from space. Does extracting a resource count as ownership? Or is that a loophole that gets around the spirit of the treaty?

The Outer Space Treaty doesn’t clearly answer this question, which has led to major legal gaps.

In 2015, the United States passed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. This law allows American companies to own and sell materials they extract from space. The U.S. government argues that this doesn’t violate the Outer Space Treaty because companies aren’t claiming the land itself—just the resources. 

Supporters say this policy encourages private investment, innovation, and faster progress in space technology. 

Critics, however, argue that it goes against the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty. If space resources are supposed to belong to all humankind, then allowing private profit could lead to inequality. Only wealthy countries and cooperations with advanced technology would benefit, leaving developing nations behind. 

This raises a growing ethical concern: Is space exploration becoming another frontier that will be dominated by powerful nations? Or should the rules be designed to ensure fair access for all nations?

III. The Artemis Accords: Cooperation or Control?

The Artemis Accords (2020) introduced new guidelines for how countries will cooperate on future lunar missions. The Accords emphasize transparency, peaceful use of space, and open sharing scientific data, values consistent with the Outer Space Treaty. 

However, they also introduce the idea of “safety zones.” These zones are areas around a mission or mining site where other countries can’t interfere. The purpose is to avoid accidents, but critics warn that it resembles a form of claiming territory, inexplicitly. 

But critics argue that safety zones could become “soft territorial claims.” If a safety zone is large or long-lasting, it could start to act like a land claim in space, going against the idea that space belongs to everyone.

Another issue with the Artemis Accords is that not every country is part of them. Though now with time since the treaty was created nations, big and small, have joined, most of the say of matters during the meeting is controlled by influential countries. 

These signatories are nations with already existing powerful space programs and technologies, so their vote on important matters have bigger priority, leading to inequality between the countries. Meaning that future rules about the Moon and other space activities may be influenced mainly by a few powerful countries. 

This raises questions of fairness and global inclusion. If space is supposed to belong to all humanity, should decisions be made by only some nations?

IV. From Peace to Profit: The Shift in Space Policy

The evolution of space law shows shifting global priorities:

• The Outer Space treaty focused on peace and preventing conflict.

• The 2015 U.S. law focused on encouraging business and private investments.

• The Artemis Accords aim to balance cooperation with national and commercial interests.

Together they mark a clear transition—from viewing space as a shared global commons to treating it as a potential marketplace for nations and corporations.

This raises a fundamental question: Can humanity explore and use space resources without repeating the same pattern of mistakes made on Earth?

V. The Path Forward: What Should Change?

It is not enough to say that space laws need updating. We need specific, realistic changes.

One possible solution is to create an international licensing and resource-management system, run by either: the United Nations Officer for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), or a new global agency focused on space resources.

This system could:

• Issue licenses for resource extraction.

• Require transparency about technology, location, and environmental impact.

• Ensure limited, temporary zones around mission, not territorial claims

• Collect a small fee or royalty from space-mined resources to create a global fund for all benefitting countries.

• Prevent monopolies by limiting the amount of extraction rights.

This model would preserve the Outer Space Treaty’s vision of space as a global commons, while still giving companies enough legal certainty to invest in space mining.

VI. Conclusion

Space exploration is advancing rapidly, and the laws guiding it must evolve too. The Outer Space Treaty was designed for an era when only governments operated in space. Today’s world is different. Private companies, competitive nations, and new technologies have pushed space policy into a new phase.

To keep space peaceful and fair, the world needs clear international rules that prevent conflict, encourage innovation, and ensure that space remains accessible to all nations, not just a few with the most money or technology.

Updating our legal frameworks now could prevent future disputes and ensure that exploration stays true to its goal: to benefit all of humankind.