As a new wave of international and commercial missions accelerates the return of humans to the moon, a growing chorus of diplomats and policy experts is warning that the world lacks an effective legal framework to prevent competition from escalating into conflict. With multiple nations and private entities planning to establish long-term bases and extract lunar resources, the international community is grappling with how to govern activities on Earth’s natural satellite to ensure stability and prevent a territorial rush reminiscent of colonial-era land grabs.
The crux of the issue lies in aged treaties that, while successful for decades, are ill-equipped for an era of resource utilization and permanent habitats. The foundational 1967 Outer Space Treaty established the moon as a global commons for peaceful use, forbidding claims of national sovereignty. However, its language is ambiguous on the legality of extracting resources such as water ice and minerals. This legal gray area, combined with competing geopolitical ambitions, has led to the emergence of separate, and at times conflicting, rulebooks, fueling concerns that terrestrial disputes could soon extend to the lunar surface.
A Renewed Push for a Lunar Presence
More than 50 years after the last Apollo mission, a diverse set of global actors is targeting the moon with unprecedented ambition. The United States, through its Artemis program, is working with numerous international and commercial partners to establish a long-term human presence on the moon, with the eventual goal of preparing for missions to Mars. This effort involves dozens of nations and prioritizes collaboration with the private sector. The Artemis program includes plans for a lunar base and extensive resource utilization.
In parallel, China and Russia are spearheading a separate initiative called the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS). This project also aims to create a permanent lunar base and has attracted its own cohort of international partners. The emergence of these two major, independent blocs marks a significant departure from the largely cooperative scientific ventures of the past. Unlike the space race of the 20th century, the current push is not just about prestige; it is driven by strategic goals and the economic potential of lunar resources.
Cracks in the Legal Foundation
The primary international law governing space is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. It successfully demilitarized celestial bodies, banning nuclear weapons in orbit and stating that the moon shall be used “exclusively for peaceful purposes.” Critically, it also established that outer space is “not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” For decades, this treaty provided a stable foundation for exploration. However, it does not explicitly prohibit the extraction of resources, an activity that was not considered feasible when the treaty was drafted. This omission has become a central point of contention.
A later treaty, the Moon Agreement of 1979, attempted to address this gap. It proposed that lunar resources are the “common heritage of mankind” and called for an international regime to govern their exploitation. Despite its clarity, the agreement failed to gain traction and was never signed or ratified by the major spacefaring nations, including the U.S., Russia, and China. This has left a significant void in lunar governance, with no international consensus on the rules for resource extraction or the distribution of potential benefits.
Two Blocs, Competing Frameworks
In the absence of a universally accepted treaty, nations are creating their own rules. The United States has put forth the Artemis Accords, a series of bilateral agreements that establish a set of principles for its partners in the Artemis program. As of late 2025, 56 countries have signed on. The Accords reaffirm commitments to peaceful purposes, transparency, providing emergency assistance to astronauts, and the public release of scientific data. They are presented as a mechanism to implement the Outer Space Treaty in a modern context.
While many principles in the Accords are restatements of existing international law, some provisions have generated significant controversy. The disjointed approach between the U.S.-led Accords and the China-led ILRS, with a glaring lack of coordination between the two, risks escalating tensions and undermining the goal of peaceful exploration. A few nations, such as Thailand and Senegal, have joined both the Accords and the ILRS project, creating a potential, albeit small, bridge for future collaboration.
The Contentious Issue of Safety Zones
The most debated element of the Artemis Accords is the provision for “safety zones.” Section 10 of the Accords states that the extraction of resources “does not inherently constitute national appropriation.” To prevent operational conflicts, the Accords propose that signatories can create temporary safety zones around their areas of activity. Partners are required to notify other nations of these zones to avoid harmful interference.
However, critics argue that these zones could be used to create de facto exclusion areas, effectively granting exclusive control over the resources within them. This raises concerns that safety zones could become a workaround to the Outer Space Treaty’s prohibition on national appropriation, allowing nations to assert control over valuable lunar real estate without making a formal sovereignty claim. The concept remains highly controversial and is a key point of divergence in the international community’s approach to lunar governance.
Forging a Path Toward Cooperation
Preventing conflict will require a concerted effort to build consensus and establish clear, multilateral rules of the road. Experts suggest several paths forward to de-escalate tensions. One approach is to revisit existing legal frameworks, such as the Moon Agreement. While politically unpopular, it provides a detailed model for resource management that could be adapted or used as a starting point for new negotiations. A willingness among nations to use and potentially modify this existing treaty could pave the way for a more unified system.
Another crucial element is fostering greater transparency and communication between the competing lunar programs. Principles like sharing information about activities and plans can build confidence and reduce the risk of misunderstandings or accidents. Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty already calls on states to conduct their activities with “due regard to the interests of all other parties” and to engage in international consultations if their activities might cause “harmful interference.” Strengthening adherence to this principle is seen as essential for stability.
Ensuring a Peaceful Lunar Future
The world stands at a critical juncture in the history of space exploration. The decisions made in the coming years will determine whether the moon becomes a peaceful arena for scientific discovery and collaboration or an extension of terrestrial power politics. The current trajectory, characterized by competing blocs and legal uncertainty, carries a significant risk of friction and conflict.
Achieving a stable and secure environment on the moon will require moving beyond unilateral or bloc-based initiatives toward a genuinely global framework. Such a system must address the complex challenges of resource extraction, operational deconfliction, and benefit-sharing in a way that respects the principle of the moon as a domain for all humanity. Without a robust and widely accepted governance structure, the dream of a permanent, peaceful human presence on the moon could be jeopardized by conflict over its most valuable regions and resources.