Published On: November 4th 2025
Authored By: TANNU MISHRA
GOPALDAS JHAMATMAL ADVANI LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI
ABSTRACT
This article examines the ethical and legal ramifications of extracting resources from outer space within the current international framework. It highlights the inconsistencies of the Moon Agreement and the Outer Space Treaty in regulating commercial activities in deep space and avoiding unilateral exploitation. The article emphasizes the necessity of a multilateral governance regime based on justice, environmental sustainability, and legal clarity grounded in multilateral engagements. It advocates for change that ensures responsible stewardship of space resources, promotes fair access, and clarifies treaty ambiguities. By articulating a fair strategy for legitimacy, long-term stability, and international collaboration, the article aims to contribute to the current discourse on space law.
KEYWORDS: Space Mining, Resource Extraction, Multilateral Agreement, Outer Space Treaty, Benefit Sharing.
INTRODUCTION
The shift of celestial bodies from symbols of scientific wonder to possible sites of economic exploitation has resulted from the commercialization of outer space. Space mining has taken on a speculative shape as private enterprises and spacefaring nations target water, ice, helium-3, and rare metals on the Moon, asteroids, and other celestial bodies. While there is a dynamic horizon for space mining, the legal framework governing such activities is still outdated and fragmented. Preliminary treaties, such as the Outer Space Treaty (1967) and the Moon Agreement (1979), emphasize the peaceful use of outer space and prohibit national appropriation, yet simultaneously provide limited guidance on the rights and responsibilities of private actors. Due to these ambiguities, several states introduced domestic legislation authorizing private actors to extract and commercialize space resources while also raising concerns about the doctrine that access to outer space and its resources are universal, infringing equality, and environmental sustainability, highlighting the inadequate mechanisms existing for global governance of space and its resources.
This article analyzes legal developments regarding the extraction of resources from outer space. It also explores the ethical and environmental consequences of privatizing space and proposes pathways towards a comprehensive, operational, and enforceable international system. This article aims to reconfigure outer space governance, reconciling commercial interests with principles of collective accountability and maintenance of universal access.
EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS GOVERNING SPACE RESOURCE EXTRACTION
The current system of outer space governance treaties and institutions, which arose in the late 1960s and early 1970s, has primarily remained unchanged. Although this legal framework was successful in the Cold War era, it was not made to handle growing national interests, new technologies, or conflicts in a multilateral world. However, it does provide a foundation that is essential to comprehending the legal landscape underlying new strategic rivalries in space governance.[1]
At the core is the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, a multilateral treaty forming the basis of international space law, simultaneously providing a fundamental framework for the governance of outer space activities. This treaty frames outer space as a domain beyond national sovereignty and dedicated to the peaceful exploration of deep space for the benefit of humanity. It also affirmed that outer space would be free and accessible to all states, prohibiting national appropriation by any means, and banning the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on any celestial bodies. The treaty also emphasized that the Moon and other celestial bodies exploration and use shall be accessible to all states that are Parties to this treaty; astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind. States shall be held internationally responsible for governmental as well as nongovernmental activities in space, also being responsible for the damage they cause by their space objects, and shall avoid harmful contamination of the outer space environment. These provisions collectively establish a cooperative and precautionary regime, but offer limited guidance on commercial extraction of space resources.[2]
Four other legally binding international agreements regulate outer space in addition to the OST. According to the 1968 Rescue Agreement, states must help spacecraft crews in distress or make emergency landings and report such incidents to the UN Secretary-General and the launching country. Additionally, it enables countries to ask for assistance in recovering space objects that fall outside of their control, with the launching state bearing the financial burden. Countries are held internationally responsible for harm caused by space objects launched from their territory, both on Earth and in space, according to the Liability Convention of 1972. The 1976 Registration Convention encourages accountability and transparency in space operations by requiring states to provide the UN with comprehensive information about their launched space objects, including the launching country, object designation, launch date and location, orbital parameters, and general function.[3]
Adopted in 1979 and coming into effect in 1984, the Moon Agreement is another significant treaty in international space law. This multilateral agreement specifies that all operations on the Moon and other celestial bodies shall adhere to international law, including the United Nations Charter, while also restating the fundamentals of the Outer Space Treaty. It also advocates for the Moon’s resources to be designated as the common heritage of humanity, to be governed by an international regime when exploitation becomes feasible, and to emphasize peaceful use, environmental protection, and transparency. The Moon Treaty, however, has not been ratified by the United States, Russia, or China, and compared to the other agreements, this treaty has drawn a lot fewer states as its signatories.[4]
The foundation of current space governance is made up of treaties, but institutions are also equally important. The institutional framework for space governance is a complex system including national governments, private actors, regional coalitions, and international organizations. The political nuances of treaty-making and the non-binding nature of its recent guidelines, like those on debris mitigation, have reduced the United Nations’ influence. In parallel, voluntary technical standards that direct space operations are contributed by groups such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Consensus-driven governance is increasingly reliant on minilateral coalitions, like the International Space Station partnership and the European Space Agency, especially when it comes to operational standards and astronaut safety. While private organizations increasingly shape norms through internal standards, particularly in satellite deployment, national governments have taken on the role of regulatory authorities, with differing domestic approaches to licensing and oversight. Flexibility and creativity are made possible by this decentralized structure, but it also has possibilities of regulatory gaps and uneven compliance, especially in fields like debris tracking and space object registration.[5]
The current institutional and legal framework for space governance remains a fundamental point of reference in a field that is becoming increasingly competitive and complex. Nonetheless, the emergence of diverse actors, new technologies, and disjointed regulatory approaches highlights the pressing need for inclusive and flexible governance mechanisms.
CHALLENGES TO SPACE RESOURCE EXTRACTION
Mining in outer space creates complications. Although the prospect of rich resources from the Moon and asteroids is alluring, there are substantial “grey zones” that need to be resolved before large-scale extraction is feasible. The following are the challenges:
- Legal and Ownership Conflicts
National or private claims of sovereignty over celestial bodies are forbidden by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which establishes space as a global common. However, nations like the United States, Luxembourg, and the United Arab Emirates have enacted legislation that permits private enterprises to possess resources extracted from space. Critical questions are raised by this legal discrepancy, which puts national interests and international norms at odds. The urgent need for global agreement on space mining governance is thus highlighted by the absence of a unified legal framework.[6]
- Equity and Access
Because access is controlled by affluent countries and corporations, space resource extraction runs the risk of aggravating global inequality. Arguments for inclusive benefit-sharing and sustainable governance are at the core of ethical discussions about whether space assets should be privately owned or regarded as part of humanity’s collective heritage.
- Environmental and Ethical Concerns
Exploiting space resources raises significant risk to the surrounding space environment and celestial bodies. Mining operations could alter the Moon’s and asteroids’ paths or composition, potentially leading to orbital hazards. Additionally, satellite networks and mission safety are at risk due to the buildup of space debris from abandoned equipment or broken machinery. To ensure that space exploration does not jeopardize the integrity of the cosmic environment, there is emphasis on the necessity of ethical responsibility in technological development and sustainable mining methods.
- Intergenerational ethics
The extraction of space resources has significant ethical ramifications for coming generations. Unregulated exploitation increases the risk of exhausting extraterrestrial resources before they can benefit future humans, even though it might encourage technological advancement and planetary exploration. To support a sustainable future beyond Earth, ethical frameworks must guarantee equitable distribution and long-term stewardship of space resources as more countries and private organizations join the space economy.[7]
The integrity of the universe will be preserved for future generations if the advantages of space resources are responsibly, cautiously, and cooperatively utilized.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGAL REFORM
Space resource extraction is becoming a reality due to growing investments and technical developments. But the existing legal framework of outer space governance is insufficient and highlights the need for modifications, in congruence with the changing space dynamics. This article suggests policy measures aligning with the management of today’s space activities below:
- Clear Definition Of “Peaceful Purposes”
The term “peaceful purposes” is purposefully left open-ended in the Outer Space Treaty (OST), allowing for a wide interpretation that encompasses “non-aggressive” military operations. This ambiguity has produced a “fog of peace” in which non-lethal or non-physically destructive activities and capabilities, like cyber operations and electronic interference, can proliferate without clear regulation or control. States with fewer space capabilities and low economies are disproportionately affected by this situation because they are less equipped to respond to such disruptions and are more susceptible to them. To address this issue, a suggested policy measure is to clarify what constitutes peaceful purposes and to address the grey zones through more detailed governance, thereby reducing the scope of harmful activities and providing a non-ambiguous framework for all the member nations to adhere to.
- Filling the Vacuum of Space Resource Sharing
There is a gap in the existing legal framework about the sharing of extracted space resources. Even though the Outer Space Treaty forbids “national appropriation,” there is no international agreement on what this means when space resources are extracted by the private sector. Because of this legal ambiguity, various states have created their own domestic laws for such activities, leading to conflicting interpretations and uneven implementations of the treaty’s tenets. The policy suggestion to fill this legal vacuum is the creation of a new multilateral agreement or international framework that will offer a uniform and transparent set of guidelines for resource extraction, guarantee fair distribution, and avoid destructive practices in outer space.
CONCLUSION
The technological advancements and reduced launch costs have made space resource extraction increasingly achievable, bringing with it both previously unheard opportunities and complex legal issues. Future space travel and human habitation can be facilitated by resources like helium-3, rare metals, and lunar water. But the lack of a unified and binding international legal system has created a regulatory void, leading governments to pass fragmented domestic legislation, putting their commercial interests first. These actions led to weakening the Outer Space Treaty’s core tenets, especially the commitment to fair sharing of space and the ban on national appropriation. An adoption of a multilateral governance regime based on justice, environmental sustainability, and legal clarity helps reduce the risks and guarantee the long-term stability and legitimacy of space activities.
REFERENCES
[1] William Burke-White and Benjamin Gwyn Williams, Geopolitical Ambitions and Rule Contestations in Space Governance: The Existing Framework for Space Governance (Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2025) https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep68539.7
[2] United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, The Outer Space Treaty (UNOOSA, 1967) https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html accessed 8 September 2025.
[3] Clayton Swope and Louis Gleason, Salmon Swimming Upstream: Charting a Course in Cislunar Space – International Space Governance Frameworks (Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2024) https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep64038.6.
[4] United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, The Moon Agreement (UNOOSA, 1979) https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html accessed 8 September 2025.
[5] William Burke-White and Benjamin Gwyn Williams, Geopolitical Ambitions and Rule Contestations in Space Governance: The Existing Framework for Space Governance (Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2025) https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep68539.7
[6] Rachel Green, ‘The Ethical Implications of Space Resource Extraction and Exploitation’ (2024) 13(7) TSI Journal of Space Science and Ethics 375 https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/the-ethical-implications-of-space-resource-extraction-and-exploitation
[7] Rachel Green, ‘The Ethical Implications of Space Resource Extraction and Exploitation’ (2024) 13(7) TSI Journal of Space Science and Ethics 375 https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/the-ethical-implications-of-space-resource-extraction-and-exploitation
