Multi-Arena Strategy for Solidifying Private Property Rights

The 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty) is first and foremost a disarmament treaty. Second, and equally important, the Outer Space Treaty contained a clause to prevent annexation of the Moon and other celestial bodies by any nation:

This article effectively prohibits exercise of territorial sovereignty in outer space by nations; however, no explicit provisions exist concerning rights for private citizens. And for good reason. At the time of negotiations, the concept of direct involvement by the private sector was completely alien — treaty proceedings were reserved for national governments only.

Advocates for private-sector property rights have cited as justification for their position the lack of direct prohibition of such rights. Considering evidence provided in other treaties addressing property rights in general and, more specifically, those beyond national borders, it can be deduced that, had there been an intention to exclude the right to property of natural persons, the Outer Space Treaty would have stated this to a clear extent.

Justification that the prohibition of “national appropriation” in Article II functions to forbid individual citizens of member nations from property rights loses all merit upon comparative analysis with similar treaties in the international arena. What becomes clear is that specific legal terminology exists for the prohibition or restriction of private individuals from property and property-related rights within other United Nations treaties governing territory beyond national borders. The text of the Outer Space Treaty does not contain that terminology.

The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, commonly known as the Moon Agreement, was opened for signature on December 18, 1979. Article 1 establishes that the provisions of this Agreement relating to the Moon shall also apply to other celestial bodies within the solar system, other than the Earth. [2] Article 11 contains explicit and comprehensive prohibitions that leave no ambiguity regarding private property rights:

The phrase “or of any natural person” represents the critical distinguishing language. Unlike the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which addresses only “national appropriation,” the Moon Agreement explicitly extends its prohibition to natural persons — individual human beings. This comprehensive prohibition leaves no room for interpretation: private property rights are explicitly foreclosed. Furthermore, Article 11(5) attempts to establish an international regime as an alternative governance structure, but no significant effort has been put forth in this regard. [4]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), concluded on December 10, 1982, provides another instructive example of explicit prohibition. Part XI addresses “The Area,” defined in Article 136 as the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, declaring it the common heritage of mankind. Article 137 contains comprehensive prohibitions that parallel those in the Moon Agreement: [5]

• No State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources, nor shall any State or natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof.
• All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act.
• No State or natural or juridical person shall claim, acquire or exercise rights with respect to the minerals recovered from the Area except in accordance with this Part.

The phrase “natural or juridical person” appears twice in Article 137, explicitly extending the prohibition beyond states to include both natural persons and juridical persons (corporate entities). This is unambiguous legal drafting designed to foreclose any possibility of private claims to resources.

These two treaties — the 1979 Moon Agreement and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention — containing the specific phrases “or of any natural person” and “or natural or juridical person” represent standard legal terminology for extending prohibitions beyond states to private individuals and entities. Both are notoriously top-down and fraught with controversy, making alternative approaches through national-level interpretation both practical and necessary.

Opponents of off-planet property rights argue that, with no national entity able to assert territorial claims and no direct treaty provisions favorable to private citizens, off-planet property rights are hindered from forward progress. This argument falls flat in the face of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Eleanor Roosevelt, in her address on the adoption of the Declaration delivered on December 9, 1948, clarified its nature: “It is not a treaty; it is not an international agreement. It is a Declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms … to serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.” [7]

The contemporary relevance of these principles extends directly into space policy through UNISPACE+50, whose overarching thematic priority centers on sustainable development in space, and which calls for the principles of the 2030 Agenda to be upheld in space activities. The 2030 Agenda is itself grounded in and re-affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [8] This creates a direct linkage between the 1948 establishment of fundamental human rights, including property rights, and current international space policy objectives.

Any forward progress at the United Nations level should therefore ensure that human rights and the fundamental concept of property are upheld. Conceptually, the future evolution of an international framework favorable to private resource utilization in outer space remains wide open.

National legislation favorable to space resource utilization by private entities was passed in the United States, [9] Luxembourg, [10] the United Arab Emirates [11] and Japan. [12] These stop short of addressing resources in place (in-situ) and apply only to extracted resources. Inevitably, the question arose as to whether these acts of unilateral legislation in and of themselves constituted national appropriation, prompting this response from Roscosmos in 2017:

The US Executive Order Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources produced a move toward bilateral negotiations by way of the Artemis Accords, where partnerships with nations center on favorable resource utilization with respect to the Outer Space Treaty framework.

The Artemis Accords speak to nations, without mention of private entities directly, again stopping short of addressing in-situ resources (surface and subsurface resources in place). Recent trends in national and bilateral agreements affirming that extracted resources are permissible under the Outer Space Treaty has led to a false narrative that private entities’ rights to resources in place are prohibited. This requires correction: only the Moon Agreement directly prohibits private entities from surface and subsurface property rights.

With respect to the Outer Space Treaty, the Artemis Accords and national legislation, no text serves to explicitly forbid development of property rights for resources in place for private entities. The rules simply haven’t been written yet.

In the absence of an internationally agreed mechanism for private property rights, favorable precedent for private-sector rights to resources in place can be rendered under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, which provides a clear framework for authorization and supervision of private activities:

On the private sector level, efforts are underway to approach competent authorities in multiple nations seeking determination in official capacity that private sector projects relating to resource utilization upon celestial bodies do not constitute a violation of the Outer Space Treaty.

Prior to the 2015 United States legislation on space resources, I approached competent national authorities to render favorable interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty, specifically seeking determination that a private individual’s claim to property rights upon the three stars of Orion’s Belt, as well as a claim to mineral rights upon a minor planet, was not in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

Through this mechanism, assertion of a claim to property rights or subsurface mineral interest by a natural or juridical person situated on a near-Earth celestial body may gain confirmation by the competent national authority that such claim is not in violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The authorization and supervision mechanism of Article VI, rather than serving as a barrier, can function as the very means by which private property rights gain legitimacy.

The focus of these efforts is to secure a favorable interpretation of the current treaty framework governing outer space with respect to private property rights and resource utilization — without litigation, under current legislation, and free from accusation of violating the Outer Space Treaty’s non-appropriation principle.

The Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group has put forth Building Blocks seeking to open dialogue with private and public sector entities developing a framework for resource utilization: “Private sector participants and governments should be involved in the designation or establishment of an international body responsible for the identification of best practices of the utilization of space resources.” [15]

Within the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities presents an opportunity for a legally binding instrument to develop. Since 2021 it has served as a platform for stakeholders across academia, civil society, and institutional and private actors. Finalization of a set of initial recommended principles, followed by possible adoption by the General Assembly, is set for 2027. [16]

The final text could serve as the basis for a new international agreement and, as a United Nations instrument, should remain consistent with the United Nations’ core principles. Contributions contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be excluded. One proposed clause in the updated draft set of recommended principles, dated 28 April 2026, repeats verbatim Article 11(3) of the Moon Agreement: [17, 18]

This proposed text’s arbitrary prohibition of property encompassing all natural persons is diametrically opposed to Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Efforts should be made to ensure that such contradictory text is not solidified in the Working Group’s final principles.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty’s limits on national appropriation do not extend directly to private-sector resource utilization, as comparison with treaties that do impose such limits makes evident. National legislation and bilateral agreements favoring private ownership of extracted resources indicate that some form of property rights can also develop for resources in place.

Any further progress under the auspices of the United Nations should respect the right to property expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right combination of action across private, national, and international arenas can solidify a favorable climate for private property rights within the current and future international framework governing outer space.