What the law says about buying property or protecting sites on the Moon
April 2025 was a busy month for space.
Pop icon Katy Perry joined five other civilian women on a quick jaunt to the edge of space, making headlines. Meanwhile, another group of people at the United Nations was contemplating a critical issue for the future of space exploration: the discovery, extraction and utilization of natural resources on the Moon.
At the end of April, a dedicated Working Group of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space released a draft set of recommended principles for space resource activities. Essentially, these are rules to govern mining on the Moon, asteroids and elsewhere in space for elements that are rare here on Earth.
As a space lawyer and co-founder of For All Moonkind, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting human heritage in outer space, I know that the Moon could be the proving ground for humanity's evolution into a species that lives and thrives on more than one planet. However, this new frontier raises complex legal questions.
Space, legally
Outer space—including the Moon—from a legal perspective, is a unique domain without direct terrestrial equivalent. It is not, like the high seas, the ' common heritage of humankind,' nor is it an area, like Antarctica, where commercial mining is prohibited.
Instead, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty —signed by more than 115 nations, including China, Russia and the United States— establishes that the exploration and use of space are the 'province of all humankind.' That means no country may claim territory in outer space, and all have the right to access all areas of the Moon and other celestial bodies freely.
The fact that, pursuant to Article II of the treaty, a country cannot claim territory in outer space, known as the nonappropriation principle, suggests to some that property ownership in space is forbidden.
Can this be true? If your grandchildren move to Mars, will they never own a home? How can a company protect its investment in a lunar mine if it must be freely accessible by all? What happens, as it inevitably will, when two rovers race to a particular area on the lunar surface known to host valuable water ice? Does the winner take all?
As it turns out, the Outer Space Treaty does offer some wiggle room. Article IX requires countries to show 'due regard' for the corresponding interests of others. It is a legally vague standard, although the Permanent Court of Arbitration has suggested that due regard means simply paying attention to what's reasonable under the circumstances.
First mover advantage—it's a race
The treaty's broad language encourages a race to the Moon. The first entity to any spot will have a unilateral opportunity to determine what's legally 'reasonable.' For example, creating an overly large buffer zone around equipment might be justified to mitigate potential damage from lunar dust.
On top of that, Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty assumes that there will be installations, like bases or mining operations, on the Moon. Contrary to the free access principle, the treaty suggests that access to these may be blocked unless the owner grants permission to enter.
Both of these paths within the treaty would allow the first person to make it to their desired spot on the Moon to keep others out. The U.N. principles in their current form don't address these loopholes.
The draft U.N. principles released in April mirror, and are confined by, the language of the Outer Space Treaty. This tension between free access and the need to protect—most easily by forbidding access—remains unresolved. And the clock is ticking.
The Moon's vulnerable legacy
The U.S. Artemis program aims to return humans to the Moon by 2028, China has plans for human return by 2030, and in the intervening years, more than 100 robotic missions are planned by countries and private industry alike. For the most part, these missions are all headed to the same sweet spot: the lunar south pole. Here, peaks of eternal light and deep craters containing water ice promise the best mining, science and research opportunities.
In this excitement, it's easy to forget that humans already have a deep history of lunar exploration. Scattered on the lunar surface are artifacts displaying humanity's technological progress.
After centuries of gazing at our closest celestial neighbor with fascination, in 1959 the Soviet spacecraft, Luna 2, became the first human-made object to impact another celestial body. Ten years later, two humans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, became the first ever to set foot upon another celestial body.
More recently, in 2019, China's Chang'e 4 achieved the first soft landing on the Moon's far side. And in 2023, India's Chandrayaan-3 became the first to land successfully near the lunar south pole.
These sites memorialize humanity's baby steps off our home planet and easily meet the United Nations definition of terrestrial heritage, as they are so 'exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity.'
The international community works to protect such sites on Earth, but those protection protocols do not extend to outer space.
The more than 115 other sites on the Moon that bear evidence of human activity are frozen in time without degradation from weather, animal or human activity. But this could change. A single errant spacecraft or rover could kick up abrasive lunar dust, erasing bootprints or damaging artifacts.
Protection and the Outer Space Treaty
In 2011, NASA recommended establishing buffer, or safety zones, of up to 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) to protect certain sites with U.S. artifacts.
Because it understood that outright exclusion violates the Outer Space Treaty, NASA issued these recommendations as voluntary guidelines. Nevertheless, the safety zone concept, essentially managing access to and activities around specific areas, could be a practical tool for protecting heritage sites. They could act as a starting point to find a balance between protection and access.
One hundred and ninety-six nations have agreed, through the 1972 World Heritage Convention, on the importance of recognizing and protecting cultural heritage of universal value found here on Earth.
Building on this agreement, the international community could require specific access protocols—such as a permitting process, activity restrictions, shared access rules, monitoring and other controls—for heritage sites on the Moon. If accepted, these protective measures for heritage sites could also work as a template for scientific and operational sites. This would create a consistent framework that avoids the perception of claiming territory.
At this time, the draft U.N. principles released in April 2025 do not directly address the opposing concepts of access and protection. Instead, they defer to Article I of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirm that everyone has free access to all areas of the Moon and other celestial bodies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Podcast Bro Theo Von Questions How 'America First' Trump Really Is Amid Potential Iran War
Popular podcast host Theo Von joined Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.) Friday in taking a hard stance against potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Khanna appeared on Von's podcast 'This Past Weekend' to discuss several topics, from foreign affairs to AI. At one point in the segment, Khanna promoted the War Powers Resolution, a bipartisan bill he introduced with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) aimed at prohibiting U.S. armed forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. During his discussion with Von, Khanna noted several people in MAGA's base who have been vocal about the U.S. not going to war with Iran, including Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.). Von agreed with the two conservatives, stating, 'this is a horrible idea.' 'Yeah, people say, 'Well, you don't know a ton about the Middle East.' Like, that's fine. I don't want people I know, my friends, getting called up. I don't want the children of my friends getting called over to die,' Von said. 'I don't even understand how it's an option.' Von, who had Donald Trump on his podcast last year, helped the president reach younger male voters during the 2024 presidential election. Khanna remarked on the influence of Von's interview with Trump, stating the podcaster made the president 'the most human that I've actually seen him,' after the two opened up about the president's brother, alcoholism and cocaine. Last month, Von performed a controversial comedy act at a military base in Qatar before Trump addressed U.S. and Qatari troops. The podcast host has seemingly gotten closer to the Trump family, even having dinner with Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, after they attended his comedy show in Miami. Miami looked good on you @TheoVon ! Come back and visit us soon !😎 — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) May 14, 2025 Now, however, Von is beginning to question the 'America First' claims that Trump made during his campaign. When Khanna asked Von if he knew anyone who was supporting the idea of the U.S. going to war with Iran, Von responded, 'Nobody.' I asked @TheoVon if he knows anyone who says we should go to war with Nobody. I feel like it was supposed to be America first. — Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) June 20, 2025 Von went on to tell Khanna that 'it feels like we are just working for Israel,' and that he believes a lot of Americans are beginning to feel 'disillusioned' by U.S. leaders. 'I felt like it was supposed to be America first, like, we're focusing on, like, 'What are we doing to get things back into America,' right? To like, increase like the purpose of being an American, to refill our hearts with blood and ... make us feel something again here, and make us be excited about being an American,' Von said. JD Vance Tells Theo Von Musk Made A 'Huge Mistake' Going After Trump Exclusive: Israel Seeks Swift Action On Iran, Sources Say, With A Split U.S. Administration Trump Says He Should've Gotten 5 Nobel Peace Prizes While Continuing To Weigh Iran Strikes
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2 Biotech Stocks to Buy Before They Soar 84% and 240%, According to Certain Wall Street Analysts
These biotech companies have several catalysts ahead -- and in the past have soared on good news. They both offer innovative candidates that could result in game-changing treatments for patients. 10 stocks we like better than Viking Therapeutics › If you're looking to add growth to your portfolio, biotech stocks can be a great choice. Exciting research is happening in these companies' labs, and in some cases, game-changing treatment candidates are approaching important milestones or even going over the finish line. As an investor in these companies, you can benefit as they report positive clinical trial news, score a regulatory approval, or start generating product revenue. Wall Street considers two candidates extremely compelling right now, with forecasts for potential gains of more than 80% and 200% in the coming 12 months. One of these players is working in the high-growth area of weight loss drugs, and the other candidate showed its strengths by winning the world's first-ever approval of a product based on CRISPR gene editing. Let's check out these two biotech stocks to buy before they skyrocket. Viking Therapeutics (NASDAQ: VKTX) soared early last year when it reported strong data from the phase 2 trial of its weight loss candidate, VK2735, but the stock has since given back those gains and is trading closer to the level it was at prior to that data announcement. Since, the company has continued to advance VK2735 in injectable form and a version in pill form, and demand for these sorts of drugs remains high -- these are two reasons to believe that Viking has the potential to take off again. And catalysts may be on the horizon. The drug works in a manner similar to Eli Lilly's blockbuster tirzepatide, sold under the names Mounjaro and Zepbound. These drugs interact with hormones involved in digestion and have helped people quickly and safely lose weight. Viking is beginning the phase 3 trial for injectable VK2735 in the second quarter and expects data from its phase 2 trial of the pill version in the second half. Any data announcements could result in big moves for the stock, as there is plenty of room for a new company to enter the weight loss drug market -- one forecast to approach $100 billion in a few years. Wall Street is optimistic about Viking's prospects, with the average price forecast predicting an increase of about 240% in the stock price from today's level. Of course, Viking depends heavily on the outcome of these trials, so some risk is involved -- but data have been strong, so growth investors may want to get in on Viking now to potentially post a big win later. CRISPR Therapeutics (NASDAQ: CRSP) stock surged in the year leading up to a major milestone: its first product approval. But since last year's launch of Casgevy, a gene-editing treatment for blood disorders, the stock has been on the decline. Sometimes, investors buy a stock well before the company wins approval or launches a product, then lock in gains after the good news lands -- and I think this is what's happened here. But what this does is offer us a chance to get in at a very good price on a promising company that could deliver fantastic news down the road. Casgevy, as a gene-editing treatment, requires a longer time to roll out than a pill or injection, as it includes several steps that happen over a period of months. The company recently said new patient initiations should increase "significantly" this year -- so there's reason to be optimistic about revenue growth ahead. CRISPR Therapeutics also recently reported positive phase 1 data for a gene editing candidate addressing the problem of high cholesterol. And the company expects to report data soon from a phase 1 trial of a candidate targeting patients with elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) -- a risk factor for cardiovascular events. These could represent huge markets for CRISPR Therapeutics if the candidates reach the finish line, and in the meantime, any potential positive news could boost the stock. The company also expects other trial updates in candidates for oncology and autoimmune diseases this year -- so this biotech's calendar is full of possible catalysts. Wall Street's average price forecast calls for an 84% gain for CRISPR Therapeutics from today's price -- if all goes well in clinical trials and Casgevy starts to show revenue growth, now could represent a golden buying opportunity for growth investors. Before you buy stock in Viking Therapeutics, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Viking Therapeutics wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Adria Cimino has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends CRISPR Therapeutics. The Motley Fool recommends Viking Therapeutics. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Biotech Stocks to Buy Before They Soar 84% and 240%, According to Certain Wall Street Analysts was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Christina Bohannan makes third run for Iowa's 1st Congressional District
Jun. 21—History shows that just because a candidate makes multiple attempts to win an election doesn't mean they can't eventually pull through. U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks lost a number of times to Dave Loebsack before winning Iowa's 1st Congressional District seat in a close 2020 election. Now her past Democratic challenger, Christina Bohannan, is attempting the same thing for the 2026 election cycle, provided she is the favorite in the primary. On June 17, Bohannan announced her campaign to take on Miller-Meeks once again. In a press release, her campaign said Bohannan nearly defeated Miller-Meeks in 2024 — less than 800 votes decided the election — and that the Democrat "outworked, outraised and outmatched her." Bohannan said, "Mariannette Miller-Meeks has had three terms in Congress — three chances to do right by the people of Iowa. Instead, she has taken over $4 million from corporate special interests and done nothing but vote their way. And she has put partisan politics over Iowans again and again. From cutting billions of dollars from Medicaid in the Trump Administration's One Big Beautiful Bill, to siding with DOGE's cuts to Social Security and enabling unelected, unaccountable billionaires like Elon Musk, Bohannan said the Republican congresswoman has forgotten about her constituents. "It's time someone put Iowa first," Bohannan said. Bohannan went on to say Miller-Meeks needs to explain "why she keeps putting Washington special interests first." The Democratic challenger claimed Miller-Meeks supported Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, repeatedly voted for cost-increasing tariffs and is a member of the DOGE Caucus. Bohannan previously worked as an engineer and taught at the University of Iowa College of Law for 20 years. She also worked as an elected legislator for the Iowa House, defeating a 20-year incumbent in District 85. Bohannan is running for Congress because she believes in a government that works for the people. In May, another Democrat announced he would be running for Iowa's 1st Congressional District. Bob Krause, a former legislator who also tried running for U.S. Senate, announced his campaign with the slogan "Flip The House With Krause." Krause said Miller-Meeks votes "like Trump's rubber stamp." Travis Terrell, a Democrat from Johnson County, also announced his bid for Iowa's 1st Congressional District race. His campaign page on Facebook notes he is a working-class, New Deal Democrat fighting for healthcare, fair wages and a government that serves other working-class people and not billionaires. In addition to Miller-Meeks likely running for the seat, fellow Republican and former primary challenger David Pautsch announced in February that he would also be running for the seat. Pautsch touts himself as a MAGA Republican. He has been critical of Miller-Meeks, saying she is not conservative enough.
