Right now, space law doesn't protect historical sites, mining operations and bases on the Moon – a space lawyer describes a framework that could
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
As more countries and companies compete to reach the Moon, a clear lunar legal framework can guide them to avoid conflicts and preserve historical sites. The draft U.N. principles show that the international community is ready to explore what this framework could look like.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Michelle L.D. Hanlon, University of Mississippi
Read more:
Space law hasn't been changed since 1967 – but the UN aims to update laws and keep space peaceful
Property and sovereignty in space − as countries and companies take to the stars, they could run into disputes
Back to the Moon: A space lawyer and planetary scientist on what it will take to share the benefits of new lunar exploration – podcast
Michelle L.D. Hanlon is affiliated with For All Moonkind, a not-for-profit organization committed to protecting human cultural heritage in outer space starting with the Apollo lunar landing sites.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Israel hits an Iranian nuclear research facility and says it's preparing for a long war
TEL AVIV — Israel's military said Saturday it struck an Iranian nuclear research facility overnight and killed three senior Iranian commanders in targeted attacks, while emphasizing it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war. Smoke rose from an area near a mountain in Isfahan, where Isfahan province's deputy governor for security affairs, Akbar Salehi, confirmed the Israeli strikes damaged the facility but said they caused no casualties. The target was two centrifuge production sites, according to an Israeli military official speaking on condition of anonymity under army guidelines to brief reporters. It was the second attack on Isfahan, which was hit in the first 24 hours of the war as part of Israel's goal to destroy Iran's nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, confirmed the latest attack. Iran launched a new wave of drones and missiles at Israel but there were no immediate reports of significant damage. A Magen David Adom rescue service official said a drone hit a two-story building in northern Israel, with no casualties. The official called it a 'small barrage' that was largely intercepted by Israel's defenses. The official estimated that Israel's military has taken out more than half of Iran's launchers. 'We're making it harder for them to fire toward Israel,' he said. 'Having said all that, I want to say the Iranian regime obviously still has capabilities.' The Israeli military's chief spokesman, Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin, later said that Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir told the army to be prepared for a 'prolonged campaign.' President Trump is weighing active U.S. military involvement in the war. On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said, 'I think that it would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' He spoke on the sidelines of an Organization of Islamic Cooperation meeting in Turkey. Barring a commando raid or even a nuclear strike, Iran's underground Fordo uranium enrichment facility is considered out of reach to all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. Trump said he would put off his decision on direct military involvement for up to two weeks. The war erupted June 13, with Israeli airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 722 people, including 285 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,500 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. One Tehran resident, Nasrin, writhed in her hospital bed as she described how a blast threw her against a wall in her apartment. 'I've had five surgeries. I think I have nothing right here that is intact,' she said Saturday. Another resident, Shahram Nourmohammadi, said he had been making deliveries when 'something blew up right in front of me' at an intersection. Iran has retaliated by firing more than 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Israel's multi-tiered air defenses have shot down most of them, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but it is the only nonnuclear-weapon state to enrich uranium up to 60% — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Israel is widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear weapons program, but has never acknowledged it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel's military operation will continue 'for as long as it takes' to eliminate what he called the existential threat of Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile arsenal. Talks in Geneva on Friday failed to produce a breakthrough. European officials expressed hope for future discussions. Iran's foreign minister said he was open to further dialogue while emphasizing that Tehran had no interest in negotiating with the U.S. while Israel continues to attack. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy once again, and once aggression is stopped and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes committed,' he told reporters. No date was set for a new round of talks. For many Iranians, updates remained difficult. Internet-access advocacy group said Saturday that limited internet access had again 'collapsed.' A nationwide internet shutdown has been in place for several days. Israel's opening attack killed three of Iran's top military leaders: Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, who oversaw the armed forces; Gen. Hossein Salami, who led the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; and the head of the Revolutionary Guard's ballistic missile program, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh. Israel's defense minister said Saturday the military has killed a Revolutionary Guard commander who financed and armed Hamas in preparation for the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel that sparked the ongoing 20-month war in the Gaza Strip. Iranian officials did not immediately confirm Saeed Izadi's death, but the Qom governor's office said there had been an attack on a four-story apartment building and local media reported two people had been killed. Israel also said it killed the commander of the Quds Force's weapons transfer unit, who it said was responsible for providing weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Behnam Shahriyari was killed while traveling in western Iran, the military said. Iranian leaders say IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi's statements about the status of Iran's nuclear program have prompted Israel's attack. On Saturday, a senior advisor for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, Ali Larijani, said in a social media post, without elaboration, that Iran would make Grossi 'pay' once the war is over. Grossi warned Friday at an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council against attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors, particularly its only commercial nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr. 'In case of an attack on the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity,' Grossi said, adding: 'This is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences could be most serious.' Israel has not targeted Iran's nuclear reactors, instead focusing its strikes on the main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, centrifuge workshops near Tehran, laboratories in Isfahan and the country's Arak heavy water reactor southwest of the capital. Iran previously agreed to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors access to its nuclear sites under a 2015 deal in exchange for sanctions relief. But after Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal during his first term, Iran began enriching uranium up to 60% and restricting access to its nuclear facilities. Iran has insisted on its right to enrich uranium — at lower levels — in recent talks over its nuclear program. But Trump, like Israel, has demanded Iran end its enrichment program altogether. Rising and Mednick write for the Associated Press and reported from Dubai and Tel Aviv, respectively. AP writers Mehmet Guzel in Istanbul, Josef Federman in Jerusalem and Farnoush Amiri and Jon Gambrell in Dubai contributed to this report.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Israel presses ahead with strikes as Trump's 2-week deadline looms
Israeli officials insisted Friday that they will keep up their bombing campaign against Iran, even as President Donald Trump has given Tehran a two-week deadline to come to some sort of diplomatic deal that reins in its nuclear program. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, laid out his country's case at the U.N. Security Council, facing off Friday with Iranian representatives who urged the world to stop the Israeli strikes. 'We will not stop. Not until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled, not until its war machine is disarmed, not until our people and yours are safe,' Danon declared. The Israeli assertions highlight how Trump's statement that he'll decide 'in the next two weeks' whether to strike Iranian nuclear sites provides an opportunity to Israel as much as it puts pressure on Iran. For Iran, it's two weeks to come to some sort of diplomatic deal with the U.S. that constrains its nuclear, and possibly other, programs. For Israel, it's a focused timeframe to do as much damage as it can to Iran's nuclear and broader military infrastructure before the U.S. may pressure it to accept a diplomatic solution. The more damage Israel does, the more it could weaken an enemy and improve the odds that Iran will capitulate to U.S. demands in the diplomatic process. The strikes themselves couldthreaten the survival of Iran's Islamist regime. Trump told reporters on Friday that he wasn't about to push Israel to halt its assault in Iran while he weighs what the U.S. should do. 'It's very hard to make that request right now,' Trump said. 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak about the president's thinking, said 'everything is still on the table." "This is about giving this a little time and seeing if things look any different in a couple weeks," the official said. Trump's 'two-week' window was delivered Thursday by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said, quoting Trump, that his delay in determining whether to join Israel's attack on Iran was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Trump often says he'll make decisions in two weeks, only to extend his deadline again or never follow through. Still, Israel and Iran appear to believe the next two weeks will be a crucial phase. Iranian officials showed up for nuclear talks with European officials on Friday in Geneva; Israel pressed ahead with its bombing campaign against Iran, which is responding with missiles. Iranian officials met Friday with European envoys in Geneva in an attempt to revitalize the diplomatic process. The talks ended on an ambiguous note. Iranian officials have said their participation in future talks would hinge on Israel stopping its attacks. Some European representatives said talks should continue regardless, even as they urged both sides to avoid escalation. "We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for," French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said. For Israel, the most critical, but perhaps toughest, official objective is eliminating Iran's nuclear facility at Fordo. That facility is buried deep underground, and Israel has been hoping Trump will enter the fight and use special, massive U.S. bombs to destroy it. There are concerns, however, including among Republicans, that Iran could retaliate against U.S. assets if America enters the conflict on any level, dragging America into another Middle Eastern war. Trump campaigned on avoiding such wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that Israel has means to destroy Fordo on its own. It's not clear what those methods could involve, but Israel has significant intelligence operations inside Iran and it has often surprised even Washington with its capabilities. Either way, current and former Israeli officials said they saw no reason for Israel to back off its strikes now, despite calls for deescalation from some world capitals. The more Israel degrades Iran's capabilities, the less able Tehran will be to mount retaliatory attacks on Israel or the United States, should the latter choose to enter the war. From the beginning, 'the Israeli planning was based on the assumption that we have to do it alone,' said a former Israeli diplomat familiar with the situation. The person, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss highly sensitive issues. It's unclear whether there is any deal with Iran that Israel would deem strong enough. There is tremendous distrust of Iran's Islamist regime within Israel's security establishment, leading to a sense that Iran would cheat on any deal. Another unsettled question is whether a deal with Iran will cover only its nuclear program or also curb its ballistic missile initiative and support for proxy militias in the region. Some analysts have argued that Netanyahu decided to begin attacking Iran last week because he was worried earlier nuclear talks between Iran and the Trump administration would yield too weak a deal. If new efforts at diplomacy yield fruit, Trump could pressure Netanyahu to accept whatever deal emerges, potentially even by threatening to withhold weapons and other equipment Israel needs to defend itself against Iran. The war is costly for Israel, which has been fighting on multiple fronts — in particular against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip — since October 2023. As one Israeli official said, Iranian missile attacks feel like 'Russian roulette' to Israeli citizens. CORRECTION: The caption on an earlier version of this article incorrectly located a U.N. Security Council meeting.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
As the UN turns 80, its crucial humanitarian aid work faces a clouded future
KAKUMA, Kenya (AP) — At a refugee camp in northern Kenya, Aujene Cimanimpaye waits as a hot lunch of lentils and sorghum is ladled out for her and her nine children — all born while she has received United Nations assistance since fleeing her violence-wracked home in Congo in 2007. 'We cannot go back home because people are still being killed,' the 41-year-old said at the Kakuma camp, where the U.N. World Food Program and U.N. refugee agency help support more than 300,000 refugees. Her family moved from Nakivale Refugee Settlement in neighboring Uganda three years ago to Kenya, now home to more than a million refugees from conflict-hit east African countries. A few kilometers (miles) away at the Kalobeyei Refugee Settlement, fellow Congolese refugee Bahati Musaba, a mother of five, said that since 2016, 'U.N. agencies have supported my children's education — we get food and water and even medicine,' as well as cash support from WFP to buy food and other basics. This year, those cash transfers — and many other U.N. aid activities — have stopped, threatening to upend or jeopardize millions of lives. As the U.N. marks its 80th anniversary this month, its humanitarian agencies are facing one of the greatest crises in their history: The biggest funder — the United States — under the Trump administration and other Western donors have slashed international aid spending. Some want to use the money to build up national defense. Some U.N. agencies are increasingly pointing fingers at one another as they battle over a shrinking pool of funding, said a diplomat from a top donor country who spoke on condition of anonymity to comment freely about the funding crisis faced by some U.N. agencies. Such pressures, humanitarian groups say, diminish the pivotal role of the U.N. and its partners in efforts to save millions of lives — by providing tents, food and water to people fleeing unrest in places like Myanmar, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela, or helping stamp out smallpox decades ago. 'It's the most abrupt upheaval of humanitarian work in the U.N. in my 40 years as a humanitarian worker, by far,' said Jan Egeland, a former U.N. humanitarian aid chief who now heads the Norwegian Refugee Council. 'And it will make the gap between exploding needs and contributions to aid work even bigger.' 'Brutal' cuts to humanitarian aid programs U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has asked the heads of U.N. agencies to find ways to cut 20% of their staffs, and his office in New York has floated sweeping ideas about reform that could vastly reshape the way the United Nations doles out aid. Humanitarian workers often face dangers and go where many others don't — to slums to collect data on emerging viruses or drought-stricken areas to deliver water. The U.N. says 2024 was the deadliest year for humanitarian personnel on record, mainly due to the war in Gaza. In February, it suspended aid operations in the stronghold of Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have detained dozens of U.N. and other aid workers. Proponents say U.N. aid operations have helped millions around the world affected by poverty, illness, conflict, hunger and other troubles. Critics insist many operations have become bloated, replete with bureaucratic perks and a lack of accountability, and are too distant from in-the-field needs. They say postcolonial Western donations have fostered dependency and corruption, which stifles the ability of countries to develop on their own, while often U.N.-backed aid programs that should be time-specific instead linger for many years with no end in sight. In the case of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning WFP and the U.N.'s refugee and migration agencies, the U.S. has represented at least 40% of their total budgets, and Trump administration cuts to roughly $60 billion in U.S. foreign assistance have hit hard. Each U.N. agency has been cutting thousands of jobs and revising aid spending. 'It's too brutal what has happened,' said Egeland, alluding to cuts that have jolted the global aid community. 'However, it has forced us to make priorities ... what I hope is that we will be able to shift more of our resources to the front lines of humanity and have less people sitting in offices talking about the problem.' With the U.N. Security Council's divisions over wars in Ukraine and the Middle East hindering its ability to prevent or end conflict in recent years, humanitarian efforts to vaccinate children against polio or shelter and feed refugees have been a bright spot of U.N. activity. That's dimming now. Not just funding cuts cloud the future of UN humanitarian work Aside from the cuts and dangers faced by humanitarian workers, political conflict has at times overshadowed or impeded their work. UNRWA, the aid agency for Palestinian refugees, has delivered an array of services to millions — food, education, jobs and much more — in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan as well as in the West Bank and Gaza since its founding in 1948. Israel claims the agency's schools fan antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiment, which the agency denies. Israel says Hamas siphons off U.N. aid in Gaza to profit from it, while U.N. officials insist most aid gets delivered directly to the needy. 'UNRWA is like one of the foundations of your home. If you remove it, everything falls apart,' said Issa Haj Hassan, 38, after a checkup at a small clinic at the Mar Elias Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut. UNRWA covers his diabetes and blood pressure medication, as well as his wife's heart medicine. The United States, Israel's top ally, has stopped contributing to UNRWA; it once provided a third of its funding. Earlier this year, Israel banned the aid group, which has strived to continue its work nonetheless. Ibtisam Salem, a single mother of five in her 50s who shares a small one-room apartment in Beirut with relatives who sleep on the floor, said: 'If it wasn't for UNRWA we would die of starvation. ... They helped build my home, and they give me health care. My children went to their schools.' Especially when it comes to food and hunger, needs worldwide are growing even as funding to address them shrinks. 'This year, we have estimated around 343 million acutely food insecure people,' said Carl Skau, WFP deputy executive director. 'It's a threefold increase if we compare four years ago. And this year, our funding is dropping 40%. So obviously that's an equation that doesn't come together easily.' Billing itself as the world's largest humanitarian organization, WFP has announced plans to cut about a quarter of its 22,000 staff. The aid landscape is shifting One question is how the United Nations remains relevant as an aid provider when global cooperation is on the outs, and national self-interest and self-defense are on the upswing. The United Nations is not alone: Many of its aid partners are feeling the pinch. Groups like GAVI, which tries to ensure fair distribution of vaccines around the world, and the Global Fund, which spends billions each year to help battle HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, have been hit by Trump administration cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development. Some private-sector, government-backed groups also are cropping up, including the divisive Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which has been providing some food to Palestinians. But violence has erupted as crowds try to reach the distribution sites. No private-sector donor or well-heeled country — China and oil-rich Gulf states are often mentioned by aid groups — have filled the significant gaps from shrinking U.S. and other Western spending. The future of U.N. aid, experts say, will rest where it belongs — with the world body's 193 member countries. 'We need to take that debate back into our countries, into our capitals, because it is there that you either empower the U.N. to act and succeed — or you paralyze it,' said Achim Steiner, administrator of the U.N. Development Program. ___ Chehayeb reported from Beirut and Keaten from Geneva. Associated Press writer Melina Walling in Hamburg, Germany, contributed to this report.
