Common heritage, not common law: How international law will regulate proposals to exploit space resources

1. The ‘rise’ of common law

Largely in response to lobbying by industry of members of Congress, in November 2015, the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA) entered into law.^[1] The legislation covers a variety of space-related issues and activities, including international launch competitiveness, indemnification for space flight participants, certain safety standard requirements, Government astronauts, commercial space launch activities, the operation and utilization of the International Space Station (ISS), State commercial launch facilities, commercial remote sensing, and the Office of Space Commerce.
Of particular relevance to the issue of space resource exploitation, under title IV of the CSLCA, cited as the ‘Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015’, the United States President, acting through the appropriate Federal agencies, shall:^[2]

The CSLCA goes on to provide that:^[3]

This aspect of the legislation has aroused considerable discussion, and some disagreement, amongst academia, the industry, and regulators, as well as at the international level, including at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) sessions earlier this year.^[4]
Moreover, in light of the promulgation of the CSLCA into law, other countries have begun to follow this example in their own national law. Luxembourg has announced that it will develop ‘an appropriate legal and regulatory framework for space resource utilization activities to provide private companies and investors with a secure legal environment’,^[5] which is expected to be in force in 2017. It has indicated that it plans to pioneer the business of mining asteroids in space for gold, platinum and tungsten, and that it is actively seeking and supporting private investment and expertise from other States.
In addition, the United Arab Emirates has announced plans to develop a national regulatory framework to actively promote the development of a commercial off-Earth mining industry.^[6]
These developments give rise to a perception that commercial off-Earth mining activities might soon be undertaken and that the prevailing legal regime applicable to such activities is determined in accordance with national law. Whilst, of course, it is clear that national law is necessary in order to regulate the activities of private / non-governmental entities, off-Earth mining by those entities will still constitute ‘national activities in space’, for which States bear international responsibility under the existing international legal framework.^[7]
Clearly, therefore, the international legal regime will be applicable to any such activities, particularly given the non-territorial res communis nature of outer space.
In this context, therefore, broad questions arise: is there a potential international legal/regulatory model that will adequately support these activities, particularly in light of the current United Nations treaty regime? What other geopolitical, ethical and environmental issues might also come into play when considering the feasibility of private enterprise undertaking large-scale commercial exploitation of such resources?
Whilst the currently prevailing view appears to be that the US legislation is not necessarily incompatible with international principles,^[8] there still remains some disagreement on this issue. This short article therefore canvasses the existing international legal regime in respect of such activities. It is clear that, as indicated below, the position is certainly not ‘lawless’ at the international level, and there are a number of possibilities that should be considered in terms of a management regime to govern such activities under international law. Indeed, notwithstanding the need for national law to regulate private entities engaged in such activities, the overarching legal regime is and will remain that of international law, irrespective of the breadth of any State legislation on the issue.

2. The existing international legal regime – Reports of the death of ‘Common Heritage’ are greatly exaggerated^[9]

a) Article II of the Outer Space Treaty

In terms of the United Nations space treaties, there are a number of legal considerations that are relevant to possible space resource exploitation. One highly pertinent aspect of international space law is set out in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. This provision, which reflects pre-existing customary international law,^[10] encompasses the so-called ‘non-appropriation’ principle, which is regarded as one of the most fundamental rules regulating the exploration and use of outer space. In general terms, it confirms that outer space (which includes the Moon and other celestial bodies) is not to be subject to ownership rights. It prohibits inter alia any sovereign or territorial claims to outer space, and confirms that it is not to be regarded as ‘territorial’, a principle that, by the time the Outer Space Treaty was concluded in 1967, was already well accepted in practice.^[11]
It is no coincidence that the non-appropriation principle is set out immediately following Article I of the Outer Space Treaty, which elaborates on the ‘common interest’ and ‘freedom’ principles, and which confirms that the exploration and use of outer space is to be undertaken ‘for the benefit and in the interests of all countries’ and freely ‘by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law’. One of the primary intentions of Article II was to reinforce these important concepts.
Thus, consider a situation where, for example, the exploitation of the natural resources of a celestial body – say, a small asteroid – is of such a scale that, in effect, the celestial body is mined ‘out of existence’. Whilst it is arguable that this might not constitute an act of appropriation within the scope of Article II (see below), it may still be unlawful under the current legal regime, since it would, in all likelihood, violate other principles of international space law, such as the requirement that it be ‘for the benefit and in the interests’ of all States’, and that due regard is to be paid to the corresponding interests of all other States.^[12]
As stated above, by the time that Article II was finalized, it was well established and accepted that claims of sovereignty by States over (parts of) outer space were not permissible and were incompatible with its res communis nature.^[13] This was not a particularly contentious issue and is confirmed by the express prohibition specified in the provision in relation to ‘claim[s] of sovereignty’.
Of relevance to current proposals for private venture exploitation of space resources, it should additionally be noted that, unlike the corresponding provision in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,^[14] which deals with the high seas, Article II does not expressly limit itself to the (purported) actions of States;^[15] rather the provision is drafted in what appears to be more general terms, in that it seeks to prohibit specific actions that constitute a ‘national appropriation’.^[16] With the obvious exception of the reference to ‘by claim of sovereignty’, there is no express limitation in Article II only to the actions of States. This has, over the years, given rise to frequent debate among commentators as to the precise scope of the prohibition and, more particularly, the extent (if at all) that what has been referred to as ‘private property rights’^[17] may exist in outer space, notwithstanding (or perhaps as a result of) the terms of Article II.
In the end, however, it is clear that a consequence of the non-appropriation principle is that there would be no legal system to support any purported private claim to ownership of (a part of) outer space and, in any event, States have an obligation to assure that national activities, which includes activities of non-governmental entities, ‘are carried out in conformity with the provisions’ of the Outer Space Treaty.^[18] In other words, States must ‘ensure that all actors in space, governmental and non-governmental, operate according to a common legal framework’,^[19] which includes an adherence to the fundamental principles associated with non-appropriation of outer space.

b) Article 11 of the Moon Agreement

The United Nations space treaties are largely based on a co-operative approach to the exploitation of space resources. It was in this vein, the terms of the Moon Agreement were negotiated and concluded already in 1979. A consideration of the appropriate international legal position regarding the exploitation of space resources is therefore not a new phenomenon given that the Moon Agreement directly addressed this issue. That said, following the reluctance of most States to ratify the Moon Agreement, the major space-faring nations have thus far steered away from establishing an international management regime to co-ordinate any proposed off-Earth mining activities based on that instrument.
However, that in and of itself does not necessarily impact upon an interpretation of the current international legal regime, and it therefore remains a relevant instrument to consider with regard to the issue of resource exploitation in space. Of course, the possibility that an international regime will be established remains in prospect. That said, it needs to be kept in mind that with the development of newer technology, the range of possibilities, and the possible modes of such exploitation, are significantly broader than at the time that the Moon Agreement was being formulated. The ‘failure’ (thus far) of the Moon Agreement does have consequences, and offers significant challenges in terms of determining what may be necessary to properly regulate such proposals in the future, if indeed they are to go ahead at all.
Whilst the Moon Agreement contains a number of interesting and potentially significant principles – notably the concept of intergenerational equity in Article IV – its principal raison-d’être was the formalization of the terms of a legal regime that would ultimately apply to the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies.^[20]
The main aspects of these terms are articulated in Article 11 of the treaty. This provision, for the first time in space law, introduced the principle of the common heritage of mankind and established the legal conditions for the exploitation of such natural resources. Article 11(1) declares the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies to be the ‘common heritage of mankind’. It is important to note that the meaning of the common heritage of mankind concept in the Moon Agreement cannot be determined by its use in other instruments.^[21]
Consequently, the common heritage of mankind concept is to be interpreted exclusively within the provisions of the Moon Agreement itself, particularly its Article 11(5) – which is expressly referred to when the concept is introduced in Article 11(1) – whereby States Parties undertake to establish an international regime for the exploitation of such natural resources when such exploitation ‘is about to become feasible’. The timing of the establishment of this regime is to be determined only by the States Parties on the basis of their actual exploratory and pre-exploitation activities related to such natural resources, and pursuant to the procedure established under Article 18, which envisages the convening of an international review conference of the States Parties to ‘consider the question of the implementation of’ the terms of Article 11(5).
Article 11(7) then specifies the main ‘purposes’ of this envisaged international regime for the eventual exploitation of natural resources. The first three of these, as expressed in paragraphs (a)-(c) of this provision, reflect a tendency towards a ‘best practice’ approach to the exploitation of such natural resources. As a general matter of principle, they are relatively uncontroversial.
As is well known, however, Article 11(7)(d) raises more difficult issues that have given rise to disagreement and, ultimately, a low take-up (by way of ratification by States) of the Moon Agreement.^[22] It specifies that one of the main purposes of the regime to be established through the Moon Agreement is to be the ‘equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from those [natural] resources’. The notion of equitable sharing raises complex questions of interpretation and application, although the provision does specify that ‘the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the [M]oon [and other celestial bodies], shall be given special consideration’.
Notwithstanding the prevailing uncertainty as to the precise scope of this benefit-sharing requirement, what is clear is that ‘equitable’ does not mean ‘equal’,^[23] and therefore does not envisage a totally one-sided approach solely for the benefit of developing countries. Rather, it seeks a balance between investing (contributing) and non-investing States Parties. From this latter group, it is particularly the developing countries whose interests should be taken into consideration. This represents an asymmetrical benefit for under-developed States Parties, insofar as they might eventually gain some ‘benefits’ due primarily to their economic status – although it must be noted that these might not necessarily be financial in nature.^[24]
The Moon Agreement also reiterates the non-appropriation principle, whose meaning, nature and scope as expressed in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty are, as noted above, very broad and to a large extent inflexible.^[25] On the other hand, the terms of the Moon Agreement suggest that the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies, which will also involve removal of such resources from their ‘place’,^[26] does not constitute a means of appropriation. Thus, even though Article 11(2) of the Moon Agreement replicates the prohibitions contained in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, this must be seen within the context of the objects of the Moon Agreement with regard to the exploitation of natural resources,^[27] and the eventual establishment of an international regime.
Having said this, and as noted above, the conduct of such exploitation will always remain subject to the general principles of international space law and is to be carried out ‘in a manner compatible with’^[28] the purposes of the yet-to-be-established international regime, as well as with the right to collect and remove ‘samples’, as is provided for by Article 6(2) of the same instrument.
The prohibition of appropriation, as it is used in Article 11(2) of the Moon Agreement is rather directed towards preventing a claim to ‘property rights’ over (a part of) outer space. The restriction on property rights extends to ‘any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or … any natural person.’ The reference to this range of possible actors serves to underline that no entity whatsoever, public or private, is entitled to claim these rights. In addition, the restriction of rights in relation to ownership is reinforced by the terms of Article 11(3), according to which the placement of inter alia personnel, facilities or installations on or below the surface of a celestial body ‘shall not create a right of ownership … thereof’.
However, these prohibitions would not prevent public or private entities from receiving – under an international regime to be established in the future – what might be termed ‘extra-terrestrial exploitative rights’ in relation to the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies, although they must, of course, comply with the principles set out in the United Nations space treaties (and any applicable customary international law), as well as the rules and procedures under the envisioned international regime governing the way in which they exercise these rights. Such rights are to be grated and exercised consistent with the res communis nature of outer space.
In some respects, these extra-terrestrial exploitative rights might also be considered as similar in nature to terrestrial ‘mining rights’ allocated by a State to public and/or national/foreign private entities to exploit the natural resources within its specific territorial jurisdiction on Earth. The terms of a typical exploration or mining (exploitation) licences granting these rights will dictate their precise scope, as well as the conduct to which a licensee must adhere in exercising them. However, in terms of the ownership of the (terrestrial) natural resources in situ to be exploited in such a situation, this will remain within the permanent sovereignty of the relevant State, in accordance with long-recognised principles of customary international law.^[29]
It should also be noted that Article 11(4) of the Moon Agreement, which reflects the wording of Article I(2) of the Outer Space Treaty, complements the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Moon Agreement by expressly addressing the right of exploration and use. These provisions in the Moon Agreement confirm the right to freedom of exploration, use and scientific investigation on the Moon and other celestial bodies without discrimination of any kind, on the basis of equality and in accordance with international law but, once again, always subject to the express terms of the treaty itself.^[30]

c) Whither Common Heritage?

States have already found different ways to address the need for a legal regime for the exploitation of natural resources in ‘non-territorial’ areas, on the basis of international cooperation and multilateral agreement. A structured regime has been agreed and is already in place in relation to the management of frequency usage on the Geostationary Orbit,^[31] and in respect of the Deep Seabed, based on a multilateral management process underpinned by UNCLOS.^[32]
In relation to the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies, the possibility exists that any activities in that sphere can also be conducted on the basis of widespread agreement. One possible structure could be based upon Article 11 of the Moon Agreement, which leaves it entirely open as to how the international regime for the exploitation of such resources might be structured by States Parties in the future, though it does provide some guidance in this regard. The envisioned regime could be further developed based on the principles already enunciated in the Moon Agreement, as well as the experience garnered in any activities undertaken prior to the point in time at which such levels of exploitation are ‘about to become feasible’, which will be dependent inter alia on various technological and commercial developments in the future.
Thus, the Moon Agreement has no restrictive impact on the existing exploration and use of the Moon and other celestial bodies, but it offers one possible way forward for a future exploitation regime. Given the express terms of this instrument, such a future regime would provide further clarity as regards the distinction between the already accepted rights for States Parties to collect, remove and use samples, minerals and other substances within the scope of the Article 6(2), and the much more expansive (commercial) exploitation activities in what will always remain a res communis area.
For non-State Parties to the Moon Agreement, the applicable minimum standard for the ‘use’ of natural resources on the Moon and other celestial bodies will be as set out in the Outer Space Treaty, and in particular in Articles I and II. Such use should accordingly be for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, and the Moon and other celestial bodies and their resources are not subject to national appropriation.
In summary, therefore, the current position as regards the commercial exploitation of such resources is not at all a ‘lawless’ one in the international sphere. Indeed clear principles apply, in practice, to all space-faring nations, given the wide ratification of the Outer Space Treaty among those States that, at least at this time, appear most likely to (eventually) engage in possible exploitation activities in the future.^[33] That said, there is sufficient scope to allow for careful and comprehensive discussions and negotiations among all interested stakeholders to determine the most acceptable way forward.

Some brief concluding ‘non-legal’ observations

From the time of the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, space has been regarded as a ‘common’ for all humanity. This is reflected in the Outer Space Treaty, which was designed to provide principles to govern space in the geopolitical environment of the Cold War, when the main space actors were nations, not private corporations. Ironically, their motivation for developing space technology at the time was as much for military as for peaceful purposes.
Since those days, the nature of space activities has undergone a significant shift. Many space technologies initially derived from military programs are now at the heart of very substantial space businesses. Commercial interests are now a significant element in the future of space exploration and use. And where there are commercial interests at stake, the financial ‘bottom line’ becomes all-important. An increasing number of private entities believe there are considerable profits to be made in the rare metals and other valuable resources lying untouched in the moon and near-Earth asteroids.
While the focus of this brief article has been on the applicable international legal dimensions to such proposals, other non-legal issues, such as who bears the costs of future space exploration / exploitation and who has the right to profit from it, are also relevant. In addition, one critical area is being overlooked. Asteroids might be ‘out of sight, out of mind’ for the most part, but lunar mining is likely to arouse strong and widespread reactions. The Moon is one of the most significant cultural influences that unites people across all times and places in human history.
Would the public, for example, support commercial space mining if excavation scars were visible through Earth-based telescopes? Such considerations might be a factor in the design and location of mining operations.
Terrestrial mining companies are generally required to comply with domestic legislation that protects heritage, community values and the environment on Earth. Notwithstanding the important international law principles referred to above, as yet no similar system is in place for space mining that comprehensively addresses those factors. Space mining companies have barely considered that they might have to deal with the same kind of community opposition as mines on Earth, only this time at a global scale.
In moving forward, therefore, we need to carefully consider the potential for a ‘tragedy of the commons’ situation in relation to space resources, just as we are with the problem of increasing space debris. What is really at stake is the future of universal human access to space and the very way we view space. A rash move at this point could tip the balance and erode the principles that are encapsulated in the idea of the common heritage of mankind as it was applied to space resources. We must avoid further entrenching the divisions between the space haves and have-nots.
While there may be considerable benefits to future generations should we find a way to safely and sustainably exploit space resources, there are also considerable risks. These need a very careful calibration. Cool heads are required and the key will be international cooperation on a broad scale. This issue is too important and too complex to be undertaken by a small number of private enterprises or countries. A clear international regime must be established to safeguard the interests of every stakeholder.
As indicated above, there are some well-established existing models that present ideas and concepts upon which such a regime might ultimately be based. It is perhaps likely that, in this respect, the non-appropriation principle set out in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty – and its articulation in the corresponding Article 11(2) of the Moon Agreement – may give rise to some legal complexities in the future. With careful thought and close cooperation befitting such a significant activity as space resource exploitation, these complexities can be resolved as any such international regime is being negotiated and developed.

^[1] The official version of the CSLCA is available at <www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262/text>.

^[2] ‘Commercial exploration and commercial recovery’, s 51302(a).

^[3] ‘Asteroid resource and space resource rights’, s 51303.

^[4] At the fifty-fifth session of the Legal Subcommittee of UNCOPUOS held on 4-15 April 2016, member States agreed to include on the agenda of its fifty-sixth session for consideration by the Legal Subcommittee, the following new single issue/item: ‘General exchange of views on potential legal models for activities in exploration, exploitation and utilization of space resources’: see Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-fifth session, held in Vienna from 4 to 15 April 2016, UN Doc A/AC.105/1113 (27 April 2016) para 250.

^[5] See ‘SpaceResources.Lu: New Space Law to Provide Framework for Space Resource Utilization’ (3 June 2016) <www.inspiringluxembourg.public.lu/en/actualities/ articles/2016/06/03space/index>. As this article was being finalized, the Government of Luxembourg announced that it had adopted a draft law regarding various aspects of space resource exploitation, which is anticipated to come into effect in early 2017. See ‘Luxembourg’s New Space Law Guarantees Private Companies the Right to Resources Harvested in Outer Space in Accordance with International Law’ (11 November 2016) <www.gouvernement.lu/6481433/11–presentation–spaceresources?context=3422869>.

^[6] See Lucy Barnard, ‘UAE to finalise space laws soon’ The National (7 March 2016) <www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/uae-to-finalise-space-laws-soon>.

^[7] See art VI of the 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) (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205.

^[8] See, for example, International Institute of Space Law ‘Position Paper on Space Resource Mining’ (20 December 2015) <www.iislweb.org/docs/SpaceResourceMining. pdf>. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind that the American legislation makes clear reference to the ‘international obligations of the United States’, which include those under the United Nations space treaties to which it is a State Party.

^[9] With sincere apologies to the great Mark Twain.

^[10] See R Jakhu and S Freeland, ‘The Relationship between the Outer Space Treaty and Customary International Law’ forthcoming in Proceedings of the 59th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space.

^[11] Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, United States Senate, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Analysis and Background Data (1967) 23.

^[12] See Outer Space Treaty, arts I and IX. In addition, due regard ‘shall be paid to the interests of present and future generations’, as required under the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies (Moon Agreement) (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 3, art 4.

^[13] It has been asserted that, even before the adoption of the Outer Space Treaty, it ‘was realized that by denying the legality of such [sovereignty] claims the interests of the world community as a whole would be best served’: D Goedhuis, ‘Some Recent Trends in the Interpretation and the Implementation of the Rules of International Space Law’ (1981) 19 Col J Trans L 213, 214.

^[14] 1833 UNTS 3 (UNCLOS).

^[15] But note UNCLOS, art 137(1) which provides that:

‘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. No such claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights nor such appropriation shall be recognized’ (emphasis added).

^[16] One should note, however, that the Chinese version of the Outer Space Treaty differs in this respect from all other versions, and perhaps is expressed in more limited terms in that it prohibits appropriation ‘through the state by asserting sovereignty, use, occupation or any other means’: see S. Hobe, ‘Adequacy of the Current Legal and Regulatory Framework Relating to the Extraction and Appropriation of Natural Resources’, in Proceedings of the International and Interdisciplinary Workshop on Policy and Law Relating to Outer Space Resources: Examples of the Moon, Mars, and other Celestial Bodies, McGill University, Center for Research in Air and Space Law (2007) 204, 211 ff and the references cited (copy on file with the Author). In accordance with art XVII of the Outer Space Treaty, the Chinese version is ‘equally authentic’ with all other versions. However, it has also been noted that the fact that the other four versions (English, Russian, French and Spanish) all concur on the text of the provision is significant, ‘the more so if they include the languages which were mostly used in negotiations of the [Outer Space Treaty]’: V Kopal, ‘Comments on the issue of “Adequacy of the Current Legal and Regulatory Framework Relating to the Extraction and Appropriation of Natural Resources of the Moon”’, in Proceedings of the International and Interdisciplinary Workshop on Policy and Law Relating to Outer Space Resources: Examples of the Moon, Mars, and other Celestial Bodies (above in this footnote) 227, 230.

^[17] D Harris and S Sivakumaran, Cases and Materials on International Law (8^th edn, Sweet&Maxell 2015) 211.

^[18] Outer Space Treaty, art VI.

^[19] B J Egan, Legal Adviser, The Next Fifty Years of the Outer Space Treaty, remarks at the Galloway Symposium on Critical Issues in Space Law, Washington DC, 7 December 2016 (copy on file with the Author).

^[20] For a detailed explanation of the provisions of the Moon Agreement, see S Hobe, R Jakhu, S Freeland, F Tronchetti and P Stubbe, ‘The Moon Agreement’, in S Hobe, B Schmidt-Tedd and K Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Volume II (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2013) 325-426. Some of the comments here are taken from that discussion.

^[21] See UNCLOS, art 136. See also art 1 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2 November 2001), which provides that cultural diversity is the ‘common heritage of humanity’.

^[22] As at 1 January 2016, there were 16 States Parties to the Moon Agreement: see <www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/spacelaw/treatystatus/AC105_C2_2016_CRP03E.pdf>. That has now increased to 17 since, on 3 November 2016, Venezuela acceded to the Moon Agreement, meaning that the instrument entered into force for that country on 3 December 2016: see <https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2016/CN.829.2016-Eng.pdf>.

^[23] This is notwithstanding the reference to the word ‘equality’ in preambular para 3 of the instrument, which instead applies to ‘the further development of cooperation among States’ in relation to ‘the exploration and use of the moon and other celestial bodies’.

^[24] This should be contrasted with art 140(2) of UNCLOS, which refers to ‘the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits derived from activities in the Area’ (emphasis added). The expression ‘activities in the Area’ expressly includes exploitation of the resources of the Area: UNCLOS, art 1(3).

^[25] For a detailed analysis of art II of the Outer Space Treaty, see S Freeland and RJakhu, ‘Article II’, in S Hobe, B Schmidt-Tedd and K Schrogl (eds), Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Volume I – Outer Space Treaty (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2009) 44-63. Some of the comments here are taken from that discussion.

^[26] Moon Agreement, art 11(3).

^[27] The 5th preambular paragraph of the preamble to the Moon Agreement notes ‘the benefits which may be derived from the exploitation of the natural resources of the [M]oon and other celestial bodies.’

^[28] ibid art 11(8).

^[29] The principle of ‘Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources’ (PSONR) was established during the 1960s, and was initially focused on developing countries, although it was subsequently extended to include the rights of ‘peoples’ to regain effective control over their natural resources. There have been many United Nations General Assembly Resolutions relating to PSONR: see, for example, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) (14 December 1962) ‘Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources’, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2692 (XXV) (11 December 1970) ‘Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources of Developing Countries and Expansion of Domestic Sources of Accumulation for Economic Development’ and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3171 (XXVIII) (17 December 1973) ‘Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources’. The PSONR has also been expressly incorporated into significant documents relating to the exploration and use of outer space: see, for example, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 41/65 (3 December 1986) ‘Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space’, Principle IV of which provides inter alia that remote sensing activities ‘shall be conducted on the basis of respect for the principle of full and permanent sovereignty of all States and peoples over their own wealth and natural resources’.

^[30] See also B Cheng, Studies in International Space Law (Clarendon Press 1997) 377.

^[31] For a discussion, see Freeland and Jakhu (n 26).

^[32] ibid. Another interesting situation is the case of Antarctica, where territorial claims by various States – which would, if eventually accepted, presumably give rise to national rights for exploitation of the natural resources within the area of such claims – have been held in abeyance. In essence, those States have agreed to a moratorium against the exploitation of the national resources in Antarctica: see Antarctic Treaty (adopted 1 December 1959, entered into force 23 June 1961) 402 UNTS 71 art IV of which has the effect of suspending all claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica for the duration of that instrument, as well as prohibiting any ‘new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim’. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (adopted 4 October 1991, entered into force 14 January 1998) 30 ILM 1455 augments the Antarctic Treaty by protecting Antarctica from commercial mining for a period of 50 years.

^[33] As at 1 January 2016, there were 104 States Parties to the Outer Space Treaty: see <www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/spacelaw/treatystatus/AC105C22016CRP03E.pdf>.