As nations and private companies accelerate their activities in space, the United States and China are engaged in a quiet but critical competition. This contest is not just about reaching the Moon or Mars first, but about establishing the legal rules that will govern resource extraction, commercial activity, and military conduct in orbit and beyond for generations to come.
With international treaties from the 1960s struggling to address modern technology, Washington and Beijing are pursuing fundamentally different strategies to shape the future of space law. These divergent paths could create a complex and contested legal environment for the rapidly growing space economy.
Key Takeaways
- The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the foundation of space law, is ambiguous on the ownership of resources mined from celestial bodies like the Moon and asteroids.
- The United States is promoting legal frameworks through domestic laws like the SPACE Act and multilateral, non-binding agreements like the Artemis Accords.
- China focuses on establishing norms through large-scale, project-based collaborations, such as its International Lunar Research Station, and prefers working within UN structures.
- The global space economy is valued at over $630 billion and is projected to exceed $1.8 trillion by 2035, increasing the urgency for clear legal guidelines.
An Outdated Treaty for a New Space Age
The foundation of international space law is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Drafted during the Cold War, it established space as a global commons, free for exploration and use by all nations. However, its language reflects an era before the commercial viability of space resource extraction was a realistic concept.
Article II of the treaty clearly states that celestial bodies are “not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty.” This prevents any country from claiming the Moon as its territory. What remains unclear is whether this prohibition extends to the resources extracted from the Moon, such as water ice or rare minerals.
This legal ambiguity is central to the current competition. One interpretation suggests that while a nation cannot own the Moon itself, a company or state agency can own the resources it mines. Another, more expansive interpretation, argues that claiming ownership of extracted resources constitutes a form of appropriation, which is forbidden by the treaty.
This lack of clarity has created a vacuum. As technology for asteroid mining and lunar settlement advances, the question of property rights in space has become one of the most pressing issues in international law. Without updated, universally accepted rules, the potential for conflict over valuable resources grows.
The American Approach: Laws and Alliances
The United States has adopted a strategy centered on domestic legislation and building consensus outside of the formal United Nations treaty process. This approach is designed to provide legal certainty for its burgeoning private space industry.
Domestic Legislation as a Precedent
In 2015, the U.S. Congress passed the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship (SPACE) Act. This landmark legislation was the first of its kind, granting U.S. citizens and corporations the legal right to own, transport, and sell any resources they extract from celestial bodies.
The SPACE Act was intended to encourage private investment by safeguarding potential returns. Several other countries, including Luxembourg, Japan, and the United Arab Emirates, have since passed similar national laws, creating a bloc of nations that support private property rights in space.
The Artemis Accords Signatories
As of early 2025, 53 countries have signed the Artemis Accords. Signatories span the globe and include major space-faring nations like Japan, the United Kingdom, France, India, and Brazil, creating a significant coalition aligned with the U.S. vision for space governance.
Building a Coalition with the Artemis Accords
To broaden its influence, the United States launched the Artemis Accords in 2020. These are a series of non-binding, bilateral agreements between the U.S. and other nations that establish a shared set of principles for civil space exploration. The Accords reinforce the idea that resource extraction is permissible under the Outer Space Treaty.
While supporters see the Accords as a practical step toward creating norms for safe and transparent operations, critics, including Russia and China, view them as a unilateral effort by the U.S. to bypass the UN and impose its preferred legal interpretations on the rest of the world. They argue that rules for a global commons should be negotiated by all nations within the UN framework.
China's Strategy: Projects and UN Diplomacy
China’s approach to shaping space norms is markedly different. It prioritizes working within established international institutions like the United Nations while simultaneously using its ambitious space projects to create facts on the ground—or, more accurately, on the Moon.
A Focus on United Nations Institutions
Beijing has consistently positioned itself as a defender of multilateralism, advocating that new space laws should be negotiated at the UN, where every nation has a voice. China is a major contributor to the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and has used this platform to advance its interests.
Together with Russia, China proposed the Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space (PPWT) at the UN Conference on Disarmament. However, the United States blocked the proposal, arguing it contained significant flaws. U.S. officials noted the draft lacked verification mechanisms and did not prohibit the development of Earth-based anti-satellite weapons.
Setting Precedents Through Action
When diplomatic avenues are slow or blocked, China turns to its state-led space program to establish operational precedents. Its Chang’e lunar program has achieved remarkable successes, including the first-ever landing on the far side of the Moon in 2019 and returning lunar samples to Earth.
These missions are precursors to a much larger goal: the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS). Planned for completion around 2028, the ILRS is a joint Sino-Russian initiative envisioned as a permanent base on the Moon. China is actively recruiting international partners for the project and has signed over 170 cooperation agreements with various national space agencies.
By leading a major international project to build and operate a lunar base, China is not just advancing its scientific goals. It is also setting practical standards for how activities on the Moon will be conducted, from resource utilization to operational safety, effectively creating norms through practice rather than through legal text.
Unlike the Artemis Accords, China's model is based on project participation rather than a shared declaration of principles. This approach allows China to build influence and establish its preferred operational standards one partner at a time.
Two Visions for the Future of Space
The divergent strategies of the United States and China reflect their different political systems and global priorities. The U.S. approach is driven by the needs of a dynamic private sector that requires legal clarity to protect massive capital investments. Its use of alliances like the Artemis Accords mirrors its broader foreign policy strategy.
China’s state-centered economic model means its space activities are directed by the government. Its preference for the UN system allows it to position itself as a champion of developing nations and leverage its influence as a permanent member of the Security Council. By avoiding domestic laws on space property rights, the Chinese government retains full control over any resources or data obtained in space.
The Economic Stakes in Space
- Current Value: The global space economy was valued at approximately $630 billion in 2023.
- Projected Growth: Morgan Stanley and other analysts project the industry could reach $1.8 trillion by 2035.
- Key Resources: Interest is focused on lunar water ice (for rocket fuel and life support), Helium-3 (a potential fuel for nuclear fusion), and rare-earth metals on asteroids.
Without a global consensus on space resource governance, the future legal landscape risks becoming fragmented. Two parallel systems of norms could emerge—one centered around the U.S. and its Artemis partners, and another around China and its ILRS collaborators. Such a division could create uncertainty for commercial operators and increase the potential for disputes over the most valuable locations and resources in our solar system.