Redefining the Rules for a New Generation of National Laws and Agreements in Commercial Space Mining

[Dr Charles Ho Wang Mak is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol]

A new generation of national laws and international agreements on commercial space mining is emerging, driven by the rapid privatisation of space activities and the pursuit of extraterrestrial resources. On 25 June 2025, Italy enacted its comprehensive Italian Space Law (Law No. 89/2025). This law establishes a regulatory framework for space operations, including resource utilisation, and aligns with broader European ambitions. In the same month, the European Commission proposed the EU Space Act to harmonise rules across Member States. Its purpose is to promote safer and more sustainable space activities, with direct implications for mining ventures. These developments coincide with the expansion of the Artemis Accords, which as of September 2025 have been signed by 56 countries. The Accords explicitly endorse the extraction of space resources without violating international prohibitions on appropriation.

This surge in normative activity comes at a crucial moment. Companies such as AstroForge and ispace are preparing lunar mining missions, while geopolitical divisions are deepening. The absence of China and Russia from the Accords highlights fragmentation in global space governance. Against this backdrop, this blog post examines how these new laws and agreements reflect and shape evolving obligations under international space law. The argument is that they may signal not only regulatory refinements but also a paradigm shift in space resource governance. The implications extend beyond individual states to the foundational principles of the common heritage of mankind.

International Framework for Space Mining

The legal foundation for space activities remains the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty, OST). The Treaty has been ratified by 117 states as of 2025. Article I declares that the exploration and use of outer space must be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. It further provides that outer space shall be the province of all mankind. This provision has sparked debate on whether commercial mining, such as extracting water ice, helium-3, or rare earth metals from asteroids or the Moon, constitutes permissible use or impermissible appropriation under Article II. The latter prohibits national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, means of use, or any other means.

Proponents of mining, including the United States and Luxembourg, interpret use broadly to include resource extraction for commercial purposes provided it does not involve territorial claims. This view is supported by the International Institute of Space Law in 2016, which concludes that as long as activities benefit humankind and adhere to environmental safeguards, mining is consistent with the OST. Critics argue that extraction could breach the principle of the province of all mankind by enabling private entities to profit from resources that ought to be shared globally. These arguments echo concerns raised in the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Agreement). That Agreement explicitly designates the Moon and its resources as the common heritage of mankind and calls for an international regime to govern exploitation. However, with only 18 ratifications and no major spacefaring nations as parties, the Moon Agreement lacks binding force on key actors.

The OST remains the primary, albeit ambiguous, framework. Article IX of the OST imposes obligations of due regard for the interests of other states and avoidance of harmful contamination. These requirements could restrict aggressive mining where it risks orbital debris or environmental degradation of celestial bodies. Recent discussions in the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) in 2025 highlight growing calls for clarification, yet no consensus has emerged. This leaves scope for national laws to fill the void.

National Laws as Catalysts for Commercial Mining

In the absence of a comprehensive international regime, states have begun to enact domestic legislation to regulate space mining and to attract private investment. The United States was the first to do so with the 2015 United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. It grants United States citizens property rights over resources obtained from celestial bodies, subject to international obligations. Luxembourg followed with its 2017 Law on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources, which declares that space resources are capable of private appropriation. 

More recent examples include the United Arab Emirates’ 2020 Federal Law on the Regulation of the Space Sector and Japan’s 2021 Act on the Promotion of Business Activities for the Exploration and Development of Space Resources. These laws provide legal certainty by recognising ownership of extracted materials while requiring environmental impact assessments. Italy’s 2025 Space Law builds on this trend. It introduces a national registry for space objects and contains provisions for resource utilisation under Article 4. Operators are required to ensure sustainability and share benefits with developing nations, thereby aligning with OST Article I.

National frameworks for space mining often adopt principles familiar from international investment agreements, such as fair and equitable treatment and protection against expropriation, to create certainty for investors. The arbitral jurisprudence from cases like Tecmed v. Mexico provides a strong precedent for this, demonstrating that a state’s failure to maintain a stable, transparent, and predictable regulatory environment can violate an investor’s legitimate expectations and constitute a breach of its international obligations. Countries like the United States and Luxembourg have introduced national laws to provide such a clear legal basis for commercial activities, which aims to stimulate private investment. However, this unilateral, state-centric approach has raised concerns about fragmentation and risks creating a patchwork of standards that undermines global equity. The discussion is further complicated by the fact that many of the major spacefaring nations leading these new legal efforts have not ratified the Moon Agreement, which entrenches these legal asymmetries.

The Artemis Accords and Multilateral Momentum

The Artemis Accords, initiated by the United States in 2020 and now encompassing 56 signatories, represent a multilateral effort to operationalise norms on space mining. Section 10 explicitly states that extraction and utilisation of space resources do not constitute national appropriation under OST Article II provided they support safe and sustainable operations. Section 11 emphasises the need for deconfliction and the creation of safety zones to prevent interference, drawing on OST Article IX obligations of due regard.

Signatories such as the United Kingdom have aligned their domestic strategies with the Accords. Through the Space Industry Act 2018 and policy predictions from UKspace in 2025, the United Kingdom has promoted public-private partnerships for lunar resource extraction. However, the Accords remain non-binding and exclude major actors such as China, which pursues its own lunar programme under the International Lunar Research Station initiative. This division exacerbates tensions and critics argue that the plurilateral approach circumvents COPUOS, potentially undermining the OST’s emphasis on international cooperation. Nonetheless, the Accords advance practical mechanisms, including data sharing and benefit-sharing protocols, which may shape future regimes such as the EU Space Act’s focus on cybersecurity and debris mitigation.

Challenges and Implications for Global Governance

The emergence of these frameworks presents significant challenges to the integrity of international space law. Financial incentives, such as equity warrants in national laws or investor protections, may privilege corporate interests over equitable benefit-sharing. This risks undermining OST Article I if profits accrue disproportionately to wealthy states. Environmental concerns, which are central to Article IX, are also inadequately addressed. For instance, unregulated mining could contaminate lunar regolith or generate debris, as warned in a 2024 COPUOS report. Some bilateral agreements even include restrictive provisions that resemble gag orders, limiting states from opposing certain activities. These echo sovereignty constraints seen in investment arbitration and may hinder diplomatic challenges to unsustainable practices. If such practices are found to breach OST obligations, disputes could be brought before the International Court of Justice under Article 36 of its Statute. This would be particularly relevant where mining activities undermine the principle of common heritage.

Conclusion

The new wave of national laws and agreements on space mining, ranging from Italy’s Space Law to the Artemis Accords, reflects a shift towards investor-friendly governance that tests the egalitarian spirit of the OST. While these instruments provide legal certainty for commercial ventures, they also risk entrenching inequalities unless balanced by inclusive international mechanisms. As space mining moves from speculation to reality, the manner in which the European Union, the United Kingdom, and other states address these tensions will be decisive. Ultimately, these developments highlight the urgent need for a renewed multilateral regime to ensure that outer space remains the province of all mankind, not merely a resource for the privileged few.