A UNIVERSE FOR ALL: ON THE EQUITABLE SHARING OF BENEFITS
OF SPACE RESOURCES

R. CARDELLINI LEIPERTZ

Corresponding Author: Raoul Cardellini Leipertz, Leiden University, the Netherlands, raoul.cardellini.leipertz@gmail.com, ORCID: 0009-0003-6695-4800

Abstract

This paper explores the pressing need to address the equitable benefit sharing from space resources in light of the growing commercial space industry. It examines both hard and soft law instruments, relevant concepts like the Common Heritage of Mankind and global commons, to then look into the interpretations of benefit-sharing as per the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space’s workings and their challenges.
This research proposes several potential solutions and highlights the need to focus on soft law instruments as the best tool to withstand the current global geopolitical instability, identifying this as the best, if not only, tool to create an equitable, non-discriminatory and sustainable framework for space activities, aligning with the animus of international space law.

Key words: Common Heritage of Mankind, Equitable Sharing, Global Commons, International Space Law, Outer Space, Public International Law, Res Communis Humanitatis, Res Communis Omnium, Space Resources.

 

Introduction

This research aims to analyse the legal framework governing benefit-sharing in outer space activities. The analysis will commence with an examination of hard law instruments, specifically the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement.
Subsequently, the focus will shift to soft law instruments, including relevant United Nations (UN)resolutions and principles.
Following the establishment of the legal background, the research will explore the concepts of res communis omnium and Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM). This will involve examining various definitions of territory under international law and distinguishing between these terms.
The third chapter will investigate the interpretations adopted by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOS) regarding the notion of «sharing the benefits.» This will include a review of the different positions taken over the past decades.
The fourth chapter will propose potential solutions to address the issue at hand, drawing on other branches of law and elements of legal reasoning.
Importantly, this research will examine the equitable sharing of benefits derived from space resources, an issue gaining prominence since the spike in commercial space activities in the early 2000s. This trend has given rise to the term «NewSpace,» referring to the growing market seeking to exploit the unlimited potential of outer space resources. This development raises significant moral and legal quandaries regarding the allocation of such benefits. To address these effectively, it is essential to consider the corpus juris spatialis, the set of international norms comprising space law.
Crucially, the sharing of space-derived benefits should be equitable rather than merely equal, meaning the distribution should be proportional to the specific needs and circumstances of the targeted states, rather than uniformly allocated. Developing a mechanism to facilitate this process seamlessly is both a herculean task and a critical emergency, necessitating solutions that are firmly rooted in reality.

De Iure

To address this issue comprehensively, the initial step involves an analysis of the existing legal framework that regulates space activities. This includes a review of both legally binding instruments -often referred to as «hard law”- and non-binding guidelines, commonly known as «soft law».

Hard Law

In examining hard law related to the sharing of benefits from space activities, two treaties are particularly pertinent: the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

This instrument, also known as Outer Space Treaty is often regarded as the foundational document of space law, akin to a «Magna Charta» (1) for space governance, with specific relevance to Articles I and II.
Article I establishes an obligation to ensure that the exploration and use of outer space benefit all States and humanity at large. Although the practical implications of this provision remain somewhat ambiguous, its intended meaning can be elucidated through an examination of the treaty’s travaux préparatoires (2), as guided by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (3). This article has been interpreted to mean that all space activities must be conducted for the benefit of the entire human race and the international community (4).
Article II prohibits any national appropriation of outer space and its resources through sovereignty or other claims. When read in conjunction with Article I, it clarifies that outer space should not – and cannot – be considered terra nullius – a concept implying that it is unclaimed and available for occupation by any interested parties.
This brings to light a critical gap in the Outer Space Treaty: while it mandates the sharing of benefits, it does not specify how this obligation should be practically implemented. This gap was later addressed by the Moon Agreement, which sought to establish mechanisms for benefit-sharing.

Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

Despite the limited international acceptance, this treaty, also known as the Moon Agreement, provides valuable insights into the intentions behind its drafting, particularly regarding benefit-sharing as outlined in Articles 4 and 11.
Article 4 mostly echoes the content of Article I of the Outer Space Treaty, referring to the need for the use and exploration of outer space to be carried out regardless of the development of the various States.
Article 11 carries a truly innovative element, by introducing the concept of an international regime tasked with governing the use and exploitation of both the Moon and lunar resources, which are also, in the same breath, labelled as the CHM. This provision adds a new dimension to the obligations articulated in the Outer Space Treaty, highlighting the need to consider the interests of both developing countries and States that have contributed to lunar exploration, be it directly or not (5).
Scholars (6) have argued that the mere inclusion of the CHM concept calls for an understanding of the Moon -and other celestial bodies- as communal property of the international community. This idea steers away from the concept of outer space as an inclusive environment, rather than qualifying it as one of the resources from which States should benefit equitably. Despite this, however, the Moon Agreement fell short of doing what United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) did through the establishment of the organization it referred to, mandating such a task to the ratifying members of the Moon Agreement “as such exploitation is about to become feasible” (7), deferring the issue to later, more opportune times.

Soft Law

Apart from binding instruments, the Declaration on International Cooperation (8), which elaborated upon Article I of the Outer Space Treaty and Article 11 of the Moon Agreement, as well as the Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space. Important provisions of this instrument are specifically Principles II, IX, XII and XIII. The correct interpretation of the language used, however, is far from universally shared, and indeed is similar to the debates that were had on what “sharing the benefits” actually means, discussions which will be explored in a later section of this research (9).
The Principles, in any case, specifically highlight that States which are being sensed should have access to the information gathered by the sensing State and that such access should be provided on a non-discriminatory basis. While the information does not have to be free, it should be priced fairly, and while taking into consideration the interests and needs of Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
It is important to note, however, that as virtuous as these instruments may be, they are not legally binding, in light of their status as soft law. While there have been authoritative discussions on the potential existence of instant customary international law, postulating such an idea is seldom adequate in this circumstance, as these instruments merely aim at contributing to the debate surrounding the equitable sharing of resources and international cooperation.

Outer Space, a Contested Landscape: Between Res Communis Omnium and Common Heritage of Mankind

In the preceding section, we briefly introduced terms such as CHM, and terra nullius. Before proceeding with our in-depth analysis, it is essential to clarify these terms from a legal perspective.
In international law, territory can be identified as either being under the sovereignty of a State, being unclaimed and thus “up for grabs” by all -i.e. terra nullius- and being shared by all States and outside of any individual State’s appropriation -res communis omnium, or global commons- (10). Some also postulate the existence of res extra commercium – areas that all can utilize but none can occupy or own, such as the air, and the high seas – and that of res communis humanitatis – something that can only be owned by all (11)-.
While some of such concepts find their roots in Roman law, the idea of CHM came into existence in 1967, during discussions at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) concerning the seabed and ocean floor (12). The CHM concept is reflected in other areas of the law, such as the law of the sea, where it is prominently featured in the UNCLOS, and some scholars have argued that there are traces of the CHM principle in the Antarctic Treaty (13) or the World Heritage Convention (WHC) (14). The concept, in any case, has the strongest presence in the law of the sea through the UNCLOS, which was achieved through the efforts of developing countries, to guarantee the internationalisation of the deep seabed. While it was included in the instrument, however, the CHM did not receive overall acceptance by the international community, with some stakeholders of global relevance not ratifying the convention, partly because of this (15).
It is crucial to distinguish between CHM and res communis omnium. While both concepts relate to shared resources, CHM represents a more advanced notion, akin to res communis humanitatis, a “more advanced” stage of the latter (16). The novelty and uniqueness of CHM lie in its stipulation that exploitation of such areas must occur under an international regime that benefits all of humanity. Scholars identify five key requirements for CHM: the area must not only be subjected to management shared by all States, but it also has to be utilized sustainably and for peaceful purposes, while rejecting appropriation at any level and ensuring that all States enjoy the benefits derived from the CHM itself (17).
The primary issue concerning outer space is not only the application of the CHM concept but also the broader notion of global commons, given that outer space is not universally recognized as such. Furthermore, it can be argued that while there is an understanding of what CHM is, it is not in the context of space law: while analogies can be useful, they are seldom perfect.
The lack of support for the CHM concept among space-faring nations is significant, as evidenced by the increasing number of countries aligning with the Artemis Accords. This alignment reflects a broader trend influenced by the ambiguous requirements for outer space use, which are only mandated to be conducted «for the benefit and in the interests of all countries» (18). This provision, subject to various interpretations, will be explored further in the subsequent chapter.

Sharing the Benefits: a Controversial Definition

As pointed out by Deplano, examining the workings of the UN COPUOS reveals three predominant interpretations of the benefit-sharing concept (19).
The first interpretation dates back to the 1980s and posits that the obligation deriving from the Outer Space Treaty revolves around the sharing of access to the means for space activities. Thus, all members of the international community should be able to draw such benefits from their space activities. This view translates into a duty on the space-faring States to aid LDCs in advancing their technological prowess through cooperation which will include knowledge transfer and the sharing of the benefits. However, this approach has several shortcomings: it imposes rigid requirements on States, overlooks the nuances of space activities when obligations are unmet, and creates ambiguity regarding which stakeholders can pursue actions in case of a breach (20). Support for this interpretation has waned over time, with many States now viewing knowledge transfer as a voluntary rather than mandatory practice (21).
The second interpretation was developed in the 1990s and asserts that Article I as creates an obligation for all States to have an equal right to access outer space (22). Similarly to the previous interpretation, this has cooperation amongst members of the international community as its main pillar, but it highlights the need to cooperate in a way that is both efficient and self-determined by such members. Cooperation should thus take place in a way that is accepted by all members and not decided by a restricted group of States, hence focusing on the equitable nature of the relationship amongst the stakeholders. Challenges with this interpretation include the vague definition of «equitable cooperation» and the variable nature of benefits. Nevertheless, it has gained considerable support, reflected in the activities of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the principles of the Artemis Accords, which emphasize efficient and equitable sharing of scientific findings (23).
The third, and more recent interpretation, dates back to the 2000s: it proposes that exploration and use of outer space should be inclusive and that there should be access to space resources (24). This translates not only into the right for all members of the international community to access this environment, but most importantly that the activities that are undertaken in such domain will have to be beneficial for the international community itself, in a non-discriminatory and equitable way. This interpretation aligns closely with the CHM concept, by advocating for the establishment of a management mechanism to coordinate the extraction and sharing of the resources, focusing on this aspect of the other ideas. This concept is met with some resistance by the international community, not only because of its similarity with the CHM principle but also because it gives the status of collective property to space resources, which is not textually supported by the Outer Space Treaty. From a practical standpoint, this approach is one that while commendable lacks specific implementation mechanisms that would address the issue (25).
The lack of consensus on what kind of benefits have to be shared is hindering the achievement of any substantial progress, and it does not seem to be an issue that can be solved any time soon, not just because there is a lack of definition of the exact things that will have to be shared, but also because all such interpretations would be taking place not in a legal vacuum but in the historical context that is rich of relevant nuances, such as political relations between countries that will impact the way the potential collaboration would be perceived and received.

Potential Solutions

The ongoing discussions regarding the benefit-sharing obligation reveal a significant gap in the international community’s understanding of its exact implications for States. Despite the lack of a universally accepted definition, several potential solutions have been proposed over the years to address this issue.

New Intergovernmental Organization

One of the primary proposals for addressing benefit-sharing is the creation of a new international organization. The Moon Agreement specifically calls for the establishment of an international regime to oversee this process. It has been suggested that such an organization would need to be inclusive, involving a broad range of stakeholders similar to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
However, critics highlight several challenges with this approach. Establishing a new international organization would be politically complex and financially burdensome, particularly for LDCs, which would be among the primary beneficiaries of the benefit-sharing obligation. The financial and logistical difficulties inherent in setting up such an organization, especially under the UN auspices, could be formidable given the financial issues that this organization struggles with.
Proposals have included models based on existing organizations such as the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) and the International Mobile Satellite Organization (INMARSAT) (26). Matte, for instance, has suggested that space-faring States, due to their advanced capabilities, might better identify common interests for humanity, with LDCs subsequently aligning with these priorities (27). Nevertheless, this model may not fully address the financial challenges or ensure meaningful participation from LDCs in decision-making processes, potentially undermining the organization’s purpose and its ability to foster consensus (28).

Analogy

The use of analogy is another approach considered in the field of space law. One notable example is the Antarctic Treaty, which, although it does not explicitly address benefit-sharing, could offer insights. Raclin has suggested referring to the New Zealand delegate Beeby’s proposal, which envisions activities in Antarctica being governed by Consultative Parties overseeing resource extraction with involvement from other States (29). However, applying such a model to space is challenging due to the high costs associated with space activities.
Another relevant analogy is the law of the sea: Article 82 of the UNCLOS is particularly relevant. This provision establishes a system of revenue-sharing between the international community and coastal states, stating that the payments or contributions must be made by the latter for their exploitation of non-living resources of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical miles, with particular attention being given to the interests of both landlocked and developing States. It must be highlighted, however, that the International Seabed Authority (ISA), is entrusted with the task of authorizing and controlling the development of mineral-related operations in the international seabed while protecting its ecosystem as well as the ocean floor and subsoil in regions beyond national jurisdiction.

Private Space Law

A proposal has been floated in the past, suggesting the establishment of a new branch of space law focused on the extraction and use of space resources, derived from stakeholder practices rather than a sovereign authority. This approach could mitigate concerns of partisanship and allow for more flexible solutions. However, it raises the question of whether private entities should have the authority to regulate such activities. Given the Outer Space Treaty’s intent to prevent a resource scramble in space, this approach might conflict with the foundational principles of international space law (30).

Political Instruments

The Artemis Accords is a series of non-binding bilateral arrangements led by the United States of America (USA), which pursue the goal of not only returning humans to the Moon but also expanding the use and exploration of space. While such an instrument has been gaining growing support, with more and more countries adhering, it is relevant to wonder whether it is wise to rally behind one specific country’s interpretation of how space law might be interpreted. Even though these agreements are political, if enough countries were to adhere they could establish State practice, which, in conjunction with opinio juris, might lead to the establishment of customary law (31).

Hard Law

The idea of a new space treaty, albeit alluring in some aspects seems quite unrealistic, also due to the starkly different positions of the various members of the international community when it comes to the sharing of such benefits, as well as the lack of any substantial progress in the field of treaty-making for any space matters in the past decades. The likelihood of such trends changing abruptly is low, and even if they did because of renewed political will, the negotiation process would be lengthy (32).

Soft Law

This would mostly derive through UN-mandated resolutions, specifically through the UN COPUOS: such a mechanism would allow for inclusivity and cooperation to prevail. Such positives are also enhanced by the -relative- ease of reaching non-binding instruments (33). A common critique refers also to the lack of “bite” that soft law generally has, but such provisions can develop into binding ones if well-designed, and it might be best to progress towards a harmonisation of national laws, where needed.

Conclusions

This research has examined both binding and non-binding instruments to elucidate the current state of international space law. The Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement form the core of the hard law governing space activities, while various UN resolutions and principles represent significant soft law contributions. The Outer Space Treaty, regarded as the foundational document of space law, emphasizes that space activities should benefit all humanity as per Article I, and prohibits national appropriation of outer space according to Article II. However, it does not provide specific mechanisms for implementing the benefit-sharing obligation. The Moon Agreement builds on the previous treaty by proposing an international regime to govern the exploitation of lunar resources, aligning with the CHM principle. This principle aims to ensure that benefits derived from lunar resources are shared equitably among all nations, though the Moon Agreement lacks detailed provisions for practical implementation.
In addition to these treaties, soft law instruments such as the Declaration on International Cooperation and the Principles Relating to Remote Sensing have contributed to the discourse on equitable resource sharing. Although not legally binding, these instruments advocate for international cooperation and equitable benefit-sharing, thereby influencing the development of customary international law.
A crucial aspect of this research is the distinction between res communis omnium and CHM, with the former referring to global commons, resources that are shared by all and cannot be owned by any single nation, and the latter implying a more advanced stage of shared resource management, requiring sustainable and peaceful use under an international regime that ensures equitable distribution of benefits. This concept, while influential in the law of the sea, has not been universally accepted in space law, particularly among space-faring nations who prefer frameworks like the Artemis Accords.
The UN COPUOS has seen varied interpretations of the benefit-sharing concept. Initially, the focus was on sharing access to the means for space activities, suggesting that space-faring nations should help LDCs through knowledge transfer and cooperation. This interpretation faced challenges due to its rigid requirements and ambiguities regarding enforcement. Over time, the emphasis shifted towards ensuring equal access to outer space and promoting efficient, self-determined cooperation among all states. More recent interpretations align closely with the CHM concept, advocating for inclusive exploration and use of space resources, benefiting the international community equitably. However, this approach faces resistance due to its implications for collective property rights and the lack of specific implementation mechanisms.
Addressing the benefit-sharing obligation requires innovative solutions.
Proposals include the creation of a new international organization, modelled after existing entities like INTELSAT or INMARSAT, to oversee space activities and ensure equitable benefit-sharing. However, establishing such an organization is politically and financially complex, particularly for LDCs.
Analogies with the Antarctic Treaty and the law of the sea, specifically the UNCLOS, offer potential frameworks but also highlight the unique challenges of space activities.
Some scholars propose a new branch of private space law, derived from stakeholder practices, to regulate space resource extraction. While this approach could provide flexibility and mitigate concerns of partisanship, it raises questions about the authority of private entities in regulating space activities and might conflict with the foundational principles of the Outer Space Treaty.
Political instruments like the Artemis Accords represent another potential solution. These non-binding agreements, led by the USA, promote the return to the Moon and the expansion of space exploration. If widely adopted, the Artemis Accords could establish State practice and contribute to the development of customary international law. However, rallying behind one country’s interpretation of space law might not be the most inclusive approach.
The idea of negotiating a new space treaty, though appealing, seems unrealistic given the diverse positions of international stakeholders and the historical lack of substantial progress in treaty-making for space matters. Instead, focusing on the development of soft law instruments through the UN COPUOS could provide a more feasible path forward. These non-binding resolutions can foster inclusivity and cooperation, potentially evolving into binding norms over time.
In conclusion, the equitable sharing of benefits derived from space resources is, possibly now more than ever, a critically complex and urgent issue. The available legal framework, while providing a foundation, requires further development to address the specific needs and circumstances of all states, particularly in the context of increasing commercial space activities. Given the polarized nature of contemporary geopolitics, it is essential to take advantage of this pivotal moment to promote a space for all. Soft law instruments offer the most realistic and effective path forward, capable of evolving into binding provisions without stifling private enterprises. Developing practical, inclusive mechanisms for benefit-sharing is essential to ensure that space remains a domain that benefits all of humanity. Only by doing so can the animus of the Outer Space Treaty be truly espoused, fostering a future where the use and exploration of space are conducted in an equitable, non-discriminatory, inclusive, and sustainable manner.

References

  1. PEPERKAMP L., “An Arms Race in Outer Space?” in Atlantisch Perspectief, Vol.44:4, pp.46-50, 2020.
  2. From these and the words of delegations in the preparatory processes it seems as if the sharing would apply to the sharing of scientific data and the findings of whatever research might have been undertaken. For further comments see, amongst others: UN COPUOS, UN Doc A/AC.105/C.2/SR.71/ and Add.1, 1966.
  3. Vienna Convention, Art.32.
  4. CHENG B., “Studies in International Space Law”, Oxford University Press, 1997.
  5. Which had been severely ignored during the Space Race, as had the interests of any countries that was not the USA or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
  6. Such as DEPLANO R., “Inclusive Space Law: The Concepts of Benefit Sharing in the Outer Space Treaty” in International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.72(3), pp.671-714, 2023.
  7. Moon Agreeent, Art. 11.
  8. UNGA, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries”, Res/51/122, UN Doc A/RES/51/122, 1966.
  9. SIMPSON M., “Benefit in Space Law: Principle and Pathway” in Air & Space Law, Vol. 45(2), pp.143-156, 2020.
  10. ARIKOĞLU E. “The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind and the Legal Status of Outer Space in International Law” in Proceedings for the First Symposium on Space Economy, Space Law and Space Sciences, pp.109-116, 2022.
  11. LAVER M., “Public, Private and Common in Outer Space: Res Extra Commercium or Res Communis Humanitatis beyond the High Frontier?” in Political Studies, Vol.34:4, pp.359-373, 1986.
  12. TAYLOR P., “The Common Heritage of Mankind: Expanding the Oceanic Circle” in The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff, 2019.
  13. It must be highlighted, however, that the Antarctic Treaty also contains elements that are incompatible with the CHM concept. For further comments see: KEYUAN Z., “The Common Heritage of Mankind and the Antarctic Treaty System” in Netherlands International Law Review, Vol.38:2, pp.173-198, 1991.
  14. As it addresses heritage sites as the “heritage of all the nations of the world”. WHC, Preamble.
  15. ASHFAW S., “Something for Everyone: Why the United States should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty” in Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Vol.19:2, pp.357-399, 2010.
  16. ARIKOĞLU, n.10.
  17. Schmidt emphasizes that the benefits should be shared erga omnes, regardless of direct or indirect involvement. For further comments see: SCHMIDT Y., “International Space Law and Developing Countries” in Outer Space in Society, Politics and Law, BRÜNNER C. et al. (eds.), Wien, Springer-Verlag, pp.690-726, 2011.
  18. Outer Space Treaty, Art. I.
  19. DEPLANO, n. 6.
  20. JASENTULIYANA N., “The Role of Developing Countries in the Formulation of Space Law” in Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol.XX:II, 1995.
  21. DEPLANO, n.6.
  22. UN COPUOS, Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its 56th Session, UN Doc A/AC.105/1122, 32, 2017.
  23. DEPLANO, n.6.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Ibid.
  26. GALLOWAY E., “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” in Annals Air & Space Law, Vol.5, pp.481-507, 1980.
  27. MATEESCO-MATTE N., “The Common Heritage of Mankind and Outer Space: Toward a New International Order for Survival” in Annals Air & Space Law, Vol.12, pp.313-318, 1987.
  28. PAXSON III E.W., “Sharing the Benefits of Outer Space Exploration: Space Law and Economic Development” in Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol.14, 1993.
  29. Ibid.
  30. TRONCHETTI F. “The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence”, Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium of the Law of Outer Space, 2007.
  31. SMITH W.A., “Using the Artemis Accords to Build Customary International Law: A Vision for a U.S.-Centric Good Governance Regime in Outer A Vision for a U.S.-Centric Good Governance Regime in Outer Space” in Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol.86, 2021.
  32. PAXSON, n.28.
  33. BYRD L.C., “Soft Law in Space: A Legal Framework for Extraterrestrial Mining” in Emory Law Journal, Vol.71:4, 2022.

Bibliography

International Instruments


United Nations Conventions


• Antarctic Treaty System, Washington D.C., December 1, 1959.
• Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, United Nations, London/Moscow/Washington D.C., 27 January 1967.
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969.
• Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, New York, 18 December 1979.
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, United Nations, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982.

Other Instruments


• UNGA, “Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries”, Res/51/122, UN Doc A/RES/51/122, 1966;
• UN COPUOS, UN Doc A/AC.105/C.2/SR.71/ and Add.1, 1966;
• UN COPUOS, Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its 56th Session, UN Doc A/AC.105/1122, 32, 2017;
• Building Blocks for the development of an international framework on space resource activities, The Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group, 2019;
• The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes.

Books and Articles


• ARIKOĞLU E. “The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind and the Legal Status of Outer Space in International Law” in Proceedings for the First Symposium on Space Economy, Space Law and Space Sciences, pp.109-116, 2022;
• ASHFAW S., “Something for Everyone: Why the United States should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty” in Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Vol.19:2, pp.357-399, 2010;
• BAŞLAR K. “The concept of the common heritage of mankind in international law”. The Hague, Nijhoff, 1997;
• BYRD L.C., “Soft Law in Space: A Legal Framework for Extraterrestrial Mining” in Emory Law Journal, Vol.71:4, 2022;
• CHENG B., “Studies in International Space Law”, Oxford University Press, 1997;
• DEPLANO R., “Inclusive Space Law: The Concepts of Benefit Sharing in the Outer Space Treaty” in International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.72(3), pp.671-714, 2023;
• DE ZWART M. et al. “Space resource activities and the evolution of international space law” in Acta Astronautica, Vol.211, pp.155-162, 2023;
• FERREIRA-SNYMAN A. “Challenges to the prohibition on sovereignty in Outer Space – a new frontier for space governance” in Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol .24, pp.1-50, 2021;
• GALLOWAY E., “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” in Annals Air & Space Law, Vol.5, pp.481-507, 1980;
• GELDENHUYS A. “The Legal Status of the Concept of Common Heritage in the Exploitation of Resources on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies Is Now the Time for a Legal Regime?”, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2015;
• JASENTULIYANA N., “The Role of Developing Countries in the Formulation of Space Law” in Annals of Air and Space Law, Vol.XX:II, 1995;
• JOYNER C.C. “Legal Implications of the Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind” in The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, UK: Cambridge University Press, Vol.35:1, p.190-199, 1986;
• KEYUAN Z., “The Common Heritage of Mankind and the Antarctic Treaty System” in Netherlands International Law Review, Vol.38:2, pp.173-198, 1991;
• LAVER M., “Public, Private and Common in Outer Space: Res Extra Commercium or Res Communis Humanitatis beyond the High Frontier?” in Political Studies, Vol.34:4, pp.359-373, 1986;
• LEON A.M. “Mining for meaning: an examination of the legality of property rights in space resources” in Virginia Law Review, Vol.104:3, pp.497-546, 2018;
• MATEESCO-MATTE N., “The Common Heritage of Mankind and Outer Space: Toward a New International Order for Survival” in Annals Air & Space Law, Vol.12, pp.313-318, 1987;
• MASSON-ZWAAN T. et al. “Space Mining” in Issues in Science and Technology, Vol.35:3, pp.16-17, 2019;
• MCDOUGAL M.S. “The Enjoyment and Acquisition of Resources in Outer Space”, in University of Pennsylvania Law School Review, Vol.111:5, pp.521-636, 1963;
• NOYES J.E. “The common heritage of mankind: Past, present, and future” in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, Vol.40:1:24, 2011;
• KISS A.C. “The common heritage of mankind: utopia or reality?” in International Journal, Vol.40, pp.423-441, 1985;
• PAXSON III E.W., “Sharing the Benefits of Outer Space Exploration: Space Law and Economic Development” in Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol.14, 1993;
• PEPERKAMP L., “An Arms Race in Outer Space?” in Atlantisch Perspectief, Vol.44:4, pp.46-50, 2020;
• SCHMIDT Y., “International Space Law and Developing Countries” in Outer Space in Society, Politics and Law, BRÜNNER C. et al. (eds.), Wien, Springer-Verlag, pp.690-726, 2011;
• SIMPSON M., “Benefit in Space Law: Principle and Pathway” in Air & Space Law, Vol. 45(2), pp.143-156, 2020;
• SMITH W.A., “Using the Artemis Accords to Build Customary International Law: A Vision for a U.S.-Centric Good Governance Regime in Outer A Vision for a U.S.-Centric Good Governance Regime in Outer Space” in Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol.86, 2021;
• TAYLOR P., “The Common Heritage of Mankind: Expanding the Oceanic Circle” in The Future of Ocean Governance and Capacity Development, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff, 2019;
• TRONCHETTI F. “The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence”, Proceedings of the 50th Colloquium of the Law of Outer Space, 2007;
• WEINZIERL M. “Space, the Final Economic Frontier.” in The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.32:2, pp.173-192, 2018;
• WIHLBORG C. et al. “Outer Space Resources in Efficient and Equitable Use: New Frontiers for Old Principles Frontiers for Old Principles” in Journal of Law and Economics, 1981.