Who owns the Moon? Nobody, and no country can claim it. What the law leaves open is who may own the rocks, ice and dust that a company digs up. Under US law, an American company that recovers space resources may keep, use and sell them, and several other countries have passed similar laws. Whether the rest of the world will honor those titles has never been tested in a courtroom. This guide covers international space law and US federal law, with notes on other countries.

The short version is that land and resources are treated differently. The treaties close the door on territory and leave a window ajar for resources.

Myth versus fact

Claim Verdict Why
A country can own a piece of the Moon False The Outer Space Treaty bars national appropriation of the Moon by sovereignty claim, use, occupation or any other means.
A company can own a lunar plot No recognized legal basis Private title depends on a state’s authority, and the treaty denies states any. This is the reasoning most scholars apply; no court has ruled on it.
A company can own material it extracts Allowed under several national laws, untested internationally The US, Luxembourg, Japan and the United Arab Emirates have laws saying so.
The Artemis Accords are a treaty False They are a non-binding set of principles.
The Moon Agreement bans mining Not for most space powers It calls the Moon’s resources the “common heritage of mankind,” but only 17 states are parties and the US is not one.

What the Outer Space Treaty actually says

The treaty opened for signature on January 27, 1967, and is the base layer for everything else. NASA hosts the full text. Four articles matter here.

  • Article I says exploration and use of space is free to all states and should benefit all countries.
  • Article II says space and celestial bodies are “not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty,” and also rules out appropriation by use, occupation or any other means.
  • Article VI makes each state responsible for its national activities, including those of private companies, and requires government authorization and continuing supervision of private actors.
  • Article IX asks states to act with due regard for others and to hold consultations before activities that could cause harmful interference.

Look at what is missing. The text says nothing explicit about taking resources out of the ground. Nor does it say who owns a sample once it is in a container. A BBC Sky at Night piece published on September 16, 2026, makes the same point: the treaty bans sovereignty over the Moon, not extraction. Supporters of mining read extraction as a “use” permitted by Article I. Skeptics say that appropriating resources by any means breaches Article II. Both readings are arguable, and that is the heart of the dispute.

The Moon Agreement tried to settle it, and mostly did not

A later treaty, the 1979 Moon Agreement, went further and declared the Moon and its natural resources the common heritage of mankind. It entered into force on July 11, 1984, but the Nuclear Threat Initiative lists only 17 ratifying states, among them Australia, Austria, Belgium, Mexico, the Netherlands and Pakistan. The United States, Russia and China are not on that list.

That matters because treaties bind only their parties. A 2020 US executive order said the United States does not view space as a “global commons” and does not consider the Moon Agreement an effective or necessary instrument. It directed the State Department to object to any attempt to treat that agreement as customary international law.

US law: the 2015 space resources statute

Congress addressed the question in the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, signed on November 25, 2015 (Public Law 114-90). The relevant section, now 51 U.S.C. 51303, lets a US citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid or space resource possess, own, transport, use and sell what is obtained, consistent with applicable law and US international obligations.

Read the phrase carefully. It grants rights in the resource after recovery. It does not give the company title to the asteroid or the lunar surface. That distinction is the legal bridge between the statute and Article II. The government’s position is that extracting material is not the same as claiming territory.

Other countries with their own space-resource laws

  • Luxembourg passed a law in 2017 stating that space resources can be appropriated, and the IBA summary says the law asks only for registration.
  • The UAE addressed private rights over space resources in Federal Law No. 12 of 2019.
  • Japan published its Space Resources Act on June 23, 2021, and it took effect on December 23, 2021. It requires a government permit, and permit holders own the resources they extract under their approved plans, according to the Library of Congress.

An International Bar Association summary reports that Japan’s ispace received the first license under that Act in November 2022, to extract regolith and sell it to NASA. See the IBA article for the national-law comparison.

The Artemis Accords and their safety zones

The Artemis Accords were first signed on October 13, 2020, by eight countries. According to NASA’s Artemis Accords page, updated October 7, 2026, 76 nations have now signed, the latest being San Marino on September 25, 2026. China and Russia are not among them.

On resources, the Accords say extraction and use should comply with the Outer Space Treaty and that extracting resources does not inherently amount to national appropriation. They also create “safety zones,” areas where operations could cause harmful interference. Zone size is meant to match the nature of the operations, and signatories must still respect others’ free access to celestial bodies. Critics argue large zones could turn into de facto territory.

The Accords are described as a non-binding set of principles. They shape behavior between friendly governments. They are not law that a court or tribunal would enforce.

A real transaction: NASA buys lunar dirt

Commercial practice has already moved ahead of the argument. On December 3, 2020, NASA announced purchases of future lunar material from four companies, for a total of $25,001, as Space.com reported. Masten Space Systems was awarded $15,000, two ispace entities $5,000 each, and Lunar Outpost $1. The amounts were symbolic. The point was the structure: after the companies supplied imagery and location data, ownership of the regolith would transfer to NASA in place, with no need to bring it home.

It is a small contract, but it sets a precedent for how a government treats lunar material as a commodity that can change hands.

The timeline in six dates

  1. January 27, 1967: the Outer Space Treaty opens for signature.
  2. December 18, 1979: the Moon Agreement opens for signature; it takes effect on July 11, 1984.
  3. November 25, 2015: the US space resources law is signed.
  4. April 6, 2020: a US executive order rejects the “global commons” view of space.
  5. October 13, 2020: eight countries sign the first Artemis Accords.
  6. September 25, 2026: San Marino becomes the 76th signatory.

Read in order, the dates show a slow drift from a shared-heritage idea toward national authorization regimes backed by like-minded partners. The drift has happened without any court or treaty body saying whether it is legal. For anyone planning a lunar business, that uncertainty is the main risk: a title that one government recognizes may be ignored by another.

What the UN is doing

The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space set up a Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities in 2021, with a five-year workplan. Its job is to produce initial recommended principles so that space resource activities follow international law and are safe, sustainable and peaceful. According to a 2025 report by the group, a draft was being prepared that spring, with comments from 17 member states and six observers feeding in. I could not confirm where the draft stands in October 2026.

Common questions

Can I buy land on the Moon?

Companies sell certificates, but those documents rest on no recognized legal authority. Under the Outer Space Treaty, no state can claim the Moon, so it has no sovereignty to convey. Treat such certificates as novelties.

Could a company be sued for taking resources?

No court has decided that. The IBA article expects possible state-to-state disputes or arbitration down the road and suggests operators put arbitration clauses in their contracts.

Does the Outer Space Treaty apply to private companies?

Indirectly. Under Article VI, the company’s home state must authorize and supervise it, and the state bears responsibility for what it does.

Why does it matter who is a party to which treaty?

A treaty binds only the countries that joined it. That is why the Moon Agreement, with 17 parties and none of the leading launch states, has had little practical effect.

This article is general information about international and US law, not legal advice.

Sources