Analysing Property Rights In Unconventional Spaces - A Special Emphasis On The Outer Space

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Property & Real Estate

Published: 2026-08-23T17:56:43.377354+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:13.213+00:00

ANALYSING PROPERTY RIGHTS IN UNCONVENTIONAL

SPACES: A SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE OUTER SPACE

Kothakota Akshara Sai Thrishna, Christ (Deemed-to-be University), Hosur Rd, Bhavani Nagar, S.G. Palya, Bengaluru, Karnataka

ABSTRACT

Property rights are well-defined and implemented most commonly on land and water to a certain extent, wherein states of the international arena can exercise their jurisdiction over specific nautical miles on their coast. But the concept of property rights in contrast to land and water, is a newly emerging one and is still yet to be widely discussed for its equal division and distribution. The concept of property rights in space dates back to a historical period of 1919 wherein international law granted property rights to certain states, later backed up by the Chicago Convention of 1944. Furthermore, there has been the implementation of contemporary international treaties and agreements like the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Moon Agreement of 1979, and the Artemis Accords of 2020, granting property rights to certain nations in outer space.

But there is a high possibility of misuse of these rights, especially by the developed and First-World countries. Countries who are signatories to these treaties and agreements cannot essentially own space but can certainly exercise property rights over the same, leading to a high possibility of potential misuse. This research paper seeks to analyze the potential advantages and disadvantages of granting states property rights and draw a conclusion on the extent to which such rights must be granted. To elaborate on the same, the paper will also provide suggestions and recommendations on how equal property rights must be granted to all states irrespective of their development status to prevent any plausible misuse of such rights. Keywords: Treaties, Agreements, Misuse, Signatories, States

1. Introduction

Property can be any tangible or intangible object that is owned individually or jointly by several individuals. That is within the rights of one landowner. There are occasionally repercussions in the areas of culture, society, politics, religion, and law. The patented idea is established by the legal system. Since the start of space travel in the 1950s, enthusiasts have believed that space exploration will eventually result in human colonisation. Unmanned satellites have been used more often in the last 50 years for scientific research, weather monitoring, telecommunications, and defence. Despite this, space has not yet reached its full potential for practical and economic development—viewing it as a new frontier rather than merely an extension of Earth.

However, practical, economic development of space-treating it not as a mere borderland of Earth, but a new frontier in its own right-has not materialized. 1 Still, the promise is as great as it ever was, and, contrary to popular opinion, is eminently achievable-but only if the current legal framework and attitude toward space can be shifted toward seeing it as a realm not just of human exploration, but also of human enterprise. 2 There are significant materials in space. These offer governments, investors, and businesspeople a strong incentive to pursue space travel and settlement. Valuable elements such as neodymium, scandium, yttrium, iridium, platinum, and palladium, the majority of which are uncommon on Earth, are known to be abundant in asteroids.

Due to the high price these minerals command, mining operations that incur significant costs may be justified if they were harvested from space. Due to lack of defined boundaries in space, there are numerous questions regarding legal jurisdiction over spacecraft orbiting earth and other celestial bodies. 3 Space faring nations have established various policies and treaties to address and regulate activities related to space exploration. In the year after the Soviet Union launched sputnik in 1957, United Nations General Assembly Created an adhoc committee on the peaceful uses of outer space 1 Morgan M. DePagter, Who Dies, Wins. How Property Rights in Spaces Could be Dictated by the Countries Willing to Make the First Move, Chicago Journal of International Law, https://cjil. uchicago.

edu/onlinearchive/who-dares-wins-how-property-rights-space-could-be-dictated-countries-willing-make (last visited on Oct. 9, 2024).

2 Id

3 Agreements Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Others Celestial Bodies, UNITED NATIONS office for outer space Affairs.

(COPUOUS).4 In 1960, a non-governmental organisation (the international institute of space law) was Created. Its main aim is to promote international corporation in the space law making process. There are many treaties signed by many nations. Now the private companies can also takes place in the space exploration. The UN describe COPUDUS committee as focal focal It oversees global space efforts, Monitors government and put spaces endeavours, and fasters Cooperation among nation. To handle legal and technical matters, COPUOUS Specialized by the Subcommittee. United Nations office for outer space Affairs. International entitles Signed treaties and agreements one of them are outer space treaty, and Moon agreement.5

2. Literature Review

A. F.G. von der Dunk, (2018). Private Property Rights and the Public Interest in

Exploration of Outer Space, 13 Biol. Theory 142 (2018) F.G. von der Dunk in this article explores the tension between private property and public interest in space exploration. He examines legal frameworks, particularly the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, emphasizing the need for space to benefit all humanity. He recognizes, however, that the investment of private capital drives innovation, but he expresses grave concerns over distributive justice and monopolistic behavior. Von der Dunk argues for a balanced regulatory approach that would protect private rights as well as public interest in space exploration. The article appeals for the thoughtful consideration of property rights to engender collaborative as well as inclusive space exploration.6 B. Ruth C. Stern, The Internationalisation of Property Rights in Outer Space: The

Limits of Property Rights in Outer Space, 4 Space Policy 139 (2008). Ruth C. Stern in this article discusses the extent of property rights over outer space in "The Internationalisation of Property Rights in Outer Space." In this paper, she traces how international conventions, particularly the Outer Space Treaty, infringement sovereignty over claims of bodies in outer space. Whereas private interests are on the rise, Stern holds that a vague legal framework puts a stumbling block in equitable resource utilization. She stresses the requirement for international cooperation in handling such complexities. In conclusion, the

4 Id

5 Id

6 F.G. von der Dunk, Private Property Rights and the Public Interest in Exploration of Outer Space, 13 Biol. Theory 142 (2018)

article hangs the context of conflict between emerging commercial interests and existing legal limitations in space property rights.7 C. Morgan M. DePagter, Who Dies, Wins. How Property Rights in Spaces Could be

Dictated by the Countries Willing to Make the First Move, Chicago Journal of International Law In this article Morgan M. DePagter says that the setting up of property rights in outer space is dependent upon countries willing to be pioneers. This paper discusses how early movers will set legal precedents and frameworks that others would follow and even cause a tug of war over claims. DePagter emphasizes that the competitive nature of space exploration actually probably makes countries pursue their individual, separate interests over a collaborative approach. The author points out the need for international cooperation to avoid disputes and ensure fair use of space resources. Lastly, the article is underscored by strategic decision-making upon which the future course of property rights in space hinges.8 D. Arthur J. Goldberg, The Legal Status of Celestial Bodies, 28 J. Air L. & Com. 385

(1961-1962) In this article Arthur J. Goldberg discusses the international legal apparatus applicable to celestial bodies. He basically analyses the Outer Space Treaty and its provisions to understand its implications on issues concerning sovereignty and property rights in space. In doing so, Goldberg differentiates nations' and peoples' rights to claim ownership over celestial resources. He addresses the issue that clearly laid down legal standards are necessary to avoid space exploration wars. Lastly, the article calls for a holistic legal approach to deal with the complexities of ownership over celestial bodies.9 E. W Erlank, Finding Property in New Places-Property In Cyber and Outer SPACE

volume 18 No 5 2015 In this article author discusses of new concepts of property rights in cyberspace and outer space. Here, the author describes why the old laws do not apply to such new spaces. According to this article, new problems of ownership and jurisdiction exist there as well as outside the Earth. Erlank argues that such new legal materials should cope with complexity. At the end, however, 7 Ruth C. Stern, The Internationalisation of Property Rights in Outer Space: The Limits of Property Rights in Outer Space, 4 Space Policy 139 (2008).

8 supra note 1. at 1

9 Arthur J. Goldberg, The Legal Status of Celestial Bodies, 28 J. Air L. & Com. 385 (1961-1962).

it highlights the need for clear legislation to promote development and investment in these frontier areas.10 F. Ram S Jakhu, Development of the Natural Resources of the Moon and Other

Celestial Bodies Economic and Legal Aspects, 36 Annals Air & Space L. 409 (2011). In this article author outlines the legal and economic implications of the exploitation of celestial natural resources under and from the Moon, as well as other celestial bodies.11 It examines the problems created from current international treaties, notably the Outer Space Treaty, which obfuscate the question of ownership and extraction of resources. He shows how such developments can add value to a future economy but stresses the importance of clear legal structures. He urges international cooperation in the setting up of rules that promote practices which nurture sustainability. The article lastly suggests an active role in the exploitation of outer space.12

3. Research Methodology

This research paper employs a qualitative and doctrinal approach, which is best suited for the current topic. This paper extensively examines primary sources like working papers, international treaties and convention and statutes, conducting critical analysis. Additionally, this paper has drawn on secondary sources such as books, journals, and case studies to analyse the implications of granting property rights of outer space equally to all the countries and the repercussions of the same.

4. Statement of Research Problem

The currently evolving society has advanced much through the years, however, we still lack proper clarity on certain topics, one of these is the granting of property rights in space. There is a significant gap in the legal jurisdiction pertaining to spacecraft orbiting, space machines, and other celestial bodies because there are no clearly defined limits in space. This research paper seeks to conduct a detailed analysis on how the concept of property rights in space has evolved through the years and also, whether property rights should be given to all the countries equally or not and the repercussions of the same which would lead to activities such as mining

10 W Erlank Finding Property In New places-Property InCyber and Outer SPACE volume 18 No 5 2015

11 Ram S Jakhu, Development of the Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies Economic and Legal Aspects, 36 Annals Air & Space L. 409 (2011).

12 Id

in outer space, the use of weapons and so on. Additionally, this paper also aims to analyse the rights and securities given to astronauts by different countries.

5. Research Objectives

1. To historically analyse the evolution of the granting of Property Rights in outer space

to countries.

2. To analyse the contemporary treaties and conventions regarding the granting of

property rights in outer space.

3. To analyse the repercussions of granting of property rights equally to all the countries.

4. To analyse the rights and securities given to astronauts by different countries as in, to

what extent they are effective.

6. Research Questions

1. How has the concept of property rights in outer space evolved through the years?

2. Whether the property rights if granted to countries, should be granted equally or not

and what are the possible advantages and repercussions of the same?

3. Whether there should be any mechanism which restricts the usage of outer space

resources which would be in furtherance of preventing the exploitation by financially and resourcefully superior countries?

4. To what extent are the rights given to astronauts are practically effective and efficient?

7. Data Collection

In 1960, a non-governmental organisation (the international institute of space law) was Created. Its main aim is to promote international corporation in the space law making process. The space deals with the property rights, weapons in space, protection of astronauts in space.13 There are many treaties signed by many nations. Now the private companies can also takes place in the space exploration. The UN describe COPUDUS committee as focal focal It oversees global space efforts, Monitors government and put spaces endeavours, and fasters Cooperation among nation. To handle legal and technical matters, COPUOUS Specialized by the Subcommittee. United Nations office for outer space Affairs. International entitles Signed

13 Id

treaties and agreements one of them are outer space treaty, and Moon agreement.14

7.1 Analysis 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”15 a) Outer Space Treaty, 196716 Outer space Treaty, agreed upon by the General Assembly in 1966 and effective from October 1967, establishes key principles of international space law. It mandates that outer space be used for the benefits of all countries and remains free from national appropriation. It prohibits the placements of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in space and restricts the use of celestical bodies to peaceful purpose. 17 In addition, the treaty requires the avoidance of hazardous contamination in space, stresses that astronauts are ambassadors of all humanity, and holds governments responsible for their space operations and any damage they produce.

The Outer Space Treaty was first opened for signature in January 1967 by three main countries: Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It officially came into effect in October of the same year. This treaty lays out the fundamental guidelines for international space law and includes several key principles:

1. “The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the

interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;

2. Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;

3. Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means

of use or occupation, or by any other means;

4. States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit

or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

5. The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;

6. Astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;

7. States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by

governmental or non-governmental entities;

14 supra note 2. at 2.

15 United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, https://www.unoosa.org (last visited Oct. 9, 2024). 16 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, January 27, 1967, https://media.nti.org/documents/outer_space_treaty.pdf.

17 Id

8. States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and

9. States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.”18

b) The Moon Agreement, 1979 The Moon Agreement was considered and elaborated by the Legal Subcommittee from 1972 to 1979. The Agreement was adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 in resolution. It was not until June 1984, however, that the fifth country, Austria, ratified the Agreement, allowing it to enter into force in July 1984. The Agreement reaffirms and elaborates on many of the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty as applied to the Moon and other celestial bodies, providing that those bodies should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, that their environments should not be disrupted, that the United Nations should be informed of the location and purpose of any station established on those bodies.

19 In addition, the Agreement provides that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and that an international regime should be established to govern the exploitation of such resources when such exploitation is about to become feasible. 20 c) The Artemis Accords, 2020 The Artemis Accords, launched by the U. S. in 2020 with several allied nations, detail thirteen provisions relating to space exploration and property rights. They outline very specific goalsincluding a permanent human settlement on the Moon-as supportive of international cooperation while, ironically, given the above discussion on appropriations and specific appropriation claims, violating the Outer Space Treaty.

The Accords clarify that resource extraction is not banned under the treaty's definition of national appropriation, but they are not binding and do not modify existing international law. 21

7.2 Domestic Laws of countries like the United States, the United Arab Emirates,

Luxembourg, and Japan Individual countries have recently decided to take steps on their own to allow for private mining and ownership of space resources, In order to provide a solution to the gap in international law 18 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, January 27, 1967, https://media.nti.org/documents/outer_space_treaty.pdf. 19 Agreements Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Others Celestial Bodies, (Moon Agreement), December 1979, https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_34_68E.pdf.

20 Id

21 The Artemis Accords, October 2020 https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Artemis-Accordssigned-13Oct2020.pdf.

it is important to evaluate domestic law. 22 In June 2021, Japan became the fourth nation to enact a domestic law granting private property rights over resources extracted from space. 23 Many legal experts view these laws as potentially conflicting with the Outer Space Treaty, which regulates international space activities. This opinion makes the case that international space law will need to evolve to reflect the increasing number of nations enacting their own laws pertaining to property rights in space. It examines the legislation from four countries: the United States, the United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, and Japan. Based on the content of these laws, the commentary forecasts what a new international treaty on space mining might include and how these domestic laws will influence its formation.

It concludes that an international licensing system will likely be essential and that all four countries would support it. 24 This system should address rules regarding biological materials and explicitly state that entire celestial bodies cannot be claimed. Finally, resource sharing will be a point of contention; for non-space faring countries to sign onto the agreement, larger nations may need to compromise on this point. 25

7.2.1 United States Domestic Law: Space Resource Exploitation and Utilization, Act

In 2015, the U. S. enacted the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, or SPACE Act, in response to lobbying from various companies. In an attempt to foster an atmosphere that would encourage private investment in the space industry, this was the first time that private entities were granted the ability to own property rights over resources in space under national law. The act contains several provisions, but one of which is particularly noteworthy-the Space Resource Exploitation and Utilization Act (SREUA), which grants the U. S. citizen rights to possess, transport, and sell resources obtained from asteroids and other celestial bodies with a prohibition on claims of ownership over the celestial bodies.

The SREUA defines "asteroid resources" and "space resources" as the rights being soughtthose that apply exclusively to resources recovered and not to the bodies from which they come. It makes clear that the U. S. does not claim sovereignty over celestial bodies and places an international law obligation on it, requiring the president to act in support of commercial activities in a manner that is not inconsistent with these international obligations. This 22 Morgan M. DePagter, Who Dies, Wins. How Property Rights in Spaces Could be Dictated by the Countries Willing to Make the First Move, Chicago Journal of International Law, https://cjil. uchicago. edu/onlinearchive/who-dares-wins-how-property-rights-space-could-be-dictated-countries-willing-make (last visited on Oct. 9, 2024).

23 Id

24 Id

25Id

reinforces the commitment to honour existing treaties as it supports the burgeoning commercial space industry.26

7.2.2 Luxembourg: Law on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources

Following the U. S. enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Luxembourg introduced its own Law on Use of Resources in Space Act and established the Luxembourg Space Agency. The primary aim of this legislation is to provide legal clarity regarding the ownership of minerals and valuable space resources, particularly those found on asteroids. 27 The law emphasizes that space resources can be appropriated and is designed to offer a cost-effective legal framework with moderate fees and low tax rates. 28 It also requires that activities be licensed and comply with Luxembourg’s international law obligations, with the understanding that only licensed activities are permissible. Luxembourg's law allows companies to benefit from its domestic space regulations if they are incorporated or have their central administration in the country. This has attracted several U. S.

companies looking to leverage Luxembourg's favourable legal environment. However, while Luxembourg acknowledges the treaty's requirements, it does not mandate that mining profits be set aside for redistribution, a stipulation some nations consider essential for mining activities. 29

7.2.3 United Arab Emirates: Federal Law No. 12 of 2019 on the Regulation of the Space

Sector In December 2019, the United Arab Emirates passed Federal Law No. 12 on the control of its activities in space, such as launches, transport of resources, and mining in space. This law only applies to the nationals and companies within the United Arab Emirates, for it defines "space resources" as any of the non-living natural resources available in the outer space, for instance, minerals and water. All activities in space have to be governed by procedures in dealing with regulation of resource exploitation involving acquisition and transportation through acquiring a permit from an authorized agency. This distinguishes it from previous laws, as the U.A.E. law provides liability provisions, making operators liable for compensation against damages that precipitated international

26 Id.

27 supra. note 4 at. 15.

28 Id

29 Id

claims against the state in case operators are held liable for violating the Outer Space Treaty by their activities. The framework of liability stands under the law that comprehensively regulates space activities while still being accountable in the event of international disputes.30

7.2.4 Japan: Act on Promotion of Business Activities Related to the Exploration and

Development of Space Resources Japan became the fourth nation to create a legal framework for property rights connected to the exploitation of space resources in 2021 when it passed the Act on Promotion of Business Activities connected to the Exploration and Development of Space Resources. Subject to the government approving the goals and procedures of the research, this law grants corporations property rights to space resources, which include water, minerals, and other natural resources found in space. The law recognizes the necessity to abide by international norms, implying restrictions on claiming rights over entire celestial bodies, even if it does not define these resources or distinguish between those found on or within celestial bodies.

The Act mandates that entities must obtain a permit to engage in space activities, including resource mining, building on requirements from Japan's prior Space Activity Act. The law specifies that permits cannot be transferred without prior approval from the prime minister, and it emphasizes the need for actions to respect international commitments and the interests of other nations. 31 Notably, the Act articulates property rights for permit holders, stating that individuals who possess space resources with the intention to own them will have ownership, thus explicitly recognizing private rights to extracted resources in space. 32

8. Data Analysis

The comparison of domestic laws governing space resource exploitation reveals significant differences and similarities among countries, influencing their positions in potential international treaties. A key distinction lies in how each country interprets the appropriation principle of the Outer Space Treaty. Luxembourg explicitly states that resources can be appropriated, while the U.S. law refrains from mentioning "appropriation," emphasizing that it does not claim ownership of celestial bodies. The U.A.E. and Japan similarly avoid direct references to appropriation, focusing instead on transparency and international compliance. 30Id.

31 supra note 5 at. 15.

32 Id

Regarding international cooperation, the U. S. , U. A. E. , and Japan emphasize the need for engagement with the global community, with specific requirements for promoting international agreements and consistent systems for resource development. In contrast, Luxembourg does not mandate such interactions. Definitions of "space resources" also vary: the U. S. and Luxembourg define them as abiotic resources found on or within celestial bodies, while Japan's broader definition includes all natural resources, potentially implying claims over celestial bodies. Licensing requirements are common among Luxembourg, Japan, and the U. A. E. , while the U. S. law does not specify licensing but references it elsewhere. All laws restrict the transfer of licenses, with Luxembourg prohibiting it outright, while Japan and the U. A. E. allow transfers with government consent.

The domestic laws governing space resource exploitation among the U. S. , U. A. E. , Luxembourg, and Japan show more similarities than differences, but certain variations could significantly impact international negotiations. Establishing a new international treaty would enhance confidence in mining activities, encouraging companies and countries to engage in space ventures and reap potential financial benefits. While these nations recognize the ambiguity of the Outer Space Treaty regarding space mining, their domestic laws reflect their positions, which may influence the evolution of international law. Any international convention that incorporates a common heritage principle mandating resource sharing between countries is unlikely to be ratified in the future. Instead, these countries may prefer a framework that asserts the extracted resources belong to the entity that retrieves them.

None of the existing domestic laws suggest a willingness to assist other countries beyond sharing scientific findings. Less economically viable nations, however, may push for a system that includes economic benefits, such as taxes or fees from licensing, to help them participate in space exploration. The establishment of an international licensing system is crucial for clarifying property rights under any new treaty. The U. S. , U. A. E. , Luxembourg, and Japan have existing licensing procedures, so they might support an international system, provided they maintain sufficient control. This system would require a governing body to oversee license approvals and ensure enforcement, as effective property rights necessitate enforcement mechanisms. While the U. S. lacks criminal penalties in its space law, Luxembourg, the U. A. E. , and Japan do include such

provisions, which would bolster enforcement capabilities.33 Further discussions may arise regarding the definition of "space resources," especially concerning biological materials. While the U.S. and Luxembourg focus on abiotic resources, Japan and the U.A.E. have broader definitions that could allow for claims over entire celestial bodies. The potential discovery of biological materials in space raises questions about their regulation, particularly in balancing scientific use with commercial interests. A possible solution could involve requiring companies to hand over such materials but allowing them the right of first refusal if they plan to conduct research, ensuring both profit and scientific advancement are prioritized.34

9. Conclusion

Evaluating the current state of domestic legislation on space resource exploitation is crucial for shaping future international laws regulating property rights. 35 Japan’s recent entry into this legal landscape necessitates a careful assessment of its domestic law, particularly since its broader definition of "space resources" may diverge from the more restrictive interpretations of the U. S. and Luxembourg. Such differences highlight key discussion points that will need to be addressed in crafting any new international treaty. As the prospect of space mining becomes increasingly tangible, the international community's interest in establishing clear property rules will intensify. Current international laws are inadequate for addressing these emerging challenges, but analyzing existing domestic frameworks can provide valuable insights for developing a comprehensive new treaty.

This approach may help create a cohesive set of guidelines that accommodate various national perspectives while fostering cooperation in the burgeoning field of space resource exploitation. 36 33 Morgan M. DePagter, Who Dies, Wins. How Property Rights in Spaces Could be Dictated by the Countries Willing to Make the First Move, Chicago Journal of International Law, https://cjil. uchicago. edu/onlinearchive/who-dares-wins-how-property-rights-space-could-be-dictated-countries-willing-make (last visited on Oct. 9, 2024).

34 Id

35 Id

36 supra note 6. at 20