---
type: claim
domain: space-development
description: "US 2015 law, Luxembourg 2017 law, and 61-nation Artemis Accords (2020) affirm rights to extracted space resources, but China and Russia pursue alternative frameworks creating a bifurcated legal regime"
confidence: likely
source: "Astra, web research compilation February 2026"
created: 2026-02-17
depends_on:
  - "the Outer Space Treaty created a constitutional framework for space but left resource rights property and settlement governance deliberately ambiguous"
  - "the Artemis Accords replace multilateral treaty-making with bilateral norm-setting to create governance through coalition practice rather than universal consensus"
sourced_from:
- inbox/archive/2026-02-17-astra-space-governance-regulation.md
---

# The Artemis Accords create a de facto legal framework for space resource extraction signed by 61 countries but contested by China and Russia

The legal framework for space resource extraction is now functional but bifurcated. The US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (2015) grants US citizens property rights over resources obtained from celestial bodies. Luxembourg's 2017 Space Resources Law declares space resources "capable of being appropriated" and invested EUR 200 million in space mining research. The Artemis Accords (2020), signed by 61 countries as of January 2026, affirm the right to extract and utilize space resources consistent with the Outer Space Treaty. Japan (2021) and the UAE (2020) have enacted similar laws.

The legal theory rests on a deliberate ambiguity in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty: Article II clearly prohibits sovereign claims over entire celestial bodies, but is silent on extracted resources. The legal interpretation treats extraction as "use" (permitted) rather than "appropriation" (prohibited). The Moon Agreement (1979) explicitly prohibits resource appropriation but has very few signatories and no major space power has ratified it.

The critical tension is bifurcation. China and Russia are pursuing their own frameworks outside the Artemis Accords. The investment implication: companies operating under US/Artemis frameworks face no near-term legal barriers to resource extraction, but the lack of a universal framework creates long-term regulatory risk. The practical question is not whether space mining is legal (it is, under multiple national laws) but whether competing legal regimes will create friction when operations overlap geographically -- particularly at the lunar south pole where water ice deposits are concentrated.

## Evidence
- US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (2015)
- Luxembourg Space Resources Law (2017, EUR 200M invested)
- Artemis Accords: 61 signatories as of January 2026
- Japan (2021) and UAE (2020) similar national laws
- Moon Agreement (1979): explicitly prohibits appropriation, no major power ratified

## Challenges
Competing US/Artemis and China/Russia legal frameworks with no international enforcement mechanism. Physical overlap at lunar south pole water deposits creates the highest-probability conflict scenario.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[the Outer Space Treaty created a constitutional framework for space but left resource rights property and settlement governance deliberately ambiguous]] — the constitutional ambiguity these national laws exploit
- [[water is the strategic keystone resource of the cislunar economy because it simultaneously serves as propellant life support radiation shielding and thermal management]] — legal framework matters most for water at the lunar south pole

Topics:
- [[space exploration and development]]
