Who Owns Space?

Since the first spaceflight in the 1950s, policymakers have debated how outer space should be governed. Now, growing numbers of countries and private enterprises are launching missions into space. As a result, the issue of space policy has taken on new importance. Governments and, increasingly, private companies have sought to harness the potential of outer space. Most immediately, that includes creating and expanding satellite networks to provide services such as Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation and internet connectivity. As space exploration continues to advance, many spacefarers envision mining valuable resources from celestial bodies such as the moon or asteroids. Such mining could have tremendous consequences. It could unlock trillions of dollars in new wealth. It could enable scientific breakthroughs in the study of outer space. It could even facilitate the construction of permanent facilities on the moon that could pave the way for deeper space exploration. The prospect of vast economic and scientific opportunity has fueled growing interest in space exploration. However, observers have also warned that without careful management, space exploration risks causing overcrowding. It also risks opening the door for new competition or conflict over space. Policymakers considering space governance therefore need to consider a vital question: Who owns outer space?

The debate over space governance centers on how policymakers define outer space. Some argue that space should be governed as a “global commons,” meaning that all countries are entitled to share it. That would mean no one country or enterprise can claim ownership of objects in space. Most of all, any use of space or the resources within space would need to be internationally negotiated. That is how the world’s governments treat Earth’s oceans and atmosphere, as well as Antarctica. 

Proponents of recognizing space as a global commons argue that space should be a domain of peaceful cooperation and needs to be internationally governed. Without careful management, they claim, near-Earth orbit could become overcrowded with satellites and debris. That could prevent new missions from launching safely. Competition for orbital space, natural resources, or territory on celestial objects could further become a source of international tension: competing missions could risk colliding, for instance. At the worst, competition over outer space could even spark international conflicts. Those clashes could pave the way for countries to position weapons in space, such as missile systems or anti-satellite weapons.

Other policymakers and private enterprises worry that designating space as a global commons could destroy the growing momentum of space exploration. They say it could block spacefarers and the broader public from accessing space’s economic and scientific potential. Especially as commercial space operations are still in their infancy, some policymakers and lobbyists argue that such policies could discourage innovation. They worry that investment could slow without the profit motive of being able to claim resources. In such an environment, they argue, new technologies for space travel or satellite services could be slow to develop. They warn that more advanced space operations—such as the mining of resources or the establishment of permanent outposts on celestial bodies—could fail to materialize.

Treating space as a global commons could also have limited benefit unless all spacefaring countries abided by that designation. Without any framework to cooperatively manage space, enforce agreements, and resolve disputes, countries could easily take advantage of poor governance, even while rhetorically supporting a global commons framework. 

Several treaties exist to set standards of conduct in space—most notably the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which establishes that space exploration is “the province of all mankind.” However, countries disagree about whether space is a global commons. Some prominent spacefaring powers, including China and the European Union, recognize it as such; the United States, on the other hand, does not. However, the United States has nonetheless pursued peaceful cooperation in space through diplomatic agreements such as the Artemis Accords. Those agreements set standards for international cooperation on lunar missions. Still, as space exploration expands and grows increasingly international, U.S. policymakers could come under growing pressure to reconsider their position on space governance.