Abstract
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 asserts in no uncertain terms that no State Party to the Treaty shall claim any part of space, including any part of a celestial body like the moon. Outer space and all its components are the providence of humankind. But how can this be? As states and their private entities continue to expand the outer space market, there are plans for footholds like facilities and stations on the moon that will establish a permanent lunar presence. According to most interpretations of property law, this would establish at least some form of property right at odds with the Treaty. This dilemma is further complicated by things like changing attitudes toward states’ claims of ownership over extracted resources like minerals, the right to exclude, and even the age-old Tragedy of the Commons. Looking to the Treaty’s language and history, international treaty interpretation, and terrestrial parallels like the North and South Pole, this Note addresses that paradox. It then offers several solutions—from short-term interim measures acknowledging the issue to long-term solutions—resolving this tension and reconciling the reality of property interests on the moon with formal and customary international law.
Recommended Citation
Abby Jones,
That’s No Moon, It’s a Space Station: Determining Ownership Rights on the Moon at the Intersection of International Treaty and Property Law,
72 Clev. St. L. Rev.
1069
(2024)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol72/iss4/11
Included in
Air and Space Law Commons, International Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons