Regarding Harmonization of the Approaches of Russia, China, The United States on the International Legal Regime on Space Resource Activities

INTRODUCTION. In view of global competition/ cooperation trends in Moon exploration the current stage of space activities development, provided an effective response to the system “new great challenges”, can become a period of not only inevitable objective changes, but also global opportunities for the progressive development of international space law in the interests of all states. One of the most illustrative examples in this context, partly due to its “structured nature” is the question of the legal regime governing space resource activities. The research is accordingly dedicated to: 1) Systemic analysis of contemporary trends in the competition/cooperation between the two alternative international lunar projects, the “Artemis” and the “International Lunar Research Station” (ILRS), in their legal dimension (as a factor of fundamental significance in this regard); 2) Defining possible and appropriate paths, forms, levels, and priority directions for harmonizing relevant approaches of China, Russia, the United States on the example of a future international legal regime for space resource activities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The theoretical background of this research consists of works of Russian and foreign legal scholars, including leading experts in international space law (ISL); as well as, for matters of fact for the purposes of legal research, of experts in the field of space economics, space science, and space technology. In addition to the ISL principles and rules) the analysis is based on a system of the following acts and documents: 1) the Artemis Accords and the Agreement on the International Lunar Research Station (the ILRS Agreement) as main elements; 2) the positions of China, Russia, and the USA within the relevant Working Group of the Legal Subcommittee of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space as an additional element for understanding the respective approaches reflected in the indicated agreements; national legislation on space resources, the main acts of which “preceded” the two elements indicated above, to provide a unified vision of interconnected substantive legal and economic processes. The methodology includes analysis, synthesis, analogy, as well as a combination of comparative legal and systemic methods, modeling, and forecasting.

RESEARCH RESULTS. 1. Despite the de jure different status of the Artemis Accords and the ILRS Agreement, there are sufficient grounds for a substantive comparison of their provisions in order to determine priority directions for harmonizing the legal approaches of Russia, China, and the USA by identifying potential areas and types of competing activities in both international lunar projects, as well as assessing them in terms of the likelihood of approaching a “critical point”. 2. Four of the five United Nations treaties on outer space (except the 1979 Moon Agreement, in which China, Russia, and the United States do not participate) are included in the preambles of both agreements as the international legal basis for joint space activities. 3. In the absence of direct coordination of competing activities, additional mechanisms for preliminary harmonization of the respective approaches, including legal ones, are required. Currently, besides the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities, such opportunities are provided within BRICS, APSCO; emergence of new formats of intersubject interaction should be expected. 4. Comprehensive regulation of private space activities (within the limits permitted by international obligations) provides conditions for the prompt achievement (without waiting for the broad implementation of a specific type of regulated activity) of significant economic results. Corresponding additional legislative mechanisms are in demand in China and Russia. 5. The content of the Initial Draſt Set of Recommended Principles for Space Resource Activities of the Working Group, as well as the positions of states on it, indicates an established “common understanding”: space resource activities are not prohibited by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and fall within its scope, like other types of space activities.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. 1. The obvious differences in the status of the Artemis Accords and the ILRS Agreement are leveled by the identified specifics of the subsequent implementation of the provisions of the Artemis Accords. 2. The ILRS Agreement (comparable to the 1998 Intergovernmental Agreement on the ISS) does not contain provisions defining the legal regime of space resource activities. The Artemis Accords, on the contrary, have an unprecedented character, primarily in the approach of participating states to establishing “safety zones”. 3. A proposal by China to create a special registry of space objects on the Moon and other celestial bodies by the UN Secretariat, which is in demand in practice and do not contradict applicable international law principles and norms (unlike the “safety zones”), may become relevant. Such an additional registry or, more rationally, the allocation of space objects on celestial bodies into a separate category of the existing United Nations Register of Objects Launched into Outer Space could facilitate coordination of competing and complementary types of activities on celestial bodies. 4. The Artemis Aсcords, unlike the US Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015, does not establish property rights to the “extracted space resources.” Paragraph 1 of Section 10 notes that “the utilization of space resources can benefit humankind by providing critical support for safe and sustainable operations”. This provision corresponds with similar provisions of the ILRS Agreement on the use of lunar resources. 5. When defining issues for the initial harmonization of approaches of China, Russia, and the USA, it is advisable to proceed from priorities regarding the goals and directions of space resource activities (use of lunar resources for life support in outer space – the concept of “In-Situ Resource Utilization” (ISRU), that coincide in the Artemis Accords, the ILRS Agreement, the Initial Draſt Set of Recommended Principles of the Working Group, and the relevant positions of states. 6) The main incentive for transforming current rivalry into effective international legal cooperation will come from the practical interests of the involved entities to prevent approaching the “critical point” – the impossibility of stable development of competing types of natural resource activities in outer space (in the relatively short term – within the framework of the ISRU concept). 7) Only an international treaty can ensure effective coordination of activities beyond national jurisdiction. Harmonization of the substantive approaches of China, Russia, and the USA can become a significant step towards the development of a special international legal regime.

1. Berkman P.A., Vylegzhanin A.N., Yuzbashyan M.R., Mauduit J. Mezhdunarodnoe kosmicheskoe pravo: obshhie dlja Rossii i SShA vyzovy i perspektivy [Outer Space Law: Russia-United States Common Challenges and Perspectives]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2018. № 1 (106). P. 16-34. (In Russ.)

2. Bryuhanov N.A., Legostaev V.P., Lobykin A.A., Lopota V.A., Sizencev G.A., Sinyavskij V.V., Sotnikov B.I., Filippov I.M., Shevchenko V.V. Ispol'zovanie resursov Luny dlya issledovaniya i osvoeniya solnechnoj sistemy v XXI veke [Use of Natural Resources of the Moon for Solar System Exploration and Exploitation in the 21st Century]. – Kosmicheskaya tekhnika i tekhnologii [Space Engineering and Technology]. 2014. № 1 (4). P. 3-14.

3. Dallas J.A., Raval S., Alvarez Gaitan, Saydam S., Dempster A.G. Mining beyond earth for sustainable development: Will humanity benefit from resource extraction in outer space? – Acta Astronautica. 2020. Vol. 167. P. 181-188.

4. De Pagter M.M. “Who Dares, Wins:” How Property Rights in Space Could be Dictated by the Countries Willing to Make the First Move. – Chicago Journal of International Law Online. 1.2. 2022. URL: https://cjil.uchicago.edu/online-archive/who-dares-wins-how-property-rightsspace-could-be-dictated-countries-willing-make (accessed date: 27.09.2025).

5. De Zwart M., Henderson S., Neumann M. Space Resource Activities and the Evolution of International Space Law. – Acta Astronautica. Vol. 211. Oct. 2023. P. 155-162.

6. Criddle E.J., Fox-Decent E. Mandatory Multilateralism. – American Journal International Law. 2019. Vol. 113. Issue 2. P. 272-325.

7. Janikowski A. Bold Steps Forward: The Investment Impact of Enacting Space Resources Legislation. – Space Policy. 2025. № 72. Р. 101675. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964624000663#bib50 (accessed date: 11.10.2025).

8. Jankowitsch P. The Background and History of Space Law. – Handbook of Space Law. Eds. by F. von der Dunk, F. Tronchetti. Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward. Elgar Publishing. 2015. 1137 p.

9. Kolosov Yu.M. Bor'ba za mirnyj kosmos [Struggle for peaceful outer space]. Moscow: Statut. 2014. 128 p. (In Russ.)

10. Kolosov Yu.M. Osvoenie kosmicheskogo prostranstva (Glava VIII) [Exploration of Outer Space (Сhapter VIII)]. – Global'nye problemy sovremennosti [Global Challenges of Modernity]. Red. N.N. Inozemtsev. Institut mirovoj ekonomiki i mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij AN SSSR [Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union]. Мoscow: Mysl. 1981. 285 p.

11. Kolosov Yu.M. Overview of the International Law-making Process and the Role of the International Law Commission. – Making Better International Law: The International Law Commission at 50: Proceedings of the United Nations Colloquium on Progressive Development and Codification of International Law. New York, United Nations. 1998. 464 p.

12. Kolosov Yu.M. Pravovoj rezhim prirodnyh resursov Luny i drugih nebesnyh tel [Legal Regime of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies]. – Mezhdunarodno-pravovye osnovy nedropol'zovanija [International Legal Basis for Subsoil Use]. Otv. red. A.N. Vylegzhanin. Moscow: NORMA. 2007. P. 238-241. (In Russ.)

13. Kolosov Yu.M., Yuzbashyan M.R. Vklad rossijskoj (sovetskoj) jurisprudencii v stanovlenie i razvitie mezhdunarodnogo kosmicheskogo prava [Contribution of Russian (Soviet) Jurisprudence to Formation and Development of International Space Law]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2015. № 2. P. 12-34. (In Russ.)

14. Kopal V. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. – United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law. 2008. 10 p. URL: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/tos/tos.html (accessed date: 23.11.2025).

15. Marov M.Ya. Issledovanija Luny avtomaticheskimi kosmicheskimi apparatami [Exploration of the Moon by Automatic (Unmanned) Spacecrafts]. – Cosmic Research. 2023. Vol. 61. № 1. P. 52-77.

16. Paikowsky D. The Power of the Space Club. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press. 2017. 251 p.

17. Pelton J.N. Space 2.0: Revolutionary Advances in the Space Industry. 1st ed. Springer. 2019. 218 p.

18. Pioneers of Space Law. Vladimir Mandl (1899–1941). Ed. by S. Doyle. – International Institute of Space Law Directorate of Studies. 2023. 112 p.

19. Pyle R. Space 2.0: How Private Spaceflight, a Resurgent NASA, and International Partners Are Creating a New Space Age. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc. 2019. 336 p.

20. Tronchetti F. 2015. The Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act: A Move Forward or a Step Back? – Space Policy. 2015. Vol. 34. P. 6-10.

21. von der Dunk F.G. Asteroid Mining: International and National Legal Aspects. – Michigan State International Law Review. 2018a. Vol. 26.1. P. 83-101.

22. von der Dunk F.G. Private Property Rights and the Public Interest in Exploration of Outer Space. – Biological Theory. 2018b. Vol. 13. Issue 2. P. 142-151.

23. Vylegzhanin A.N., Yuzbashyan M. Status prirodnyh resursov nebesnyh tel: novelly, oboznachennye praktikoj gosudarstv [Status of Natural Resources of Celestial Bodies: Novelties Evinced by State Practice]. – Gosudarstvo i pravo [State and Law]. 2024. № 1. P. 147-158. (In Russ.)

24. Vylegzhanin A., Yuzbashyan M., Alekseev M. Mezhdunarodno-pravovaja kosmicheskaja politika SShA: priglashenie k utochneniju statusa prirodnyh resursov nebesnyh tel ili vyzov bol'shinstvu gosudarstv? [International Legal Outer Space Policy of the United States of America: An Invitation to Clarify the Status of the Natural Resources of Celestial Bodies or a Challenge for Majority of States?] – Mezhdunarodnye protsessy [International Trends]. 2023. № 3 (21). P. 6-30. (In Russ.)

25. Vylegzhanin A., Yuzbashyan M., Suvorov G. The Legal Regime of Natural Resources of Celestial Bodies: Current State of the Relevant Russian Laws and Perspectives for a Common BRICS Legal Approach. – BRICS Law Journal. 2025. Vol. 12 Issue 2. P. 5-42.

26. Waters M. Small States in Space: Space Club Relevancy and National Interest Influence. – Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs. 2023. Vol. 6. Issue 4. P.13-47.

27. Wu X. The International Lunar Research Station: China's New Era of Space Cooperation and Its New Role in the Space Legal Order. – Space Policy. 2023. Vol. 65. August 2023. Р. 101537.

28. Yuzbashyan M.R. Aktual'nye tendencii sotrudnichestva/ sopernichestva v kosmose i perspektivy razvitija kosmicheskogo prava [Topical Trends in Outer Space Cooperation/Competition and Perspectives on Space Law]. – Pravo i upravlenie [Journal of Law and Administration]. 2024. № 1 (20). P. 103-119. (In Russ.)

29. Yuzbashyan M.R. Aktual'nye mezhdunarodno-pravovye voprosy razreshenija sporov v oblasti kosmicheskoj dejatel'nosti [Urgent International Legal Issues of Settling Disputes in the Field of Space Activities]. – Pravo i upravlenie [Journal of Law and Administration]. 2018. № 2. P. 48-59. (In Russ.)

30. Yuzbashyan M.R. Zakon SShA ob issledovanii i ispol'zovanii kosmicheskih resursov 2015 g. i mezhdunarodnoe kosmicheskoe pravo [The US Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015 and the International Space Law]. – Moskovskij zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2017. № 2 (106). P. 71-86. (In Russ.)