According to SpaceNews, a recent opinion article by Rich Costa argues against framing lunar exploration as a sovereignty contest similar to the South China Sea conflict. Costa, a space launch security operations expert with nine years at Vandenberg Space Force Base, explains that the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly prohibits national appropriation of celestial bodies, creating a fundamentally different legal framework than exists for maritime disputes. Unlike the South China Sea’s complex historical sovereignty claims, the moon operates under established international law that forbids territorial claims, making flag-planting symbolic rather than legally significant. The analysis suggests that today’s lunar ambitions through programs like Artemis and China’s International Lunar Research Station are more global and cooperative than the bilateral Cold War competition of the Apollo era. This perspective challenges the notion that space will inevitably become another arena for terrestrial conflicts.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Legal Architecture Preventing Lunar Land Grabs
The Outer Space Treaty represents one of humanity’s most forward-thinking legal achievements, establishing space as the “province of all mankind” rather than another colonial frontier. What makes this framework particularly resilient is its combination of prohibition against sovereignty claims with practical provisions for resource utilization. Unlike maritime law, which evolved from centuries of competing territorial claims, space law was largely established before significant human presence, allowing for preventative rather than reactive governance. The treaty’s strength lies in its near-universal adoption—over 110 countries including all major spacefaring nations are signatories, creating a powerful normative framework that would be politically costly to violate openly.
The Stabilizing Force of Space Interdependence
What the South China Sea analogy misses is the profound interdependence that characterizes space operations. Every satellite, spacecraft, and space station depends on shared orbital data, collision avoidance systems, and communication networks that transcend national boundaries. The Rescue Agreement of 1968 creates mutual obligations that bind spacefaring nations together in ways that simply don’t exist in maritime conflicts. When a spacecraft is in distress, the nearest nation—regardless of politics—has both legal and practical responsibility to assist. This creates powerful incentives for cooperation that override terrestrial rivalries.
The Coming Lunar Economy Changes Everything
The most significant difference between historical territorial conflicts and lunar development is the emerging commercial space economy. Private companies from multiple nations are developing lunar capabilities simultaneously, creating a web of commercial relationships that will complicate any attempt at exclusive territorial control. Unlike the South China Sea, where resources are primarily finite and zero-sum, lunar resources like water ice and helium-3 could enable further space exploration and development, creating potential for positive-sum outcomes. The presence of multiple commercial actors from different nations creates natural checks against any single country attempting to dominate lunar activities.
The Practical Impossibility of Lunar Sovereignty
Even if a nation wanted to claim lunar territory, the practical challenges make such claims largely meaningless. Unlike maritime territories where navies can project power and control access, the moon’s vast distances and harsh environment make physical enforcement of territorial claims prohibitively difficult. The logistical reality is that any sustained lunar presence will require international cooperation for survival, let alone prosperity. The high costs and technical challenges of lunar operations naturally favor collaboration over confrontation, creating structural incentives that reinforce the legal framework established by the Outer Space Treaty.
The Real Challenge: Lunar Governance Beyond Sovereignty
The critical issue facing lunar development isn’t preventing sovereignty claims—the legal framework already does that—but establishing practical governance for activities like resource extraction, safety zones, and traffic management. The Artemis Accords represent an attempt to create such a framework, focusing on operational principles rather than territorial control. The real test will be whether major spacefaring nations can develop complementary rather than competing operational frameworks. Success will require balancing national interests with the collective good of preserving space as a shared domain, a challenge that may ultimately lead to more robust international space governance institutions.
Why This Matters for Humanity’s Future in Space
How we approach lunar development will set precedents for humanity’s expansion throughout the solar system. If we successfully maintain space as a cooperative domain, we establish patterns that could govern future activities at Mars and beyond. The alternative—allowing terrestrial conflicts to spill into space—would not only limit humanity’s potential in space but could also exacerbate conflicts back on Earth. The moon represents humanity’s first opportunity to consciously choose cooperation over conflict in a new environment, making the current moment critically important for our long-term future as a spacefaring species.
