Space mining: corporate autocracy or global solidarity?by Nikola Schmidt and Martin Švec
|
| Mining will trigger rapid economic development, making it crucial to prevent a scenario of chaotic, anarchic, or politically and economically advantageous systems favoring a single state, corporation, or individual. |
We consider it absolutely essential to enrich this debate with the fundamental question of why we have states as political authorities: whether it is to create, through the systems they establish, corporations whose power surpasses that of states themselves, or whether our goal is to foster the development of an economic environment that emphasizes social and biospheric sustainability of the planet and, above all, democracy as the legitimate political system? If democracies fail to meet the needs of their citizens and contribute to the well-being of humanity, they will gradually lose both their legitimacy and their appeal.
We perceive the current political developments in the United States, along with the commercial success of SpaceX—steadily monopolizing entire sectors with openly declared ambitions beyond Earth—as a historic moment when it becomes both possible and necessary to agree on the political organization of power in outer space. Mining will trigger rapid economic development, making it crucial to prevent a scenario of chaotic, anarchic, or politically and economically advantageous systems favoring a single state, corporation, or individual.
The first actual mining activities will not focus on precious metals on distant asteroids, but rather on the extraction of water from the permanently shadowed craters on the Moon, where the first permanent bases are planned. One proposed method for melting the ice contained in the lunar regolith involves redirecting sunlight from the crater rim using mirrors positioned above a constructed dome, a concept developed in 2019. The Colorado School of Mines has been engaged in various concepts, including for NASA, continuously since 1999.
Since most countries have not ratified the Moon Agreement, the legality and conditions for the extraction of mineral resources in space are derived from the general principles of the Outer Space Treaty. Regarding the mining of mineral resources in space, two of the most significant principles are the prohibition of national appropriation of outer space and celestial bodies (Article II of the OST), and the imperative that outer space should be used for the benefit and in the interests of all countries (Article I of the OST). However, there is no universal consensus on how these principles should be interpreted.
In recent years, we have therefore witnessed various attempts to eliminate precisely this legal uncertainty. While discussions on the need for and the form of a legal framework for the exploitation of mineral resources are ongoing within the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), a number of parallel multilateral initiatives have emerged—for example, the Artemis Accords or The Hague Space Resources Governance Working Group—and some states, such as the United States, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan, have addressed the legal issues related to mining through their national legislation.
At the same time, the past decade has shown that national legislation cannot fully replace an international legal framework, as it fails to remove legal uncertainty for investors at the international level. Moreover, many states have expressed concern over efforts to bypass the lengthy negotiation process within the COPUOS Legal Subcommittee through unilateral national regulation. To seek a multilateral solution, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and the Czech Republic proposed in 2021 the establishment of a working group that would ensure that activities related to the utilization of mineral resources in outer space are conducted in a safe, sustainable, and peaceful manner for the benefit and in the interests of all states, regardless of their level of economic or scientific development, and in accordance with international law. The Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities was successfully established in the same year. Its tasks are:
It can be stated that the activities of the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities may significantly influence the formulation of the conditions under which mineral resources in outer space will be allowed to be exploited. The group consists of states that hold entirely different views on how the use of space resources should be approached. The United States operates on the assumption that as long as a state does not exercise territorial sovereignty during mining operations, the exploitation of space resources is consistent with Article II of the Outer Space Treaty and therefore, there is no need to establish a comprehensive legal framework at the level of international law.
| The conclusions of this debate may have far-reaching consequences for how power is distributed in outer space. |
In contrast, countries like Norway and Austria draw on the interpretation of benefit and interest of all nations—a requirement set by the Outer Space Treaty for the use of outer space—and find inspiration in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and its concept of the “common heritage of mankind.” Developing countries, such as Ethiopia, emphasize the principle of equality among states in the use of mineral resources in outer space.
According to the US interpretation, the Outer Space Treaty allows the extraction of mineral resources in outer space (“Article I recognizes the right of exploitation”). In its statement submitted to the working group, the US delegation noted: “We acknowledge that this view is not shared by all States or commentators, but as U.S. Department of State Legal Adviser Brian Egan stated in 2016, ‘notwithstanding the variety of States’ political positions on space resource utilization, the United States remains confident that its interpretation of Articles I and II over many decades and many administrations represents the better reading of the Treaty.’“ Thus, entities engaged in space resource utilization activities will retain ownership interests in their equipment, including whatever non-interference rights flow from those ownership interests, even though they will not acquire ownership interests in the ground beneath their equipment.
The question remains how the United States perceives the functioning of the working group, particularly in the context of its Artemis Accords initiative, which represents a set of legally non-binding principles intended to guide the Artemis space program. Article 10 of the Artemis Accords seeks to interpret the Outer Space Treaty in such a way that the extraction of space resources does not, in itself, constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Treaty. Therefore, legal instruments concerning space resources should be considered as complying with existing space law.
Countries such as Norway fundamentally perceive this approach as being in conflict with the position they uphold. They explicitly refer to the principle of the common heritage of mankind, currently embedded, for example, in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which presupposes the creation of a robust legal framework and the fair sharing of benefits among all states. In fact, this very principle was one of the main reasons why many states refused to ratify the Moon Agreement. Norway explicitly stated: “the working group should consider looking to other governance frameworks which could serve as lessons learned or inspiration for how to govern space resources. The achievements of the International Seabed Authority could be of particular relevance.”
A similar call is found in Austria’s position, which states that the seabed regime beyond national jurisdiction, as established under UNCLOS, should be taken into consideration when developing a framework for space resource governance. The tendency of states to revisit the issue of benefit- and profit-sharing from the exploitation of mineral resources in outer space is also highlighted in the “Summary by the Chair and Vice-Chair of views and contributions received on the mandate and purpose of the Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities”.
Other states, such as Belgium and Ethiopia, call for the most solidarity-based interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty possible. Belgium emphasizes the need to establish guarantees for the fair sharing of profits and benefits derived from the utilization of space resources among all states. Exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in outer space should therefore, as part of the common heritage of mankind, be conducted on the basis of a robust international legal framework that ensures access and fairness.
| If the international community rejects the concept of the common heritage of mankind, the need to create an inclusive international legal framework will diminish. In such a case, we can expect the continued fragmentation of space law. |
These conclusions are also supported by the Draft Report of the Legal Subcommittee of COPUOS from April 2024, which points out that several delegations expressed the view that discussions on space resources should be as inclusive as possible, serving the benefit and interests of all humanity, with particular consideration for the needs of developing countries. Any approach to the establishment of a framework for the exploration, extraction, and utilization of mineral resources in outer space should be fair, constructive, cooperative, and consensus-based. Above all, it should not neglect or unfairly disadvantage developing countries.
The outcome of the debate over benefit-sharing should not be shaped by actors operating from a position of economic strength, but rather by actors holding political legitimacy. In the context of developments in the United States following the inauguration of President Trump for his second term, this issue has crystallized in new dimensions. Within a state, citizens expect their political representatives to establish a fair legal system where no one is unduly privileged or disadvantaged. In the international community, similarly fair arrangements are necessary to prevent conflict: this is precisely what multilateralism seeks to achieve: solutions that are not only acceptable to all participants but also provide incentives for resource extraction.
The debate on the regime for the mining of mineral resources in outer space may, at first glance, appear to be merely a clash between two opposing approaches: the principles of an open free market on one side and global solidarity on the other. However, we believe this is not the case. On the contrary, these two worlds must be brought to agreement in a way that ensures the solution is globally just while also motivating the private sector to engage in mining.
The conclusions of this debate may have far-reaching consequences for how power is distributed in outer space. In 1984 the United States enacted the Commercial Space Launch Act, opening orbital launch services to private companies for the first time. SpaceX, founded in 2002, soon became the most prominent beneficiary of that policy shift. After a small NASA study contract in 2003, the company received an $8 million DARPA technology-development award in 2004. NASA then awarded SpaceX $278 million under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program in 2006, $1.6 billion for Commercial Resupply Services (CRS-1) in 2008, $2.6 billion for Commercial Crew (CCtCap) in 2014, the $2.89 billion Artemis Human Landing System contract in 2021, and the $5.9 billion U.S. Space Force “Lane 2” launch block in 2025. These successive public-sector contracts underwrote the company’s rapid growth.
Thanks largely to reusability, SpaceX now dominates the orbital launch market. By April 2025 its Falcon 9 boosters had completed more than 430 successful landings, and the record-setting core had flown 27 times; the design is being qualified for up to 40 reflights. Reuse has pushed the cost of launch below $4,000 per kilogram, creating a substantial cost advantage. Because SpaceX is privately held, exact financials are not disclosed, but analyst models from Sacra and Payload put 2024 revenue at roughly $13–14 billion and operating profit around $4–5 billion—a margin of aboutg 35%. Starlink already provides about 58% of that revenue (about $7.7 billion), with launch services contributing the other 42% ($5.5 billion). The Starlink constellation accounts for roughly 55–60% of all active satellites today and is projected to deliver more than 90% of global space-based broadband capacity by 2026.
The vision for the Super Heavy and Starship launch vehicles suggests that revenues from this segment alone could reach tens of billions of dollars by around 2030 and potentially hundreds of billions by 2040, with profitability approaching 50%. Thanks to government incentives, SpaceX has, within less than two decades, reached a dominant position with profitability that openly enables the company to pursue the construction of a city on Mars, while the debate on the governance of such a city is virtually non-existent.
This moment should be understood as the potential emergence of an unelected authoritarian corporate sovereign power in the 21st century, a power that unregulated space mining could amplify to levels far exceeding the power of any state in the world, including the United States. This is a development that states valuing democratic principles should, at the very least, carefully monitor.
| Supporting the concept of the common heritage of mankind and benefit-sharing is not limited to the redistribution of profits from space mining. |
First, if the international community rejects the concept of the common heritage of mankind, the need to create an inclusive international legal framework will diminish. In such a case, we can expect the continued fragmentation of space law, which, if not sufficiently harmonized, will create conditions conducive to political or even military conflict, the rise of corporate autocracy, and the further weakening of state authority in space. No democratic state would benefit from such a development, neither economically nor in terms of security. The activities of potential investors would depend on access to infrastructure that might be controlled, if at all, by a single country.
The primary beneficiaries of mining would be those with the necessary technologies, capital, and national political representation that does not reflect well-being of humanity. The struggle for resources would undermine international security, further fragment the liberal international order, and erode trust in democratic systems. The rejection of the common heritage of mankind concept should also be seen as a missed opportunity to create a source of funding for addressing global challenges such as climate change or the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), for which states would otherwise have to allocate their own financial resources.
Secondly, the rejection of the concept of the common heritage of mankind would lead to the concentration of control over key technologies in the hands of just a few of the wealthiest individuals and companies (such as SpaceX, Blue Origin), supported by their respective governments, with no interest in a fair international order. A warning sign of the risks associated with such dependence on a specific technology controlled by a private entity is already evident in the dominance of SpaceX in providing Internet services via satellite.
Opponents of the concept of benefit-sharing within the future legal regime for space mining argue the necessity of upholding the principle of the free market, warning against the risk of legal uncertainty that could discourage investors, the potential burden on companies that might stifle innovation, national sovereignty and national interest, the fact that the Moon Agreement has been ratified by only a small number of states, and, above all, the precedent set by terrestrial practice, where profits from resource extraction are not shared globally. However, all these arguments can be easily refuted: legal uncertainty already exists today, as there are ongoing debates about whether national space laws adequately reflect the principles contained in the Outer Space Treaty; the principle of benefit-sharing is not limited to the Moon Agreement but is also embedded in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; the argument of national sovereignty is directly at odds with the Outer Space Treaty; taxation does not break free markets or stifle innovation; and the terrestrial precedent of “first-come-first-served” has historically often led to conflict.
However, we consider the possible consequences of abandoning the concept of benefit-sharing to be particularly serious. Above all, it is reasonable to expect a significant concentration of power in the hands of global—or, in the future, interplanetary—corporations, super-rich individuals, and other actors whose economic position creates direct political competition to democratic states, or in the hands of authoritarian regimes operating without democratic oversight, potentially for many decades or even centuries to come. Although the current debate may be perceived as a clash between the opposing ideologies of an open free market on one side and global solidarity on the other, we believe it should primarily be seen as a debate about the form of governance for areas beyond the jurisdiction of nation-states and about the role of democracy as a political system both at the national and international level. If the international community agrees on the need to finance, for example, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the fight against climate change, and other globally significant initiatives for the benefit of humanity, then benefit-sharing is not merely a redistribution of profits between states: it represents a compromise solution for the common good of humanity, precisely in line with the vision of human development in outer space as envisaged by the Outer Space Treaty.
Supporting the concept of the common heritage of mankind and benefit-sharing is not limited to the redistribution of profits from space mining. It also implies the establishment of global cooperative oversight over mining activities, the potential creation of financial resources for addressing global challenges, the strengthening of international security, and the maintenance of the debate on future political power in outer space within the United Nations framework, with the potential to promote other multilateral solutions and regulatory mechanisms for space activities in the interest of humanity.
The effort to prevent conflicts among members of the international community in areas beyond national jurisdictions has historically led to the adoption of legal regulation of these zones through instruments such as UNCLOS. At the time, however, the debate about the role of super-rich individuals was nowhere near as prominent as it is today, a time when unelected billionaires without political legitimacy openly pursue major political ambitions, including ambitions that extend beyond planet Earth.
National governments have, in the past, intervened from time to time when monopolistic practices emerged around newly developing economic activities dominated by a single actor. For example, in 1882, Standard Oil (owned by John Rockefeller) controlled 90% of oil production in the United States. In response, the US Congress adopted the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, though the breakup of Standard Oil did not occur until 1911 after a prolonged legal battle. A similar case was that of AT&T, which held monopoly control over the entire telephone infrastructure in the US, leading to the company's breakup in 1982.
Democratic states committed to maintaining a fair international order should strongly advocate for the implementation of a benefit-sharing regime grounded in the principle of the common heritage of mankind. Benefit-sharing is crucial for preserving international security, safeguarding the legitimacy of democratic systems, and ensuring political oversight over emerging power structures beyond Earth. At the same time, it could lay the groundwork for establishing global financial resources to address shared global challenges, such as combating climate change or achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), without placing additional financial burdens on individual states.
| Benefit-sharing is crucial for preserving international security, safeguarding the legitimacy of democratic systems, and ensuring political oversight over emerging power structures beyond Earth. |
A benefit-sharing system that supports the SDGs could help reduce migration pressures, thus contributing to international security. It could also provide funding for public space infrastructure, creating room for competition from all states, including developing countries, in line with the principles of the Outer Space Treaty. Moreover, it could ensure financing for regulatory and oversight bodies modeled on the International Seabed Authority (ISA) under the UNCLOS regime. Finally, such a system has the potential to pave the way toward an acceptable framework for a future global tax: a topic still largely taboo in current debates, yet recent developments within the OECD toward a minimum corporate tax show that such solutions are far from utopian.
A firm commitment to benefit-sharing in this debate is therefore not merely about redistributing profits to the developing world. It is also about establishing global cooperative oversight over space mining and maintaining the discussion on future political power in outer space within the United Nations framework. Effective oversight and an agreed benefit-sharing mechanism would help prevent the emergence of tax havens at the national level by introducing a system of global taxation at the source. Ultimately, democratic systems were created to empower people, not corporations. Benefit-sharing would ensure a fair distribution of power and prevent the rise of new communities in space governed by corporate interests.
UNCLOS designates the seabed beyond national jurisdiction and its resources as the common heritage of mankind. It is difficult to imagine why outer space—like the seabed, beyond the jurisdiction of states—should be governed by fundamentally different principles, even though UNCLOS has, for various reasons, not yet triggered actual seabed mining. Advocating for this principle is in the interest of any state that wishes to ensure that its private companies will have the opportunity to participate in space mining without dependency on the infrastructure controlled by quasi-monopolistic structures or at the mercy of the ambitions of unelected billionaires. It also aligns with the view that the United Nations, as an institution, should be empowered with its own financial resources to strengthen its capacity to contribute to the advancement of humanity—the very mission for which it was established.
Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.
