The Artemis Accords: Searching for New Horizons for International Space Law

About the Author: Liam Roche, LL.B., is a Master of Laws (LL.M. 2025) candidate at UC Berkeley School of Law, specializing in law and technology, advanced international law, attribution, and the regulation of non-state entities under international legal frameworks. He has published in several outlets, including Lawyers Without Borders, on topics such as international law, the protection of fundamental rights, and gaps in international accountability standards.

Image Credit: U.S.A. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Introduction

Nearly five years have passed since the first signing of the Artemis Accords, a multilateral, international agreement  outlining critical principles in relation to activities in space. The instrument has been heralded by many parties as being a catalyst for substantial development for the field of space law in the modern context. Despite this, however, the Artemis Accords have a number of remaining gaps and ambiguities which bring their efficacy into question. This post will examine the Artemis Accords in their present state and analyze the remaining gaps in the field of international space law. Finally, it will assess how these gaps could be clarified and remedied in international law to ensure critical principles of space use and exploration are upheld.

Background

The Artemis Accords are only the latest in a series of international agreements and treaties surrounding the use and control of space and its resources. The first of these, and the one which laid the groundwork for the modern international space law, was the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (OST). The instrument was largely a response to the space race between the USA and USSR along with the growing fear that countries could use their rapid development of space technology to place weapons systems in space. The OST outlined several core principles governing national activities in outer space, including: the prohibition of national appropriation or sovereignty claims over celestial bodies; the freedom of all nations to explore space; the responsibility of states for national activities conducted in space; and a ban on the placement of weapons of mass destruction or other weapons in orbit. 

Next, the Moon Agreement (MA), which was introduced in 1979 and currently has seventeen parties, was a further specification on the regulations afforded by the OST with respect to specific activities on the moon and other celestial bodies. This instrument was largely a restatement of the OST with specific focus placed onto scientific operations. However, it contained additional clarifications regarding subsurface operations on the moon as well. 

Finally, the Registration Treaty (RT), introduced in 1974, has since been signed by over seventy nations. This treaty contains specific obligations for the reporting of launched objects into space. The treaty requires that parties disclose the name of the launching State, an appropriate designator of the space object or its registration number, the date and territory or location of launch, and the object’s function. 

A New Era of Space and Space Law

Following the introduction of these international instruments, there has been an immense boom in the use of space and space activities generally. New nations have begun conducting space activities, international collaborative efforts in space have become more mainstream with initiatives like the International Space Station, and private actors have begun to play a much more central role in the outer space context. With these developments, alongside the substantial technological advancements, the treaties have become increasingly important instruments in international law. However, although they represented a significant step forward at the time, the treaties and agreements have not kept pace with modern challenges. Gaps and ambiguities have emerged, highlighting the pressing need to modernize the treaties for contemporary adaptation. 

Enter Artemis

The Artemis Accords (2020), a multilateral agreement between nations concerning the use of space, have marked a significant development in the field. They provide modern clarifications to the OST, building on the foundations established by both the OST and MA. Additionally, the Accords introduce new and specific standards and interpretations for space activities. 

Collaboration & Transparency

The Accords lay out a number of methods by which international collaboration on space efforts can be facilitated. Firstly, the parties agree to establish standards for technologies used in space— an effort aimed at unifying and streamlining operations while also increasing the accessibility of space for scientific discovery, exploration, and innovation. 

Registration & Debris Management

In addition, the Accords address what has become a growing problem in space: orbital debris and object registration. With the amount of space activity increasing, the problem of “space junk” and knowing precisely where and what objects are in space has become an increasingly present concern. To this end, the Artemis Accords have outlined commitments to limit the amount of harmful debris and establish a standardized and unified registration system which complies with the Registration Treaty. 

Space Resources

Finally, and most significantly, the Accords outline a novel interpretation of the OST concerning the use and appropriation of resources. The most relevant provision in this area is section 10(2) which states that “[t]he Signatories affirm that the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation”. This is in reference to Article II of the OST which prohibits national appropriation by claim of sovereignty or otherwise. 

By incorporating this provision, the signatories clarify their interpretation of Article II as  addressing only territorial claims of complete sovereignty and not resource appropriation. This marks a significant development as it paves the way for nations and private industry to engage in resource extraction from asteroids, other planets, and additional celestial bodies through mining operations. 

Remaining Issues

Despite these clarifications and refinements to existing law, the Artemis Accords do not wholly iron out the creases present in the OST and subsequent international instruments.

Peaceful Purposes

The Accords have put forward that they are only binding on operations conducted in the context of peaceful purposes. This limitation is noteworthy, as the scope of what constitutes “peaceful use” has remained a significant and unresolved issue since the adoption of the OST. As mentioned, the OST outlaws the placement of weapons in outer space, including weapons of mass destruction. One issue under the OST is the possibility of a space-based missile interception system such as the SDI proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 and whether such a system could be classified as a “weapon” under the instrument. As the term is not defined, it does bring into question whether a defensive military asset could be classified as such. The Artemis Accords, by expressly stating so in Section 3, do not address this issue at all, leaving it to be determined by a potential future international treaty.

Private Industry

Another critical gap the Artemis Accords have failed to regulate is the role of private companies in the modern landscape of space activity. While the accords acknowledge the existence of these actors in multiple sections—for example, Section 8 concerning the release of scientific data expressly states that it “is not intended to apply to private sector operations unless such operations are being conducted on behalf of a Signatory”—they stop short of imposing concrete obligations. This omission is significant, as neither the OST nor other instruments provide for clear regulations on the obligations of non-state entities, such as requirements to register, cooperate, or even restrict their activities in space.

Non-Binding

Most critically, while the Artemis Accords modernize international space law in several respects—particularly by clarifying aspects of the OST and other instruments—they are not legally binding. By using language including “intend” and “note” among others, the Accords are able to form what is effectively a unified outlook on space activities and a collective interpretation of outer space law without creating any direct obligations or establishing any frameworks by which disputes or issues could be resolved. 

Conclusion

To conclude, it is undeniable that the Artemis Accords have marked a substantial new era of outer space regulation and international space law. The Accords present a unified set of principles, interpret existing instruments in a modern setting, and outline how conduct in space can adhere to international legal principles in today’s rapidly evolving space race. However, they are not binding and fail to address immense issues— including the classification of military assets as weapons under the OST and the obligations of private companies and other non-state entities operating in space. Because of these glaring omissions and the lack of a comprehensive framework in which these gaps can be addressed, the field of international space law remains largely unsettled. Despite appearances, the Artemis Accords do not constitute the binding treaty needed to govern the current and future use of space.