The key facts

  • On October 19, Uzbekistan became the 77th participant of the Artemis Accords — a non-binding political commitment on the exploration of the Moon, Mars, comets and asteroids.
  • China and Russia have not joined and are developing the International Lunar Research Station project; three states participate in both initiatives simultaneously.
  • Experts disagree: some see the accords as a flexible tool for developing norms, others as an attempt by the US to cement its own interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty regarding resources.

Uzbekistan — the 77th participant of the accords

On October 19, Uzbekistan joined the Artemis Accords on the exploration of the Moon, Mars, comets and asteroids, becoming the 77th signatory nation. Gazeta.uz published an overview of the initiative. The Accords are not an international treaty and have no binding legal force — they are defined as a political commitment to follow common principles, many of which serve the practical implementation of the norms of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. To join, a state only needs to hand its signature to the US government; no dispute resolution mechanism is provided, and specific cooperation is formalized through separate documents. According to Mike Gold, one of the authors of the accords, the non-binding format was chosen deliberately so that countries could join without lengthy ratification.

Origins and principles

Rules of conduct in space have been discussed at the UN since the late 1950s: in 1959, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) was created, which prepared the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that enshrined the principle of openness of space and a ban on national appropriation of celestial bodies. In December 2017, US President Donald Trump signed a directive that returned the Moon to the list of main priorities of the American space program; in 2019 the program was named Artemis — after the twin sister of Apollo in Greek mythology. An important element was Trump's April 6, 2020 executive order supporting the extraction of space resources: it enshrined the right of American citizens and companies to commercial exploration, extraction and use of resources (the right to own and sell extracted materials had been established by law back in 2015) and stated that the US does not consider space a 'global common'. The provision on resources was included in the text of the accords: signatories confirmed that resource extraction in itself does not constitute appropriation of the territory of a celestial body, but must comply with the Outer Space Treaty. The Accords enshrine ten principles: peaceful purposes, open publication of space policy and scientific data, common technical standards, assistance to astronauts in emergency situations, registration of objects, reduction of space debris, preservation of historic lunar landing sites, including the Apollo landing sites, as well as temporary safety zones, which participants announce in advance and coordinate actions around.

Positions of China and Russia

China and Russia — the two largest space powers after the US — have not joined the accords. In Moscow, the initiative was criticized even before its official presentation: in May 2020, then head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin wrote: 'The principle of invasion is the same, whether it is the Moon or Iraq: the creation of a

Expert assessments

Professor Rossana Deplano of the University of Leicester believes the accords are firmly grounded in the Outer Space Treaty but offer a new approach: rules are formed gradually, as real missions emerge. She points to the absence of a dispute resolution mechanism and the possible advantage of countries already operating in space. Elsbeth Magilton, a specialist at the University of Nebraska, sees the advantage precisely in the non-binding nature: such arrangements are easier to agree on, they confirm existing norms and develop them, while disputes over rules maintain communication between states. Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi, supports the accords but notes that the principle of due regard for the interests of other states is barely specified: 'The concept of due regard assumes that if someone already occupies a site, others should avoid interference. This gives a huge advantage to those who simply mark their presence first. And that is how a race begins.' Critics focus on the provisions on resources and safety zones. Stephan Hobe, director of the Institute of Air and Space Law at the University of Cologne, believes that 'the Artemis Accords represent an attempt by the Americans to quietly legitimize their departure from the Outer Space Treaty': safety zones are specific areas whose acquisition is prohibited by the treaty, and the text of the accords was drafted by the US without international discussion. Frans von der Dunk of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln sees the accords rather as a political problem: the US goal is to gather as many states as possible around its interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. Fabio Tronchetti of Northumbria University names fragmentation of space law as the main risk: since 1979, COPUOS has not agreed on a single new binding treaty, limited groups of states develop rules on their own, which may lead to different rules being applied to a shared space and a weakening of the UN's role.