According to SpaceNews, the comparison between lunar exploration and contested maritime zones like the South China Sea represents a flawed analogy that risks importing Earth’s territorial rivalries into space. The analysis highlights that unlike the South China Sea’s complex sovereignty claims, the moon operates under the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which explicitly prohibits national appropriation of celestial bodies. The article notes that today’s lunar ambitions through initiatives like the Artemis Program and China’s International Lunar Research Station are inherently more global and cooperative than the bilateral Cold War competition of the Apollo era. Author Rich Costa, a space launch security operations expert with nine years at Vandenberg Space Force Base, argues that international interdependence in space acts as a stabilizing force rather than a flashpoint for conflict. This perspective challenges the narrative of inevitable lunar competition and suggests a more nuanced approach to space governance.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Outer Space Treaty’s Enduring Strength
What many geopolitical analysts miss about space governance is the remarkable durability of the Outer Space Treaty framework. While terrestrial treaties often face erosion through interpretation and selective compliance, the OST’s fundamental principles have maintained surprising consensus across spacefaring nations for over five decades. This isn’t accidental—the treaty’s prohibition on national appropriation creates a rising tide that lifts all boats, allowing emerging space powers access without needing to challenge established territorial claims. The legal reality is that any nation attempting sovereignty claims would immediately alienate the entire international community, including their own strategic partners who benefit from the current system.
The Economics of Lunar Cooperation
The business case for lunar cooperation far outweighs any perceived benefits of competition. Unlike the South China Sea’s finite hydrocarbon resources, the moon’s value lies in its position as a gateway to the entire solar system. Water ice at the poles can fuel spacecraft traveling to Mars and beyond, making lunar infrastructure a shared utility rather than exclusive territory. Private companies from multiple nations are already planning complementary operations—some focusing on transportation, others on habitat construction, and still others on resource extraction. This emerging ecosystem depends on interoperability and shared standards, creating natural pressure against isolationist approaches. The companies investing billions in lunar infrastructure understand that their returns depend on creating a functioning marketplace, not planting flags.
The Practical Reality of Lunar Operations
On a technical level, the moon presents safety challenges that demand cooperation regardless of political tensions. The lunar surface lacks atmosphere, has extreme temperature variations, and experiences constant micrometeorite bombardment. These conditions mean that any human presence requires redundant systems and emergency protocols that transcend national boundaries. The Rescue Agreement of 1968 establishes obligations for assisting astronauts in distress, creating practical interdependencies that make conflict counterproductive. When a habitat loses pressure or a rover breaks down, the nearest help might come from another nation’s base—a reality that encourages communication and coordination from the ground up.
The Evolution of Space Governance
Rather than replicating terrestrial sovereignty models, lunar governance is evolving toward functional regimes focused on specific challenges. The Artemis Accords represent one approach to establishing “safety zones” around operations without claiming territory, while China’s International Lunar Research Station concept suggests alternative frameworks for collaboration. What’s emerging isn’t a binary choice between U.S. or Chinese leadership, but a mosaic of overlapping agreements and standards. This complexity actually strengthens stability by creating multiple channels for engagement and reducing the risk that any single dispute could unravel the entire system. The real governance challenge lies in managing access to specific sites like permanently shadowed craters rather than controlling territory.
Strategic Implications for Spacefaring Nations
For nations developing lunar capabilities, the strategic calculus favors engagement over isolation. Countries participating in multiple cooperative frameworks gain influence in shaping emerging norms and access to broader technological ecosystems. This explains why traditional U.S. allies like Japan and European Space Agency members participate in Artemis while maintaining independent lunar ambitions, and why newer space powers like the United Arab Emirates collaborate across multiple initiatives. The lesson for national space agencies is that influence comes through contribution to shared infrastructure and standards, not through territorial control. This represents a fundamental shift from how nations have historically projected power on Earth.
The Path Forward for Lunar Stewardship
The most likely future isn’t a replay of Cold War competition but the emergence of what space policy experts call “functional sovereignty”—control over specific installations and operations without claims to underlying territory. This approach allows for the practical management of crowded lunar environments while preserving the Outer Space Treaty’s core principles. The real race won’t be about who plants flags first, but who develops the most sustainable operations, establishes the most useful standards, and builds the broadest coalitions. Success will be measured not by exclusive control but by how effectively nations and companies enable humanity’s continued expansion into the solar system.
