{"id":28588,"date":"2026-05-07T09:00:45","date_gmt":"2026-05-07T07:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=28588"},"modified":"2026-05-11T10:12:12","modified_gmt":"2026-05-11T08:12:12","slug":"nothing-new-on-the-moon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/nothing-new-on-the-moon\/","title":{"rendered":"Nothing New on the Moon?"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 2 February 2026, Elon Musk confirmed<\/u><\/a> that SpaceX has acquired the billionaire\u2019s artificial intelligence (AI) start-up xAI with the aim<\/u><\/a> to \u2018form an \u201cinnovation engine\u201d putting AI, rockets, space-based internet, and media under one roof\u2019.\u00a0Musk is quoted<\/u><\/a> as saying: \u2018This marks not just the next chapter, but the next book in SpaceX and xAI’s mission: scaling to make a sentient sun to understand the Universe and extend the light of consciousness to the stars!\u2019\u00a0Apart from making such not further defined \u2018sentient sun\u2019, Musk is obviously up to something else<\/u><\/a>: \u2018space-based data centers\u2019 as well as \u2018self-growing bases on the Moon\u2019 seem to have caught his attention.<\/p>\n

This transgression of known \u2018planetary boundaries\u2019 humanity is meant to live in is already raising many legal questions: about the general (technical and legal) possibilities and limits of commercial use of outer space, about the compatibility of Musk\u2019s concrete plans with applicable space law \u2013 not least the Moon Treaty \u2013, and questions about the effective protection of the moon from pollution, exploitation of existing resources or even human colonization.<\/p>\n

Whereas in the past, only objective<\/em> law was used to protect nature and the environment \u2013 whether on, above, below the earth, or beyond \u2013, for about a decade now there has been discussion as to whether granting subjective<\/em> rights would better serve the purpose of protection.\u00a0On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the \u2018Declaration of the Rights of the Moon\u2019 on 11 February 2026, this article asks whether the \u2018Rights of Nature\u2019 (RoN) concept could be an effective shield for protecting outer space and celestial bodies from the increasing economic exploitation of space and whether existing law regulating the regimes for areas beyond national jurisdiction, especially outer space, could provide a suitable framework for incorporating the idea of a \u2018subjectivised\u2019 nature.<\/p>\n

\u2018Rights of Nature\u2019 \u2013 <\/strong>F<\/strong>or <\/strong>the Moon<\/strong><\/p>\n

The number of worldwide practical examples of national recognition of \u2018nature\u2019 as a legal entity and the establishment of original RoN thus continues to grow: Starting with Ecuador<\/u><\/a> in 2008, where RoN\u00a0were granted as part of a constitutional amendment, there are now cases of legislative or judicial recognition in several states, such as Bangladesh<\/u><\/a>, Bolivia<\/u><\/a>, Columbia<\/u><\/a>, New Zealand<\/u><\/a> or even Spain<\/u><\/a>, especially with a focus on the recognition of legal personality and\/or specific rights for rivers. Furthermore, a growing number of civil society initiatives\u00a0(see, e.g., here<\/u><\/a>,\u00a0here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>) aiming to initiate such changes,\u00a0accompanied by a lively academic discourse (see, e.g., here<\/u><\/a>, here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>), can also be observed.<\/p>\n

Five years ago, the idea arose to no longer limit the dissemination of the concept of a \u2018subjectivised\u2019 nature to the space within the much-cited planetary boundaries. Based on the somewhat esoteric observation<\/u><\/a> that the \u2018Moon has a hypnotic hold on humanity, pulling our oceans, illuminating our travel, heralding the time of feasts, and helping to shape cultures and even mystical beliefs\u2019, an Australian initiative, spearheaded by landscape architect Thomas Gooch, founder of the \u2018Office of Other Spaces\u2019, as part of his work with the Moon Village Association, an international NGO based in Vienna, initiated public forums about the relationship of humanity with the moon. In August 2020, the question<\/u><\/a> of whether \u2018the Moon could be granted legal personality as a way to acknowledge that the Moon had an existence of its own separate from human perceptions\u2019 was brought up. The ensuing discussion between Michelle Maloney (Co-Founder Australian Earth Law Alliance), Ceridwen Dovey (writer), Alice Gorman (space archaeologist), Mari Margil (Executive Director Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights) and Thomas Gooch gave birth to the idea to create a \u2018Declaration of the Rights of the Moon\u2019 (hereinafter: \u2018the Declaration\u2019). The final version<\/u><\/a>\u00a0of the (non-binding) Declaration was published on 11 February 2021.<\/p>\n

The Declaration is based on the RoN approach, its preamble drawing attention to \u2018humanity\u2019s impact on the Earth \u2013 causing ecosystem collapse, a new era of mass species extinction and global climate change \u2013 and seeking to avoid destruction and change to the natural systems and ecosystems of the Moon\u2019. The creators, speaking on behalf of \u2018We the people of Earth\u2019, declare the moon \u2018a sovereign natural entity in its own right\u2019, of which, \u2018in accordance with established international space law, no nation, entity, or individual of Earth may assert ownership or territorial sovereignty\u2019. The following \u2018fundamental rights\u2019 shall be granted to the celestial body thus \u2018subjectivised\u2019:<\/p>\n

\u2018(a) the right to exist, persist and continue its vital cycles unaltered, unharmed and unpolluted by human beings;<\/p>\n

(b) the right to maintain ecological integrity;<\/p>\n

(c) the right to be defined as a self-sustaining, intelligent, cohesive, intact lunar ecosystem, beyond current human comprehension;<\/p>\n

(d) the right to independently maintain its own life-sustaining relationship with the Earth\u2019s environments and living creatures; and<\/p>\n

(e) the right to remain a forever peaceful celestial entity, unmarred by human conflict or warfare.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018Rights of Nature\u2019 <\/strong>\u2013 F<\/strong>or<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>A<\/strong>reas <\/strong>B<\/strong>eyond <\/strong>N<\/strong>ational <\/strong>J<\/strong>urisdiction<\/strong>?<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the creators of the Declaration of the Rights of the Moon, which is solely the result of a civil society initiative and therefore, of course, not legally binding on anyone, it was primarily<\/u><\/a> \u2018a way to start the discussion at a global level\u2019.\u00a0Despite this\u00a0intention, however, there has been no comprehensive discussion about the \u2018subjectivisation\u2019 and granting of subjective rights to celestial bodies\u00a0in the five years since the Declaration came into existence, as far as is known (see here<\/u><\/a> for one exception, which does not mention the Declaration).\u00a0The following section aims to provide some food for thought for a potential discussion in this regard.<\/p>\n

Any discussion of the possibilities and limitations of implementing subjective rights for nature into the existing regulatory regime for outer space would have to take into account the specific principles that form the basis of this regime. Outer space, like the High Seas, Antarctica, as well as the seabed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, known as the \u2018Area\u2019, is a so-called \u2019area beyond national jurisdiction\u2019. One of the cornerstones of the associated regulatory regime is the principle of the \u2018common heritage of (hu)mankind\u2019 (CHM), originally developed within the framework of the rules of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for the Area (Art. 136 UNCLOS) and extended to outer space in Art. 1 of the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (\u2018Declaration of Principles\u2019). The principle was later integrated into the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (\u2018Outer Space Treaty\u2019) (Art. 1) and can also be found in the Moon Treaty (Art. 4 para. 1; Art. 5; Art. 11 para. 1). It describes, in simplified terms, that certain defined territories are held exclusively \u2018for the benefit of all mankind\u2019.<\/p>\n

This raises the question of whether a regime governed by this already highly collaborative principle could be considered particularly open to the integration of RoN. A debate on this issue has already taken place in connection with the extent to which the idea of separate nature rights could inspire novel solutions of and promote (more) effective environmental protection with regard to marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, not least in the context of the negotiations for the \u2018Agreement<\/u><\/a> under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction\u2019 of 2023 (see, e.g., here<\/u><\/a> and here<\/u><\/a>). It is argued that\u00a0the earth should be fully incorporated as a protected entity into the CHM concept, thereby taking into account the mutual connection between humans and nature. Against this background and by recognising ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction and their components as rights bearers with their own subjective rights, a paradigm shift from anthropocentric fixation on the protection of humans to \u2018where ecological integrity stands at the core of international decision-making\u2019 could be made possible (see here<\/u><\/a>).\u00a0In this way, the obligations under the CHM principle could be interpreted in a manner that would enable a (more robust) stewardship of nature approach (see here<\/u><\/a>).<\/p>\n

Regardless of whether a complete paradigm shift is necessary to enable the possible integration of\u00a0RoN (see, e.g., here<\/u><\/a>), this proposed combination of the CHM principle and the RoN concept for effective protection not only of the marine but also of the space environment seems conceivable at first glance. This is primarily because protection of the existing balance of the environment of outer space is already established in Art. 7 Moon Treaty, for example, which could be reinforced by a subjective RoN perspective. Apart from Art. 157 para. 1 UNCLOS, which establishes the International Seabed Authority through which States Parties organize and control deep seabed activities and thus are meant to act as a trustee on behalf of mankind as a whole, no other international agreement applying the CHM principle provides for this (see here<\/u><\/a>). Cognisant of the connectivity of outer space and between humans and nature, the RoN concept could thus\u00a0further a stewardship approach also with regard to celestial bodies. Further, relying on a subjective rights approach for celestial bodies could allow to shift the focus of governance toward responsibility and respecting ecological limits (similar for marine environment here<\/u><\/a>), equalise the balance between non-appropriation (Art. 11 para. 3 Moon Treaty), rights to use within certain limits (Art. 4 para. 1 Moon Treaty) and responsibilities to preserve, and require some mechanisms for representation of the moon \u2013 or at least strengthen the aspect of cooperation between the respective State Parties.<\/p>\n

However, it must be borne in mind that the CHM principle is still essentially anthropocentric \u2013 and not just in name. So, if a paradigm shift towards a more ecocentric approach to protecting outer space as an area beyond national jurisdiction is being sought, it is unclear why and how a principle that is so entrenched in the opposite should provide the starting point for this. Furthermore, even though states have already agreed to conservation and sustainable use of areas beyond state jurisdiction for the common good, this only proves their basic willingness to cooperate in this regard, but does not necessarily imply agreement with a comprehensive protection stewardship approach \u2013 especially against the backdrop of an emerging economic race for space. This is particularly true given that the outer space regime has not been brought into line with the legal framework for the Area in this respect (see above). Thus, the suitability of the respective international regimes for areas beyond national jurisdiction as a gateway for the manifestation of RoN in positive international law is questionable; the RoN concept can probably rather \u2018provide a framework<\/u><\/a> for creative interpretation\u2019 of the already existing provisions.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong>: Nothing New on the Moon\u2026 Yet<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to Altabef<\/em><\/u><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>(p. 512), \u2018outer space presents a carte blanche to explore a new way of considering humanity\u2019s relationship with nature. [\u2026] embracing environmental personhood offers humanity an opportunity to test the legal concept as a way to preserve the environment and imagine a new way of coexisting with nature, rather than destroying it\u2019. The resurgence of the space industry, with possibilities unexpectedly enhanced by AI, raises doubts as to whether this opportunity will or still can be seized. In this respect, it remains to be seen which aspects humanity will be prepared (and willing) to consider in view of dwindling terrestrial resources when it comes to the possible expansion of its sphere of activity beyond earth. In any case, actual subjective rights of celestial bodies in the sense\u00a0outlined by the 2021 \u2018Declaration of the Rights of the Moon\u2019\u00a0will most certainly not be part of these considerations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On 2 February 2026, Elon Musk confirmed that SpaceX has acquired the billionaire\u2019s artificial intelligence (AI) start-up xAI with the aim to \u2018form an \u201cinnovation engine\u201d putting AI, rockets, space-based internet, and media under one roof\u2019.\u00a0Musk is quoted as saying: \u2018This marks not just the next chapter, but the next book in SpaceX and xAI’s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[5794,7714,5068],"authors":[7554],"article-categories":[6000],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-28588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-global-commons","tag-rights-of-nature","tag-space-law","authors-camilla-s-haake","article-categories-article"],"acf":{"subline":"\u2018Rights of Nature\u2019 for Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction Reflections on the Occasion of the Fifth Anniversary of the \u2018Declaration of the Rights of the Moon\u2019\r\n"},"meta_box":{"doi":"10.17176\/20260507-172932-0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28588","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28588"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28588\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28591,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28588\/revisions\/28591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28588"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=28588"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=28588"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=28588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}