Star Wars: Why the Left Should Protect Space as a Human Commons

Key Chapter Title List

1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. How International Law Stipulates
4. Ideological Attacks on the Commons
5. Institutional Attacks on the Commons
6. Conclusion: Why Should We Protect Space as One of the Last Commons?

Document Introduction

This report, published by the Commonwealth think tank "Common Wealth" in April 2025, aims to systematically analyze the fundamental challenges currently facing the international space governance system. The report focuses on the principle of "the common heritage of mankind" established by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the 1979 Moon Agreement. It points out that this legal framework, which regards space and its resources as a human commons, is being synergistically eroded by "New Space" industry capital, neoliberal think tank networks, and some national governments. The report's core argument is: as one of humanity's few remaining global commons, the legal status of space is at a critical crossroads of privatization and commodification. This not only concerns the future model of space development but will also profoundly affect resource distribution and inequality patterns on Earth.

The report first outlines the five core treaties of the current international space legal system, particularly the key provision in the Outer Space Treaty that "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means," and the more progressive principle of "the common heritage of mankind" in the Moon Agreement. However, the Moon Agreement, because it includes mechanisms for international management of resources and redistribution of benefits, has faced fierce opposition from space commercial interest groups represented by the American L5 Society since its inception. To date, it has only been ratified by 17 countries, rendering it virtually ineffective. This has left a legal ambiguity that allows for the reinterpretation or even hollowing out of the "non-appropriation" principle.

The core section of the report provides a detailed analysis of the dual attacks launched by the "New Space" lobbying groups and their neoliberal ideological allies. At the ideological level, neoliberal think tank networks represented by the American Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, and the UK's Adam Smith Institute, Policy Exchange, among others, have long published articles criticizing the concept of the "commons," citing the "tragedy of the commons" theory, and arguing that only clear private property rights can incentivize the efficient development and long-term management of space resources. They actively provide legal defense for private companies like SpaceX and lobby governments to enact domestic laws favorable to private enterprises acquiring rights to space resources.

At the institutional level, the report tracks how private capital has deeply embedded itself in the international rule-making process. For example, The Hague Space Resources Governance Working Group, which brought together industry leaders, scientists, and diplomats, essentially provided a blueprint for resource privatization with its 20 recommendations proposed in 2019. The U.S. 2015 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, the 2020 Trump Executive Order explicitly denying space as a "global commons," and the subsequent U.S.-led Artemis Accords, signed by 43 countries, all systematically interpret the Outer Space Treaty as only prohibiting national appropriation while allowing private entities to appropriate and utilize resources. The "safety zones" concept created by the Accords further establishes de facto rights of exclusive use in practice.

The report also compares the positions of different countries. The United States, Luxembourg, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and others are pioneers in promoting space commercialization. Russia and China, in relevant discussions at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), have explicitly defended the principles of the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement, opposing any form of resource privatization and emphasizing the fair sharing of benefits. The United Kingdom, as a founding member of the Artemis Accords, has an ambiguous stance: its official documents are cautious in wording regarding property rights for the commercial use of space resources, tending to prioritize the development of launch capabilities, in-orbit manufacturing, and space sustainability technologies, while temporarily shelving the legal framework for resource extraction. This shows a vacillation between industry pressure and international law principles.

The conclusion of the report issues a warning: if the current "space enclosure movement" succeeds, it will follow a "first-come, first-served" logic, further concentrating space resources and wealth in the hands of wealthy nations and super-rich individuals who already possess technological advantages, exacerbating global inequality. The report calls for left-wing forces to actively intervene and resist the simple transplantation of Earth's private property logic into space. Protecting space's status as a human commons is not only about defending an existing legal principle but also about exploring a new institutional model based on common ownership and democratic management. This exploration is crucial for building a post-carbon future that moves beyond a carbon-based economy, re-embeds the economy within nature, and ensures intergenerational equity and shared prosperity. Based on an in-depth analysis of UN documents, national legislation, think tank publications, and industry lobbying activities, this report provides a crucial scenario setting and analytical framework for understanding space geopolitics, the evolution of international law, and the frontiers of capitalist expansion.