Licensing Lunar Resource Activities: The Ispace Case

In recent years, the international space community has renewed its attention to the Moon, driven not only by scientific curiosity but also by the growing commercial interest in its natural resources.

This renewed focus is exemplified by the recent licensing of lunar resource activities to the Japan-based company ispace, the first authorizations of this kind ever granted worldwide. They enabled ispace to carry out its M1 and M2 missions, respectively in 2022 and 2024-2025, which aimed to demonstrate landing and transportation technologies, collect lunar sediment from the Moon’s surface, and execute a commercial transaction with a customer.

Matters concerning lunar resources fall within the broader question of the exploration and use of natural space resources. The legal framework governing these activities is shaped by the UN space treaties, together with national legislation adopted to implement them. Because some provisions of these treaties are not self-executing (mainly in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), 1972 Liability Convention (LIAB), and 1975 Registration Convention (REG)), States are required to establish domestic mechanisms to give effect to their international obligations. Inter alia, Article VI of the OST governs the international responsibility of the appropriate State and requires it to authorise and continuously supervise the outer space activities of national private entities.

Over the past decades, several countries have enacted space legislation based on different regulatory models but grounded on common principles. These developments respond not only to international obligations, including the establishment of an authorization regime, but also to the domestic need to regulate private space activities responsibly, while encouraging commercial initiatives and investment in the sector.

Notably, Japan has adopted three national space laws: the 2016 Space Activities Act, the 2016 Remote Sensing Act, and the 2021 Space Resources Act. With the latter, it joined a group of States – the U.S., Luxembourg and the United Arab Emirates – that have adopted legislation expressly regulating the commercial exploration and use of natural space resources.

Japan’s Space Resources Act establishes a special authorisation regime – with specific requirements and procedure – for activities related to the exploration and development of space resources for commercial or economic purposes. This framework is complemented by a second-level regulation (Cabinet Office Order No. 73 of 2021) and the 2016 Space Activities Act, which establishes the general licensing regime for outer space activities that the Japanese Government has to authorize.

ispace’s aforementioned lunar missions fell within the scope of application of the 2021 Space Resources Act. Although neither mission achieved a successful landing, the cases remain significant as the firsts practical tests of Japan’s 2021 Act and important precedents for future commercial operations involving natural space resources.

A specific aspect of ispace’s licensed activities concerns the commercial transaction envisaged under its mission plans. After collecting lunar sediment passively – without employing mining techniques – the company intended to transfer ownership of the retrieved material to its customer, NASA, through a contractual arrangement executed during the mission.

The 2021 Space Resources Act explicitly regulates this possibility in its Article 5, which provides that a person who intends to conduct such activities acquires ownership of natural space resources by possessing them with the intention to own. This formulation, grounded in domestic legal terminology,recallsthe traditional concept of animus possidendi and raises questions about the legitimacy of acquiring rights over natural space resources under international law. For this reason, Article 5 representsthe most critical provision of the legislation and falls within the current debate on the extent to which States may authorise private operators to exercise similar rights.

This issue must be understood within the broader international legal framework governing outer space activities. The UN space treaties do not expressly regulate the rights exercisable over natural space resources, nor was this their original purpose. While the right to explore and use such resources does not appear to conflict with existing international law, this does not imply that all forms of rights are inherently compatible with it. There is no consensus on this matter.

Since 2016, the topic has been formally discussed within various international fora. More recently, COPUOS established a dedicated Working Group on the Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activity to build consensus around a set of principles for the exploration, extraction, and utilisation of natural resources in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies. Even though progress has been made, the international community is still at an early stage in developing a common framework.

Although only a limited number of States have adopted specific frameworks governing the exploration and use of natural space resources so far, these laws may gradually contribute to the emergence of new legal practices in this evolving domain.

This article, authored by Maria Vittoria Prest, examines in depth Japan’s complex legislative framework and the broader international context in which it operates. It reconstructs the legal regime applicable to private operators seeking authorization for natural space resource activities, analyses Japan’s pioneering approach in applying such a law for the first time, and reflects on the potential contribution of national space legislation to the future developments of the international law of outer space activities.

Read the article M.V. Prest, Licensing Lunar Resource Activities: The Case of the Japan-Based Company ispace in La Comunità Internazionale, No. 3 (2025), pp. 525–546.