Okay, under the Outer Space Treaty - which just about every nation state has signed, then nobody can claim land on the Moon or anywhere else in the solar system.
The Outer Space Treaty, is signed by all the space faring nations and almost all aspiring space faring nations as well as most other countries in the world
There countries that have signed and ratified are shown in green. The ones in yellow have signed only.
Here the relevant article is
Article VIII
This could be a basis for laws of functional ownership within the context of the Outer Space Treaty. See the article at Space Future by Wayne White: Real property rights in outer space.
It is a matter of a fair bit of discussion but it does seem at least possible that one could develop reasonable laws of ownership within the context of the Outer Space Treaty.
So, you wouldn't own any part of the Moon. But it's not much use as it is anyway you can't live anywhere without building a habitat.
If you build a habitat, then you have somewhere you can live, and also you own that habitat.
If you start a mine similarly you'd have ownership rights for that.
Though - probably there would also need to be laws preserving parts of the Moon as lunar parks - for scientific study - so that you can enjoy parts of the Moon in its untouched state - and to preserve historical spacecraft and landing sites.
That's a matter of a fair bit of discussion - but nothing settled yet. It's really hard to pass new space law and get enough countries to support it to make it workable. That's why the best solution seems to be to work within the OST.
For instance the Moon Treaty ran into a lot of problems with hardly any signatories, just a few countries such as the Netherlands, none of the big players in space.
The OST remains the only treaty governing space that's got any real bite, signed by nearly all countries world wide.
I got this from my own article - mainly to do with Mars, here "Ten Reasons Not To Live On Mars, Great Place To Explore" - On The Space Show
The Outer Space Treaty, is signed by all the space faring nations and almost all aspiring space faring nations as well as most other countries in the world
Here the relevant article is
Article VIII
"... Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth..." . (Outer Space Treaty)
This has been interpreted as meaning that if you construct a habitat on the Moon or use materials from an asteroid to construct a habitat in space, that you own the habitat though not the Moon or asteroid.
This could be a basis for laws of functional ownership within the context of the Outer Space Treaty. See the article at Space Future by Wayne White: Real property rights in outer space.
It is a matter of a fair bit of discussion but it does seem at least possible that one could develop reasonable laws of ownership within the context of the Outer Space Treaty.
So, you wouldn't own any part of the Moon. But it's not much use as it is anyway you can't live anywhere without building a habitat.
If you build a habitat, then you have somewhere you can live, and also you own that habitat.
If you start a mine similarly you'd have ownership rights for that.
Though - probably there would also need to be laws preserving parts of the Moon as lunar parks - for scientific study - so that you can enjoy parts of the Moon in its untouched state - and to preserve historical spacecraft and landing sites.
That's a matter of a fair bit of discussion - but nothing settled yet. It's really hard to pass new space law and get enough countries to support it to make it workable. That's why the best solution seems to be to work within the OST.
For instance the Moon Treaty ran into a lot of problems with hardly any signatories, just a few countries such as the Netherlands, none of the big players in space.
The OST remains the only treaty governing space that's got any real bite, signed by nearly all countries world wide.
I got this from my own article - mainly to do with Mars, here "Ten Reasons Not To Live On Mars, Great Place To Explore" - On The Space Show
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0