This suggests that establishing a clear and universal set of space-faring principles will be difficult at best and impossible at worst, as the international community seeks to reconcile multiple competing interests. Even countries that typically are aligned with the United States on multistakeholder, rules-based matters, such as India, France, and Germany, have also not signed the Accords. What is more interesting, though, is which countries have not signed it and why, as well as what this means for the future of the international community.Ĭritics view the Accords’ requirement for signatories to first sign a bilateral agreement with the United States as an attempt for it to dictate the rules of international space behaviour and regulations for future space projects such as commercialisation and resource mining according to its national interests therefore, giving the United States immense bargaining power and leverage.Ĭritics view the Accords’ requirement for signatories to first sign a bilateral agreement with the United States as an attempt for it to dictate the rules of international space behaviour and regulations for future space projects such as commercialisation and resource mining according to its national interests.Ĭonsidering the Accords to be too US-Centric, China and Russia did not sign the Accords, and instead opted to develop their own lunar missions.

Thirteen countries have signed the Accords, with Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada being among the first.

The Accords are a set of statutory principles that attempt to guide countries through the murky unregulated policy territory of space collaboration. The Artemis Accords (the Accords) represents the next grand leap in NASA’s space-faring agenda – a mission to return humans to the Moon by 2024 through an international collaborative effort.

Space warfare american