Artemis Accords

Artemis Accords, set of principles and nonbinding agreements to guide international cooperation in space exploration. The Artemis Accords were first signed on October 13, 2020, and the initial signatories were the government-run space agencies of Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The list of signatories has increased gradually since publication, and 61 countries had joined the accords by January 2026.

The accords were prepared by the U.S. Department of State and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The title of the accords reflects their connection to the Artemis program, which aims to return astronauts to the Moon in the 2020s and eventually establish long-term exploration missions on the lunar surface. NASA anticipates international cooperation for future phases of the program, and for space exploration in general, and sought to prepare for it by establishing broad principles for the peaceful use of space through the accords.

Stated objectives

Although much of the text of the accords broadly states that its principles apply to outer space, Section 1 specifies the effective zone of application as the surfaces and subsurfaces of the Moon, Mars, comets, and asteroids, as well as the space within the Moon’s and Mars’s orbits, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and any point in transit between these locations. The accords apply to the civil space agencies of signatory countries, as well as private entities working for those agencies, and may be reaffirmed in cooperative projects between signatory countries through memorandums of understanding or other such instruments.

Discover how ordinary objects work, and expand your understanding of the familiar.

SIGN UP

" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">

Thank you for signing up!"

Back to homepage

By clicking "Sign Up", you consent to the Britannica Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The accords state that cooperative space exploration activities should be peaceful, consistent with international law, and transparent. To this end, the accords reassert some provisions of older space agreements. For instance, consistent with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the accords encourage sharing data from outer space missions with the broad scientific community, as well as informing the secretary-general of the United Nations of planned space missions. Signatories to the accords are also expected to offer assistance to personnel of other countries when they encounter emergencies in space, which is consistent with the Rescue and Return Agreement of 1967. The accords also clarify how to follow the 1974 Registration Convention, which requires artificial objects launched into outer space to be registered with the United Nations. In joint missions participating states may decide which partner will handle registration and may consult nonsignatories to ensure that any objects they launch are registered.

Other provisions of the accords are aimed at observing “due regard” for and avoiding “harmful interference” with other countries’ operations. The accords emphasize interoperability between participating countries, stating that signatories should follow common standards in fuel storage and delivery, landing, communications, and power so that cooperation becomes more practical and convenient. Cooperative considerations are also extended through the concept of “safety zones,” which designate areas of activity where a signatory should be assured of independent operation without harmful interference. A commitment to limiting space debris rounds off the provisions of the accords that concern cooperative deference.

Another key provision of the accords is to preserve “space heritage”—a commitment to preserving objects and sites in space that commemorate key events in human space engagement, such as the Apollo 11 landing site on the Moon.

Ambiguities and omissions

The provisions and the nature of the Artemis Accords have also raised questions regarding the future of space exploration. Some experts have suggested that gaps in the language of the accords could leave room for interpretation and challenge implementation. For example, commercial exploitation is not covered by the accords—private companies acting on behalf of governments are to follow the accords, but private companies acting on their own are not covered by these provisions.

Explore Britannica Premium!

The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.

SUBSCRIBE

Even when space resources are used by civil agencies, some experts argue that the accords introduce legal ambiguity. The accords state that extracting space resources does not amount to national appropriation, a position that reflects the United States’ interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty, an article of which allows the use of space resources without claims of sovereignty. However, it is unclear how countries’ various safety zones can operate without amounting to de facto territorial claims. The accords also provide little guidance on how disputes arising from these claims would be managed. Some experts further argue that provisions on protecting space heritage could be leveraged by countries to justify broader extraterrestrial expansion.

As a nonbinding instrument, the Artemis Accords raise questions about compliance and implementation: Section 13 states that the accords do not come under Article 102 of the UN Charter, which allows for recourse to the UN by countries that have signed treaties recognized under the ambit of this article. This means that the Artemis Accords document is not a treaty and represents only a political commitment. As such, the accords do not and cannot establish enforcement, dispute resolution, or liability mechanisms, leaving implementation and conflict resolution to other existing and future agreements between participant countries.

International challenges

The ambiguities in the Artemis Accords, how the accords relate to existing space-exploration treaties, and international relations present challenges to the accords’ effectiveness.

Russia and China, both major spacefaring states, are not parties to the Artemis Accords. Russia criticized the accords as a U.S.-led framework, and China did not participate, partly because U.S. legislation bars NASA from cooperation with China. China and Russia instead pursued a separate initiative, the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) plan, which aims to establish a lunar base in the 2030s.

Some signatories face potential tension between the accords and other international commitments. For example, the United Arab Emirates has significant defense partnerships with Chinese agencies, which could result in friction with the United States, at least as long as the latter continues to bar its agencies from collaborating with China on space exploration. Other countries, such as Thailand and Senegal, signed onto both the accords and the Sino-Russian ILRS plan. It is unclear whether the accords and the ILRS plan can be reconciled.