Article II of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is unambiguous: "Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." One hundred thirteen nations are parties to this treaty. It is the bedrock of space law. And it was written before anyone seriously contemplated permanent settlement.

The treaty prohibits national appropriation but says nothing about private appropriation. This ambiguity is deliberate or accidental depending on which legal scholar you consult. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 explicitly grants U.S. citizens the right to own resources extracted from celestial bodies. But extracting resources is not the same as claiming territory. You can mine ice but you cannot own the crater it came from. That distinction becomes increasingly fictional as operations scale.

The Artemis Accords, signed by 43 nations as of 2025, attempt to create an operational framework within the treaty. They establish "safety zones" around lunar operations where other parties should coordinate before approaching. But safety zones are not territorial claims, and the Accords have no enforcement mechanism. If China establishes operations within a U.S.-declared safety zone, the Accords provide no remedy beyond diplomatic protest.

The practical legal question for the settlement is jurisdiction. If a crime occurs on a SpaceX-built habitat, crewed by international personnel, on territory that no nation can claim, who prosecutes? The ISS model uses a nationality-based jurisdiction: each partner has jurisdiction over its own nationals and modules. But a lunar settlement with permanent residents eventually needs its own legal system. You cannot run a city under the legal framework of a space station.

Musk has stated that SpaceX's Mars settlement would operate under its own self-governing principles, not subject to Earth government authority. The same logic applies to the Moon, but with a crucial difference: the Moon is close enough that Earth governments can project power and influence. Mars at 6-month transit is practically independent. The Moon at 3-day transit is not. Any lunar settlement must coexist with the legal and political frameworks of its sponsor nations.

The precedent I keep returning to is Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 froze territorial claims, established the continent for peaceful scientific purposes, and created a governance framework that has endured for 65 years. But Antarctica has no permanent residents, no economy, and no children born there. The Moon settlement will have all three within a generation. At some point, the legal framework must evolve from "how do we regulate visitors" to "how do we govern a community." That evolution has no precedent.