Personnel, spacecraft, equipment, stations and facilities can move or move freely above or below the surface of the Moon. Successful long-term exploration and scientific discovery of the Moon, Mars and other celestial bodies require a partnership with commercial units to recover and exploit resources, including water and certain minerals, in space. The activities of non-governmental organizations in space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, must be approved and monitored by the relevant State Party. In relation to the Space Treaty, it reiterates most of the provisions and adds two new approaches to tackling the exploitation of natural resources in space: applying the concept of “common heritage of humanity” to space activities and getting participating countries to establish a regime that defines the appropriate procedures for orderly mining.  Several conferences did not reach consensus on these two points. India must formally leave the agreement, says Dr. Chaitanya Giri, Gateway House Fellow of Space and Ocean Studies Programme, who was previously affiliated with the Earth-Life Science Institute of the Tokyo Institute of Technology and the Geophysics Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution for Science. There are fears that China, which is aggressively following the Moon, could cause problems when the treaty was invoked. This is what the US order said: “The Secretary of State opposes any attempt by another state or international organization to treat the lunar agreement as a reflected expression or other expression of international law.” In contrast, the Space Treaty has been ratified by 109 countries, including all major potential players in space. However, the pact mainly covers two issues. First, it is a disarmament agreement that prohibits the sending of nuclear weapons into space and reserves the Moon and other celestial bodies for peaceful purposes.
There would be no military bases, weapons tests or military maneuvers. What about marketing? The agreement gave little direction, but it seemed hostile. It was adopted when the redistributive “new economic order” was promoted by the long-past Group of 77 at the United Nations, which largely represented socialist dictatorships that were trying to accuse the West of transferring huge resources to their coffers. In fact, the lunar treaty embodied many of the same principles that underlie the section of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which governs the exploitation of the seabed. This last point came about when the prospect of billions of dollars of minerals pouring down the seabed diverted large-dending third-world governments. Of course, they asked for “their” share of the action. If the right to economic benefits cannot be guaranteed, there will be little or no private investment.  In search of clearer regulatory conditions and guidelines, U.S. private companies appealed to the U.S. government and legalized space exploration in 2015 with the launch of the U.S.
TradeSpace Competitiveness Act 2015.  Similar national laws on the legalization of the acquisition of extraterrestrial resources are now being emulated by other nations, including Luxembourg, Japan, China, India and Russia.  While the “national” treaty explicitly authorizes commercial mining, other experts argue that these new national laws are incompatible with the lunar treaty and customary international law.     Other experts confirm that the lunar contract authorizes commercial mining after the necessary international regulations have been put in place.  This has led to controversy over claims and mining rights for profit.    This can be interpreted to mean that if you are a signatory to the Agreement, you share the fruits of your efforts on the Moon with all, whereas if you are not a signatory, you do not have to.