Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article

Front. Space Technol.

Sec. Space Economy

Volume 6 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/frspt.2025.1664300

This article is part of the Research TopicOuter space - Is it a global commons?View all 6 articles

The Impact of US-China Strategic Competition on the Idea of Space as a "Global Commons"

Provisionally accepted
  • Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

This article examines how US-China's strategic competition is transforming the conceptualization of outer space as a "global commons." While the global commons framework for space governance emerged from Cold War-era agreements emphasizing universal access, freedom of exploration and non-appropriation of outer space, contemporary geopolitical rivalry has fundamentally altered how the world's leading space powers interpret and apply this concept. The analysis traces the historical evolution of space as a global commons from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty through recent policy shifts by Beijing and Washington. The research documents a striking reversal: the United States, once a champion of characterizing space as a global commons, rejected this characterization in 2020. Conversely, China, which once rejected global commons terminology, now uses it to describe outer space. These competing approaches are crystallizing in rival lunar development programs, with the US-led Artemis initiative confronting the China-Russia International Lunar Research Station. The findings demonstrate how great power rivalry has upended the traditional normative frameworks countries have used to determine their policy for space.

Keywords: Global commons, outer space treaty (OST), US-China strategic competition, Artemis Accords, International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), Space governance, Common heritage of humankind, Space resources

Received: 11 Jul 2025; Accepted: 06 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Freeman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Carla Park Freeman, freeman.carla@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.