Last month's launch has reignited debate.

America is back in the game. On 30 May 2020, astronauts were launched from US soil for the first time for nearly a decade.

NASA's last crewed mission launched from US territory prior to this was its final space shuttle flight in 2011, aboard the Atlantis STS-135. Since then, NASA has had to pay Russia upwards of US$90 million a seat for each of its astronauts to travel to the International Space Station (ISS) on its Soyuz spacecraft. Until last month – when Space X's Crew Dragon, launched on a Falcon 9 rocket from Florida's Kennedy Space Centre, safely delivered its two passengers to the ISS amid jubilant cheers from NASA HQ.

This is just the latest initiative in America's recent spurt of extra-terrestrial activities. Only a couple of weeks prior to the Crew Dragon launch, in mid-May 2020, NASA's Artemis Accords were announced – a set of guiding principles to be incorporated into bilateral agreements between the United States and other space-faring nations, which are intended to govern the exploration of, and activity upon, the Moon, as well as outer-space more generally. Just one month prior to that, on 6 April 2020, Trump issued Executive Order 13914, which claims to recognise the entitlement of US citizens to "engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space".

Who knows what more the US may have in store in the coming months. One thing is for certain: this is just the beginning, and the name lent to the Accords provides a strong clue – NASA's Artemis programme unequivocally seeks to put the first woman on the Moon by 2024.

America is not the only one to have been upping its game with respect to space activities this year. Other, less prominent nations have also been making their debut. A notable example is Rwanda, which has announced that the Rwanda Space Agency will become operational at the beginning of July 2020, just a few months after the country launched its first satellite into space, in partnership with the Japanese Aerospace and Exploration Agency (JAXA). Indeed, the African space sector should not be underestimated – last year's African Space Industry Report estimated its value to be in the region of US$7 billion.

Of course outer-space activity is no longer the exclusive domain of national states – on the contrary, the future of the space industry will undoubtedly depend heavily on the private sector, including billionaire space entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. With commercial companies now putting humans into orbit, transporting crew to and from the ISS, and investing millions into space mining technologies, governments are already depending on them to execute and fulfil their space policies.

Assuming the Crew Dragon makes a successful return to Earth, SpaceX will proceed to undertake six further missions to the ISS for NASA, pursuant to a US$2.6 billion contract. Boeing has a similar deal in place, reportedly worth US$4.2 billion, using its Starliner spacecraft.

The speed at which new advances and achievements are being made in space is giddying, as is the rapid increase of participants in the field. This in itself is to be celebrated. It is exciting, inspiring and motivating. It is also necessary – as the Earth's raw materials decline, it is only logical to explore the possibility of procuring replacement resources from other planets or asteroids.

The momentum of the present space age should not be discouraged – even if it were possible to restrain it. But a very significant problem underlies these developments: the legal rulebook governing such pursuits is woefully and without question outdated. Moreover, attempts to update it, though valiant, have fallen behind the dizzying speed of the other, technological, advances being made.

The current legal framework governing outer-space activities is underpinned by the five United Nations treaties that were promulgated during the Cold War in a very tense political climate (Space Treaties).[1] Of these, the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty), is the legal cornerstone of all extra-terrestrial actions.

It has been ratified by 110 countries (with a further 23 countries having signed but not yet ratified it), including the US, UK, China and Russia, and is designed to maintain peaceful relations between States in outer space. Poignantly, it also confirms that the exploration and use of the Moon (and outer-space more generally) (i) can only be undertaken "for the benefit and in the interest of all countries", (ii) shall be free for exploration and use by all States, including the "free access to all areas" for all, and (iii) is not subject to national appropriation by any means whatsoever – whether by claims of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation and/or otherwise.

This poses a problem (and one which will only get bigger) for modern-day players in outer-space, each of whom are investing millions into their respective ventures. The extraction and testing of space resources is an inevitable desire for many of these actors, and arguably a necessary next step in mankind's understanding of extra-terrestrial realms. The commercial exploitation of space resources is also a likely inevitability at some point in the not-so-distant future. But to legally enable these advances, and to engender confidence among investors to pursue these opportunities, the current legal framework must be updated. Issues related to these endeavours, such as the regulation of space waste, are also going to become crucial.

The fashion in which the legal framework governing activity in outer space is updated is of paramount importance. A unique opportunity currently exists to get this right – but it is quickly disappearing. The correct approach must involve a considered, inclusive negotiation process, in which all nations are invited to participate, equally. The goal: a new international convention to replace the Outer Space Treaty. An incorrect approach would be the unilateral adoption by States of legislation purporting to grant their own nationals property rights in space.

Yet the US, China, Russia, India, Japan and Luxembourg already seem to be following this path. An alternative yet equally incorrect solution would be to enter into bilateral agreements, between selected nations, to the exclusion of others. Yet this is specific intention behind the Artemis Accords.

The trouble with these latter approaches is twofold. First, they have the potential to conflict with and even expressly violate the Outer Space Treaty. Proposals contained within the Artemis Accords, for example, suggest that the extraction and utilization of resources on the Moon, Mars and asteroids may be sanctioned, and that States may be able to designate themselves exclusive " safety zones" on celestial bodies that other nations must purportedly respect.

Second, in an age where the importance of international cooperation is paramount, such courses of action would likely only sow division and pave the way for conflict between nations as they each grapple to stake their claim to these realms like some kind of extra-terrestrial pirates, with chaos ensuing. Such lack of overarching regulation would also likely contribute further to the decline of the extra-terrestrial natural environment, which is already suffering the effects of ever-increasing human activity.

It is true that the negotiation and adoption of such an important and sensitive instrument will take time. It is not something that can be fashioned overnight. The UN's Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS) and the Hague International Space Resources Working Group, through its Building Blocks initiative, have both valiantly and diligently been working towards this end for a significant time. It is understandably frustrating that to wait for such a treaty will likely slow the advances that could otherwise be made, and may well hamper NASA's ambitions in the short term. But it is necessary.

This has to be a team effort. If countries become impatient and start writing their own rules it will only result in a situation which, ultimately, poses a risk for all sides involved. If a fraction of the resources currently channelled towards the next extra-terrestrial technological breakthrough were redirected towards securing an updated, truly international, lasting legal framework to govern activity in outer-space, it is difficult to imagine any party that would not benefit from such an investment in the long term.

This is an opportunity that should not be missed. The game is only just beginning but, at the moment, no-one is sure of the rules.

Rachael O'Grady is a senior associate at Mayer Brown