All activities on the Moon, including its exploration and use, are conducted in accordance with international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations, and in light of the Declaration on the Principles of International Law governing friendly relations and cooperation between States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970. , in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and mutual understanding, and taking due account of the corresponding interests of all other States Parties. 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. This indicates that commercial activities could be carried out under the supervision of the Member States. The current inaccuracy of the agreement has given rise to various interpretations[20] [22] and is cited as the main reason why it has not been ratified by most parties. [22] [23] The agreement was ratified by a small number of countries, which was described as a failure [19] and without success. [6] Only one country (India) with independent space capabilities has signed (but has not ratified) the treaty. An expert in space and economics believes that the treaty should provide appropriate provisions against any company that acquires a monopoly position in the global mineral market, while avoiding the «socialization of the Moon». [24] Another expert praised the treaty as a sprouting legal framework for the development of necessary laws and not as a set of detailed laws. [25] This can be interpreted to mean that if you are a signatory to the agreement, you will share the fruits of your efforts on the Moon with all, whereas if you are not a signatory, you do not have to. The decision also states that «the question of whether the 1979 agreement on state activity on the Moon and other celestial bodies (the «lunar agreement») creates the legal framework for the restoration and use of space resources has reinforced this uncertainty. After ten years of further negotiations, the Lunar Treaty was established in 1979 as a framework for legislation for the development of a system of detailed procedures and, as such, remained unclear: Article 11.5 stipulates that the use of natural is subject to an international regime that defines the appropriate procedures.

To define this regime or these laws, a number of UN-sponsored conferences have been held, but they have not been agreed upon. Persistent differences are mainly based on the importance of the «common heritage of humanity» and on the rights of each country to the natural resources of the Moon. [6] Years of negotiations resulted in an almost comical Rube Goldberg system, in which the least competent states would govern.