The fundamental problem with Article 11(3) is the prohibition of property rights and inclusion of 'natural persons' within that.
You say that property rights are possible under this clause for extracted resources.
But let's talk about the property rights that ARE forbidden by the clause that LITERALLY prohibits property rights!
Is it in situ rights? Doesn't matter. The point is that some form of property rights are prohibited, and that is not OK.

Just like in UNCLOS Article 137, 'natural persons' are included only to deny them the exercise of rights.
Us 'natural/juridical persons' are getting the shaft in Common Heritage Treaties for territory beyond national borders, I tell ya what.

Yes, agreed, they hit reset but still slipped in some of the core CHM crap with UNCLOS
I'm saying hit reset with the Moon Treaty and take out all the stuff everyone hates

I hope I didn't come of as Mr. Moon Treaty supporter
I am actually attempting to convince proponents to remove
the clause prohibiting natural persons property, just because
I don't want ANY treaty out there even attempting that.

How in the CORNBREAD HELL is a United Nations Treaty that was roundly rejected during negotiations claiming universal jurisdiction? What WOULD the justification of application to all nations be? Nobody has yet to answer that. Please, indulge me, now that we have a dialogue.

Speaking of surreptitious supranational shenanigans, something about the way the Agreement was adopted without a vote, 'unanimously' in the General Assembly just doesn't 'taste right'.
Did 5 people high five and grant themselves universal jurisdiction over all nations, natural persons and the solar system? I could do with an explanation on what I'm missing there,.

Swindling, slipping through the back door, Claiming universal jurisdiction, mental gymnastics to prove UDHR compliance – nobody likes you. If this was a treaty people LIKED.

And it can be! I see an overwhelmingly positive stance towards property rights on this forum, and sensible approaches towards implementation of the Article 11 (5) regime.
But on behalf of mankind, cannot wait for a regime. I insist on removal of 'natural persons',

I suggest moving forward with this Agreement on Implementation, retaining the current a stance on property rights, and consulting with potential States-Parties about alteration of aspects of the agreement which may compel accession.

Proposal for Agreement on Implementation: 1979 Moon Agreement
As suggested to the Hague Resources Working Group:

A precedent for alteration of a United Nations Treaty governing territory situated beyond national borders can be referenced with the 1994 Agreement on Implementation of Part XI of the Thlrd U N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

It essentially allows a reset' button for the treaty. As you may be aware, UNCLOS wasn't doing so hot in the 80's, considerably short of the number of States-Parties necessary for 'entry into force'. The 1994 Agreement on Implementation essentially provided a 'reset button', for the Law of the Sea;
Elimination of legislation which was causing hesitation for ratification
by the majority of nations.
Doing the same thing with the Moon Agreement is not only precedented by tho undertakings of UNCLOS, but with Russia's planned proposal for an Agreement on Implementation for the Outer Space Treaty at the upcoming COPUOS Legal Subcommittee, this would be both timely and logical.

An agreement on implementation of the Moon Treaty, in and of itself, just that, could very well compel more By undertaking efforts to modify Article XI, Paragraph 3 of the Moon Agreement such that the prohibition of property rights and inclusion of Natural Persons are not included, would bring the treaty in line with the emerginc the private space sector,
and provide an opportunity to optimize other aspects of the Moon Treaty as a whole to fit the needs of potential States-Parties.

This being the 70th year of the UDHR, what if I attend Human Rights Day with certified copies of the MA and UDHR, with Art 11(3) and Art 17 highlighted see if anyone can spot the conflict?
It would be disadvantageous for the Moon Agreement either way, increasing awareness of Article 11(3)

I'm glad both India and Australia were mentioned in this article. These are two countries that were swindled into signatory status (and did not ratify) I have confirmed with US officials that Australian delegation was upset with the US for not warning them about the Moon Agreement they were signing. They did not ratify. I have heard first-hand from a representative from Belgium that they were under the impression that they were acceding to an updated Outer Space Treaty. Back to India: India signed the Agreement, on the day they ratified the Outer Space Treaty, thinking it was part of the requisite ratification. Then upon realization of what it was, refused to ratify. You don't have to take my word for it: https://swarajyamag.com/books/the-urgency-for-an-...

Now you have two nuclear, spacefaring countries, India and Pakistan, on opposite sides of what is supposed to be a disarmament treaty. Nice disarmament. And proponents want to add China to the mix, when tensions are high in the South China Sea already, placing two nuclear spacefaring countries on opposite sides of property rights? This is the worst disarmament treaty ever. It could actually escalate nuclear tensions.
The article quotes Mr. Listner: “non-parties could find themselves overshadowed by the penumbra of the Moon Treaty, especially if those non-parties take no action to refute its legitimacy… “
Guess what? I've had to do exactly that. I was actually in a situation where I had to get confirmation that my home nation, a non-party (aggessively) to the Moon Agreement was not bound directly or indirectly by the Agreement on Activities of States on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

Guess why? Because Judge Helmut Tuerk, co-author of the Moon Agreement and former VP of ITLOS circulated a paper during the COPUOS LSC 2009 proceedings indicating the Moon Agreement applied to ALL nations, regardless of signature/accession/ratification. www.unoosa.org/pdf/pres/lsc2009/symp00.pdf (p.. 8-10)

I'm afraid I must insist on removal of provisions for 'natural persons' from the Moon Agreement.

The Article says: “With all due respect for those arguing against the Treaty and its protection of the common heritage of mankind, it does not destroy private economic rights. Rather, it calls for the creation of an international regime of laws that protects those rights”
And we'll all celebrate when that day comes.

For now the rights of natural persons like myself are being held hostage under Art 11(3).
I must insist on removal of provisions for 'natural persons' from the Moon Agreement.
I offer a way forward via an Agreement on Implementation proposed to the Hague Resource Governance Working Group, found in a subsequent post, I commend those on this forum expressing a sensible implementation of the regime Moon Agreement's Art 11 (5) FAVORABLE to property rights.

There are a few things that need to be said.

“Humanity would cede control of its own destiny to the unseen hand of economic forces and political power. This would be a far greater “loss of sovereignty” than any loss feared by individual nations. “
Well, sir, that already happened, in 1984, the minute Austria ratified the Moon Agreement,
and entered into force legislation denying property rights to natural persons, without consent.
In territory extending throughout the solar system.

Let's first discuss the inclusion of 'natural persons' to begin with. Not 'nationals', non-governmental entities, or citizens. Specifically 渡atural persons� This means not only the billion humans currently residing on Earth, but our descendants, on or off-planet..in perpetuity...ever. What in TARNATION is the justification for imposing direct legislation by a UN Treaty Legislation affecting the set of all human?.

In all seriousness, when was the decision made to include “natural persons”, where can I find the first documented instance, who granted the authority? If it was copy+pasted from UNCLOS, maybe call Hamburg and ask what in tarnation gave THEM direct jurisdiction over natural persons”?
So with the authority to include 'natural persons', behalf of humankind, this treaty prohibits property rights. I don't think there's any ambiguity in Article 11(3) being in diametric opposition of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to try and prove otherwise.

Except, of course, for "natural persons" under Art 11(3).

I would like to put a spotlight on the two other “common links” between the two “common heritage” treaties:
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1979 Moon Agreement:

-Delimitation of of physical territory, beyond national borders, to which the CHM principle applies:
UNCLOS – Deep SeaBed (Preamble, Section 6)
MOON -- (Celestial bodies in Solar System outside of Earth – Art. 1)

-Inclusion of 'natural persons' and simultaneous EXCLUSION of their rights to property surface/subsurface minerals

UNCLOS – forbids natural/juridical persons from appropriation, claims or exercise of rights to minerals, or surface appropriation (Art. 137, paragraphs 1, 2)
MOON AGREEMENT Direct prohibition of 'property' for various entities, including, you guessed it,
natural persons (Art. 11, para. 3)

"The Moon Agreement does not exclude exploitation by public/private entities, as long as they are compatible with “common heritage of mankind” requirements. But an international regime and procedure have to be set up as exploitation is about to become feasible."
I would like to put a spotlight on the two other “common links” between the two “common heritage” treaties:
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1979 Moon Agreement:

-Delimitation of of physical territory, beyond national borders, to which the CHM principle applies:
UNCLOS – Deep SeaBed (Preamble, Section 6)
MOON -- (Celestial bodies in Solar System outside of Earth – Art. 1)

-Inclusion of 'natural persons' and simultaneous EXCLUSION of their rights to property surface/subsurface minerals

UNCLOS – forbids natural/juridical persons from appropriation, claims or exercise of rights to minerals, or surface appropriation (Art. 137, paragraphs 1, 2)
MOON AGREEMENT Direct prohibition of 'property' for various entities, including, you guessed it,
natural persons (Art. 11, para. 3)

Thomas, two things for you:

It could be said that Moon and Law of the Sea are going to eventually merge physical territorial scope and become one big blob of common heritage from the seafloor to the Oort Cloud. I'm not saying I'm saying that, I'm saying that it could be said.

We're talking about the same treaty where a framer and former VP of ITLOS publicly stated the intent, at the COPUOS LSC proceedings, for the Moon Agreement to bind all nations regardless of signature.

Secondly, and more objectively - If the following isn't the establishment, on paper, within official proceedings, of a link between the Moon Agreement and the Law of the Sea, then please tell me what it is:

Copuos LSC 2016
[Ref: A/AC.105/1090]
From Paragraph 67 - ”The view was expressed that the Legal Subcommittee should examine the work of the International Seabed Authority related to a draft framework for the regulation of exploitation activities in the international deep seabed area and on the development of financial terms for such exploitation in order to examine possible linkages between the commercial regime for the deep seabed and the questions arising from article XI of the Moon Agreement.“