Abstract

This paper examines how competing lunar governance frameworks construct their authority and claim legitimacy on behalf of humanity. Through a comparative analysis of the Artemis Accords and the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) programme, it investigates the legitimation audiences, translation devices, and authority architectures that underpin each framework.

Both frameworks deploy universalist language — speaking “for humanity,” “for all humankind,” or “for peaceful purposes” — while establishing divergent participation conditions, governance norms, and boundary-making practices. The paper argues that these universalist claims function as legitimation devices that simultaneously include and exclude, and that the construction of legitimate authority in lunar governance is an ongoing, contested process rather than a settled institutional achievement.

Drawing on a 24-document coded corpus and conceptual tools from legitimation theory, the research traces how each framework translates broad principles into specific governance architectures — and how these architectures, in turn, shape the boundaries of permissible action on the Moon.

Methodology

Key Themes

• —How universalist language functions as a legitimation device in competing governance frameworks
• —The role of translation devices in converting broad principles into operational governance norms
• —Authority architecture as a structural feature of lunar governance regimes
• —Participation conditions and their implications for inclusivity, access, and sovereignty
• —Boundary-making practices that define permissible action in the lunar domain