Over the years, various Nations have made agreements and have been putting valiant efforts into governing activities that would influence their levels of interactions. Some guiding rules have been implemented to oversee the maximum use of resources in space, the moon, and some other celestial bodies. Such treaties are the Outer Space Treaties of 1967 and The Moon Treaty of 1979. However, the viability of the two treaties in the modern age is still an open discussion, and if they still have the much effect, they were intended to bring.
The outer space treaty governs the utilization of resources by the countries that might have the power to utilize space or any private individual for commercial purposes. Today, the treaty faces significant ramifications as people posit alternatives by questioning its relevance and use (Stuart, 2017). To erase the uncertainties, the treaty needs to maximize and be strengthened to remit its violation by countries with the power to explore space. Nevertheless, the treaty is still viable as it gives directives on how outer space needs to be used.
On the other hand, The Moon Treaty of 1979 was formed with the motive of strengthening the outer space treaty. The treaty outlines the agreements on activities of different nations on the moon (Notes on the Moon’s Treaty, 2018). The treaty also illustrates how celestial bodies ought to be used, including barring militarization of the moon, and thus, the moon is used for peaceful purposes. In addition, no nation should claim the moon as theirs as the treaty specifies the moon as a resource for everybody. Today, the treaty cannot be considered viable since only a few countries can afford moon exploration.
It has been over twenty years since the last man walked to the moon, and only a handful of countries have enough resources to explore the moon. Therefore, the Moon Treaty is not viable today and may need revisions since only a few nations can access the moon. On the other hand, the outer space treaty is still viable, requiring no revisions.