A recent article from The Guardian explores the ambitions of the Luxembourg government in developing commercial space activity in the country. This move was partly enfranchised in the law. As the article says:
in July, the parliament passed its law – the first of its kind in Europe, and the most far-reaching in the world – asserting that if a Luxembourgish company launches a spacecraft that obtains water, silver, gold or any other valuable substance on a celestial body, the extracted materials will be considered the company’s legitimate private property by a legitimate sovereign nation.
The underlying assumption by Luxembourg's government seems to be that of "first come first serve", or that the ownership of something without ownership belongs to that one who get it first (in my view, a reminisce of the Scramble for Africa and subsequent European colonialism).
A diametrically opposite view is that of the commons, whereby a resource that belongs to no one belongs to everyone (within a given context, e.g. a park in country X belongs to citizens in country X; the atmosphere on Earth belongs to all of us). Under this narrative, a unilateral declaration of property rights of commons is a clear violation of everyone's interest.
How has philosophy dealt with the issue of ownership of the commons? In particular, I am interested in authors or schools of thought that have a clear position on either side of the debate.
I have read some books about the commons (e.g. Think like a commoner by David Bollier) but these do not provide a philosophical background on the matter. As an economist, I am aware of the Tragedy of the Commons but debates surrounding this have little interest in philosophy -- efficiency is what matters.