There’s a piece on space law up at the Denver Law Review on the need to help the developing world participate in space. I think it has some flawed assumptions embedded in it:
Developing states were largely left out of the creation of space law.[14] As a result, there are few accommodations in space law documents providing meaningful guarantees of inclusion.[15] Although ideas of international cooperation are in all space treaties and principles, this has little practical effect.[16] In 1996, the General Assembly directly addressed this concern by adopting the Declaration on International Cooperation for space activities.[17] This declaration reiterated ideals of international cooperation for the benefit of mankind while emphasizing “[p]articular account should be taken of the needs of developing counties”[18] and that space activities should “consider the appropriate use of space applications and the potential of international cooperation for reaching [developing states’] development goals.”[19]
Space technologies must be a part of developing states’ economic development schemes. Coupled with traditional economic development programs, space technology can bolster development goals with advances, for example, in pharmaceuticals, building materials, and food management.[20] However, despite the recommitment to developing states’ needs and interests, there has been little in the way of meaningful extra-terra cooperation. The main barrier is the staggering cost of becoming a space-faring state; if not addressed, developing states will be unable to share the benefits derived from space activity.[21] Addressing this barrier requires developed states to abide by space law principles by including developing states in meaningful space activities.[22]
First of all, there is an implicit assumption that “leaving out developing states” from the development of space law is intrinsically a bad thing, with no explanation why. I guess that it’s supposed to be obvious that it’s somehow “unfair.” Interestingly, a major goal of the 1979 Moon Treaty (which isn’t mentioned at all in the paper) was to address this “injustice.” But the other flawed assumption is that the cost of becoming a space-faring state is intrinsically “staggering.” I think that SpaceX has pretty much put the lie to that. Fortunately, at least he recognizes that we don’t (yet) have a world government that can compel spacefaring states to share in the supposed space bounty:
Because outer space is not easily accessible to all, special considerations must be made to include developing states. Even a minor space mission is a significant portion of a developing state’s annual budget.[38] Professor Ghidini argues that space research does not conform to traditional notions of “free competition” because international programs are available only to the “happy few” sponsors.[39] Space-faring states must be compelled to include developing states.[40] Cooperation on terms beneficial to developing states, therefore, is essential for their meaningful inclusion.[41]
Space-faring states, however, cannot be forced to cooperate with developing states. Outer space activities cannot be mandated by an international regime and must operate according to market forces.[42] Not only will forced cooperation create a disincentive for expensive space missions, it could also stifle competition and weaken intellectual property protections.[43] An incentive structure that protects space research’s return on investment while keeping developing states’ economic development goals in mind is the most efficient model.[44] Current bilateral agreements can operate on this market-based model. Satellite tracking facility agreements, for example, often provide information and research from the space activity in exchange for the facility’s presence.[45]
The problem is that there is an assumption that a developing nation won’t benefit from space commerce unless it is actively involved in the development of such commerce, but this is clearly nonsense. All developing countries benefit from remote sensing, GPS and communications satellites, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with their development. I really think that this is all a solution looking for a problem.
A practical agenda for helping developing nations would reform ITAR and launch regulation to make it easier for them to host spaceports. Many developing nations have a positional resource — their equatorial locations — and would be advantageous site for launching. These regulatory barriers prevent them from capitalizing on that resource.
r
Space socialism. Personally, I think we should work with our friends (England, Germany, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, etc.). If you’re not our friend, you’re SOL. Maybe you can ask the Russians or the Chinese for a handout? Asking the Chinese for a handout worked real well for the EU. 🙂
I suppose we should also look to example of England, back in the days of Big Sail, and Big Steam. How they were so generous, allowing poor, landlocked countries to piggy-back on their sea power…
We should take the same attitude. :–)
This is the attitude that led to the Moon Treaty. Space is opened to all. If developing nations need to do if they wish to take part would be to contract with firms like Bigelow Aerospace and SpaceX to have a space program. As for ITAR, if the country is important to U.S. foreign policy the State Department will approve it.
Rand,
[[[I really think that this is all a solution looking for a problem.]]]
One of the first things you learn in business school is that Lawyers are solutions looking for problems, so you keep them on a short leash… 🙂
If the Tea Party really wanted to improve the quality of government they would push an amendment that would ban anyone with a law degree from holding elected office or leading a government agency 🙂
While there were some parts of the Moon Treaty that weren’t bad, things like Article 4, paragraph 1 are why so few countries ever ratified it.
Article 4
1. The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all
mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of
all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific
development. Due regard shall be paid to the interests of present and
future generations as well as to the need to promote higher standards of
living and conditions of economic and social progress and development in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
This has been intrepreded to read that if someone found a way to make money on the Moon, they’d have to share the proceeds with everyone regardless of the fact they’d paid nothing for the development. Similar text was in the Law of the Sea treaty and it was opposed for the same reason. It reminds me of the line from “The Lincoln Portrait” (I think from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates) of “You bake the cake and I’ll eat it.”
I took a class on outer space law in grad school, and it was filled with this kind of mumbo-jumbo. I suppose there resides in some of the population a need to exert control, even illusory control, over every theoretical or notional human pursuit. However, beyond GEO, space debris, and the ISS, the concept of international law remains limited to being just that: a concept.
There will be a point where the the current heavenly body treaties, and the interests of the first off-world settlements, are directly opposed. One of them will die then, and while it should be the treaty, I am not sure in the current political climate.
I guess it has never occurred to these kind of assholes that the frontier concept is about getting free from their influence.
Daniel Boone was a good example. After being cheated out of his farm by lawyers he swore never to live near one again. When he was 80 years old he heard that a lawyer had set up shop in the town next to where he was. He immediately packed up and moved further west 🙂
It’s amazing to me that people still don’t recognize that the ’67 Outer Space Treaty was the end of the space race. Signing that document ended any hope for government led development of space as it prohibited governments from making claims to heavenly bodies. The end.
He should run some of these ideas by, for example, the Kzin when we encounter them. I’m sure they’ll be all about the fairness.
The Kzin? How about the Chinese?