Bob Zimmerman says that Trump should open up the solar system by renegotiating the deal.
20 thoughts on “The Outer Space Treaty”
Comments are closed.
Bob Zimmerman says that Trump should open up the solar system by renegotiating the deal.
Comments are closed.
“No need to use force to establish control. The law would do it for you.”
This seems terribly naive. In reality, claiming territory is only possible if you have the force to back up your claim. Whether claims are physically manned by humans, or merely staked out by landers or robots, your claim will only be as good as your Space Force’s ability to defend it. Let the lunar wars begin!
The OST is perfect. We don’t need no stinking sovereign badges to claim the universe. Claim it the old fashioned way… Just defend your claim.
Who wants to extend “national sovereignty” beyond the environs of the Earth anywho? Let space be colonized privately; at least in part. Although I know that earth governments will eventually have bases off-world, I don’t want any country on earth (or especially the UN) having the power to grant or withhold land rights. If a private group establishes a colony on Mars they can “own” the colony, but not necessarily the land upon which it rests. Just like EXXON can own a oil drilling platform in international waters without having title to the sea upon which it floats. When private groups establish their colonies on the moon or mars they can decide the issue ultimately of “sovereignty” as they see fit. As far as I am concerned the reach of earth governments can stay on earth.
As far as I am concerned the reach of earth governments can stay on earth.
They wont though. New states may rise but old ones will be present as well.
I get equating space itself to the oceans. There’s the freedom of navigation, the need to work to stay in place, the inability to corral fish–ok, that just applies to water. I do not get equating the moon or other large celestial bodies to the seas. The moon is so very much like land that it is land. You can bound it. You can hold it. No tides, waves, gravity wells, or orbital mechanics are carrying you away from your claimed location. We could apply all sorts of terrestrial principles to the ownership of land on the Moon or Mars.
“I do not get equating the moon or other large celestial bodies to the seas. The moon is so very much like land that it is land. You can bound it.”
Because existing Terrestrial law will effect future laws; the Celestial Bodies Treaty is the current International law governing Outer space doubtlessly based in part on the law of the Sea Treaties.
” We could apply all sorts of terrestrial principles to the ownership of land on the Moon or Mars”
“We” could….not sure I want us too; as far as I am concerned I don’t want some government busy body back on earth deciding who ones what; leave that up to the colonists themselves. Until then will stick with no one owns the land or has sovereignty over it.
Property rights provide incentives for getting to the Moon or some other celestial body in the first place. They also actively help. Title provides certainty and allows planning. Also, if you had title in a piece of land, you could use it as collateral for financing.
Since we seem to still be on square one in terms of getting people to space, I don’t think it would be so terrible to set up a mechanism for recognizing private title in land. The devil will be in the details, of course, and the owner would need to be able to hold it as part of the criteria for claiming it. The guy who wanted to charge NASA a parking fee for “his” asteroid would never have won under a common law analysis, if I’m remembering my property class correctly.
Article II of the Outer Space Treaty forbids national appropriation, not private appropriation. Accordingly, a country or a private group could establish mechanisms for recognizing title in land. It would be ironic indeed if the OST’s prohibition on governmental appropriation fostered the further development of private law.
That only works if the two sides are roughly equal in offensive ability. If Joe Spacerat is defending his claim from the Evil Empire (or the Evil Corporate Empire), Joe Spacerat is going to end up as comet dust.
Then…the trick is to wait for the right moment in history to assert your independence…1776 approx. 6 million people vs 1620 Plymouth rock maybe a few hundred. One must know when to make one’s move. Until then the outer space treaty staying in force is a good thing preventing any country on earth from claiming ownership/sovereignty until the colonies are ready to assert their independence.
“1776 approx. 6 million people” …oops, make that approx. 4 million.
“New states may rise but old ones will be present as well” True enough; but the “old states” in the old world didn’t stop new states from arising in the new world & eventually achieving independence. The same thing should happen in space (eventually).
Independence may be forced on those living off world. Should that day come, hopefully they will be self sufficient.
The mistake is not planning for independence to happen on day one. Many will read that line and think ‘delusional.’ Those are people that aren’t thinking but knee jerking.
Renegotiate?
Or just ignore it.
No enforcement mechanism, eh?
(Alternatively, just withdraw from it.)
The OST is only “effective” because nobody has any reason to want to do anything in space that violates it just yet.
The day that changes is the day it gets thrown out.
“Article II of the Outer Space Treaty forbids national appropriation, not private appropriation. Accordingly, a country or a private group could establish mechanisms for recognizing title in land.”
In order to recognize a claim of private ownership over land a government needs sovereignty over the land the claim is being made otherwise the recognition is effectively meaningless. If a private entity or the US gov mines the moon (say the Apollo moon rocks “mined”), the mining “assay” can be owned; just like the oil in a seabed in international waters claimed by no one can be owned, once it is in the environs of the ship/tanker/drilling platform, not while it is in the seabed. That is good enough for space development IMHO for the time being. Other wise what is to prevent some kind of front company for the Russian (or Chinese) government like Gazprom from claiming ownership of the permanently shadowed crater areas near both lunar poles for instance? The areas believed to contain billions of tons of water ice and possibly other volatiles. Area that will probably prove to be the most valuable off planet land in the earth/moon system. The “private” company could claim ownership of the land via a “grant” given them by the Russian(or Chinese) government. If a gov can do that it effectively becomes de facto sovereignty rendering the Outer Space Treaty null and void.
Even without sovereignty, the U.S. recognizes claims for deep seabed mining. See http://www.heritage.org/report/the-us-can-mine-the-deep-seabed-without-joining-the-un-convention-the-law-the-sea You might find the article interesting.
Land and extracted resources are different, but I’m not sure that we have to rely on what William the Conqueror thought about how to divvy up land.
“Even without sovereignty, the U.S. recognizes claims for deep seabed mining.”
Yes it does Laura…the point is that the US doesn’t recognize the seabed treaty the purpose of which is to create a international organization (UN backed?) that would have in effect sovereignty over the sea beds. Deciding whose claims are legitimate and whose are not. The US will recognize a private mining claim without ownership; that is the traditional view of the seas in international waters being owned by no one (which the Celestial Bodies Treaty is based on).
From your link:
“The United States went on to state its official position that U.S. citizens and corporations specifically have the right to mine the deep seabed and may do so whether or not the United States is an UNCLOS member. The U.S. statement affirmed that deep seabed mining is a high seas freedom open to all nations regardless of whether they are party to the convention”
The US’s decision to recognize private claims by US companies is in reaction to this Sea bed Treaties clear attempt to seize effective control of the sea bed resources. Just like the Moon Treaty (which the US also never ratified thank God) is an attempt to do the same to the resources/land of Outer space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty
“Land and extracted resources are different, but I’m not sure that we have to rely on what William the Conqueror thought about how to divvy up land.”
Not sure what you mean by that; my position is that Earth’s sovereignty should end effectively with Earth; the colonist themselves who travel to Mars etc can ultimately produce their laws/treaties/agreements about who own/ has sovereignty over the land without help from some busy-body government bureaucrat(s) back on earth.
Ah, hah: you are discussing what should be the case, and I am discussing what the law allows or prohibits now.
I’m trying to make the narrow point that an Earth government could legally recognize property right claims on a celestial body even without sovereignty over that celestial body. It’s being done now in the seabed mining context.
I’m currently reading Deploying the Common Law to Quasi-Marxist Property on Mars by Thomas E. Simmons, and he notes that “After launching and successfully completing the Norman-French conquest of England in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings, William I seized the lands held by the former nobility, originating the feudal tenures system, in which all real property ultimately derived from the crown.” This fact apparently leads some legal scholars to believe that property is held at the sufferance of the king, so without a king or other sovereignty, one cannot make property claims or have them be legally recognized.
As for what should be the case, I do worry about the incentives needed to get private companies out there in the near term. Ensuring the recognition of property rights is a really good incentive. (Also, I’m with you on it being very good that the U.S. didn’t sign on to either the Moon Treaty or UNCLOS, with the international authority being a bad idea).
” I do worry about the incentives needed to get private companies out there in the near term.”
My thoughts along that line would be what I call the “Bank of Mars”. Describable as a private colony on Mars (or the Moon) setup by private citizens like the current Mars one Group effort. After establishing the colony on Mars, they declare themselves to be independent of earth, the private colonists renouncing their citizenship of whatever country they were from. They are now free to accept “donations” electronically transferred to them from supporters on Earth via a satellite link (probably multiple ones) to the colony database on Mars. The Mars colony then re-invests the funds back on earth and pays its “depositors” interests based on the funds’ performance; (and also supports the colony the same way). Sort of like and ultimate version of the Cayman Islands; absolute privacy between depositors and the colony. As far as the gov is concerned tax free; since the gov has no way of knowing what return depositors are getting on their “donations” to the colony. Tax shelters as I am sure you know are huge…you are basically trading upon the greatest asset a private independent colony on Mars would have; its sovereign independence. Something like that could very quickly run into the 100’s of billions of dollars relatively quickly; far faster than other schemes like asteroid mining/power sats etc. would.
“Ah, hah: you are discussing what should be the case, and I am discussing what the law allows or prohibits now”
Well the point of the 1967 Celestial bodies treaty was to prevent countries (earth) from extending its sovereignty beyond the earth; so its not just my wish.
“I’m trying to make the narrow point that an Earth government could legally recognize property right claims on a celestial body even without sovereignty over that celestial body.”
Agreed…accepting that recognizing property, that is the mining facility/hardware setup on an asteroid by a private entity for instance without recognizing ownership of the asteroid. Of course like in the case of piracy on the high seas, if the US recognized a private companies’ claim they could say that gives them an obligation to protect American citizens live/property. American warships can patrol international waters to secure American shipping; so there could I suppose at some point in the future be a “space patrol” who secures free passage throughout the solar system protecting registered private property (& lives). Maybe some kind of international treaty with the major space fairing powers (not the UN) empowering them to “secure space” from piracy/hijacking; all without claiming any kind of sovereignty over space or any part. You would need some kind of legal framework of course to deal with the issue of what you do with pirate/hijackers caught in free space; just like I assume their must be one for dealing with unidentifiable pirates caught in international waters who don’t have/refuse to say what countries they are citizens of; however that is legally addressed.
I wasn’t able to reply to your Bank of Mars comment above, but I like it. It’s clever. I’m a lawyer, but I also write fiction, and have a short story about a seastead that addresses some of the break-away-state issues. The seastead offers complete data privacy.