Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Land For Sale.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10183
12 Comments
Brock wrote:
The common law (of England and its daughter nations) has recognized transfer of title predicated on use for centuries. The common law has been superseded in some respects, but not this one - and it has never been repealed. It's simply the law of the USA and UK today (and possible other British colonies, though I can't be sure) that anyone who landed on the Moon and lived there for a period of time would have good title.
Granted, an actual statute probably would make corporations like Bigelow more comfortable.
Jim Davis wrote:
"It's simply the law of the USA and UK today (and possible other British colonies, though I can't be sure) that anyone who landed on the Moon and lived there for a period of time would have good title."
Why would Anglo-Saxon common law apply to the moon? That would imply that an Anglo-Saxon nation has sovereignty over the moon. But all Anglo-Saxon nations have signed the OST thereby agreeing that they will make no such claims.
Any claim of a "good title" is a claim that the laws of a certain nation apply to the moon which is a de facto claim of sovereignty. But all signatories to the OST have agreed to make no such claims.
Space enthusiasts have to face the fact that lunar land ownership is not consistent with the OST.
Jim Davis
Brock wrote:
"Any claim of a "good title" is a claim that the laws of a certain nation apply to the moon which is a de facto claim of sovereignty."
No, it isn't. The USA recognizes the title I have to the property I own in Canada. Are you saying that the USA thus has de facto sovereignty in Canada?
The goal is to get the world's nation to recognize the validity of land claims. That's a completely separate issue, as the article Rand links to makes clear. RTA.
Brock is correct. The Common Law recognizes title regardless of location. It has been common, for instance, for English or Americans who end up on uninhabited islands, by accident or design, to have their titles recognized even if they were created prior to the resolution of sovereign issues.
By the way, I noticed Rand used the scientific convention of not capitalizing "lunar" and "martian". I think space development advocates should stop using this convention. It implies that these places are objects to be studied rather than destinations to be inhabited. I use "Martian" and "Lunar" just as I use "Californian" and "Coloradan". I would suggest that other space development advocates make a point of doing so as well.
Anonymous wrote:
"No, it isn't. The USA recognizes the title I have to the property I own in Canada. Are you saying that the USA thus has de facto sovereignty in Canada?"
What the US recognizes is that the government of Canada is sovereign in Canada. The US governmnt recognizes that the government of Canada can determine that you owm land in Canada.
The US does not recognize any sovereign power on the moon and therefore no claims of land ownership.
"The Common Law recognizes title regardless of location. It has been common, for instance, for English or Americans who end up on uninhabited islands, by accident or design, to have their titles recognized even if they were created prior to the resolution of sovereign issues."
Nonsense. Try this experiment. Squat on an uninhabited part of Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean. Let us know if the US government recognizes your "title".
Jim Davis
Rand Simberg wrote:
Squat on an uninhabited part of Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean.
Neither Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean are an uninhabited island.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Jim Davis here's a good paper to read on this topic; pdf.
Quoting: "The many other aspects of the land claims recognition con-
cept are discussed in detail elsewhere,11 but a major point of
related debate involves what international law has to say about
the legality of a private entity, such as a space settlement owned
by a corporation or individual, claiming ownership of land on a
celestial body like the Moon on the basis of “occupation and
use.”12 The following discussion lays out the argument that cur-
rent international law, and especially “the Outer Space Treaty,”
does appear to permit private property ownership in space and
permit nations on Earth to recognize land ownership claims
made by private space settlements, without these nations being
guilty of national appropriation or any other legal violation."
I don't agree on all the opinions, conclusions, and suggestions of the paper but when it comes to the singular issue of land ownership they're pure gold.
That said if you're not prepared to defend what's yours (and most likely also be willing to defend what is your neighbors in return for their equal support and cooperation) then why go in the first place?
It's not a complicated issue: ask yourself why we have property rights on Earth, how it came to be.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Heh and of course the paper is the same as linked to by the NYT (should have read the link first).
I don't agree with the way the NYT article focuses on land sales in great big arbitrary chunks; any such would be completely void and null legally and that's good and proper in my opinion.
It's like some people just don't want to understand the meaning of the words "occupation and use".
And no this is not a way to finance getting there, that approach has exactly zero legal standing in international law.
Britain, Australia, and New Zealand all maintain territorial governments which include Antarctic lands, issue universally-honored stamps, and perform other sovereign functions. They function as normal administrations where they include lands above 60 degrees south; below that, claims are suspended (not abandoned) by their countries' adherence to the Antarctic Treaty. It would be entirely feasible to squat in those territories and bring claims in the relevant national courts for conversion to possession under Common Law provided that the relevant conditions had been met. In lands subject to the Antarctic Treaty, the courts would probably rule that the matter could not be considered until the Treaty issues had been resolved. In so far as I know nobody has actually tested this in practice. But the legal basis to make such a claim so cetainly exists.
Jim Davis wrote:
"Neither Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean are an uninhabited island."
Neither is the moon. What is your point? I think the gentleman was implying that "uninhabited" was the operative word, not "island". Did I misunderstand him?
"I don't agree on all the opinions, conclusions, and suggestions of the paper but when it comes to the singular issue of land ownership they're pure gold."
Well, not if "The goal is to get the world's nation to recognize the validity of land claims." That suggests the opinions, conclusions, and suggestions are far from pure gold.
"That said if you're not prepared to defend what's yours (and most likely also be willing to defend what is your neighbors in return for their equal support and cooperation) then why go in the first place?"
Exactly. It's tough to believe that anyone obsessing over paperwork and titles is really cut out for settling space.
Jim Davis
Jim Davis wrote:
"In lands subject to the Antarctic Treaty, the courts would probably rule that the matter could not be considered until the Treaty issues had been resolved."
In other words the courts would not consider the matter of land ownership unless they had jurisdiction (ie, sovereignty).
Note that this is precisely the opposite of your position in the case of the moon. That questions of land ownership *could* be adjudicated even if no government claims sovereignty and is bound by treaty not to.
Jim Davis
ken anthony wrote:
There are only two ways that title to property can be established... By agreement or by force. Russia has recently demonstrated that force is the stronger argument.
The shear volume of real estate under discussion suggests that beyond the Moon which will probably get the the antarctic treatment, a willingness to claim "this is mine" and defend that claim (usually because there's plenty to go around so why fight) is all that will be required.
Whether any nation recognizes those claims isn't going to mean much for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Mars is probably where the recognition of traditional property rights will first be established (but still not for hundreds of years.) The Moon is probably going to be legally contended for a lot longer.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on August 29, 2008 4:57 PM.
The common law (of England and its daughter nations) has recognized transfer of title predicated on use for centuries. The common law has been superseded in some respects, but not this one - and it has never been repealed. It's simply the law of the USA and UK today (and possible other British colonies, though I can't be sure) that anyone who landed on the Moon and lived there for a period of time would have good title.
Granted, an actual statute probably would make corporations like Bigelow more comfortable.
"It's simply the law of the USA and UK today (and possible other British colonies, though I can't be sure) that anyone who landed on the Moon and lived there for a period of time would have good title."
Why would Anglo-Saxon common law apply to the moon? That would imply that an Anglo-Saxon nation has sovereignty over the moon. But all Anglo-Saxon nations have signed the OST thereby agreeing that they will make no such claims.
Any claim of a "good title" is a claim that the laws of a certain nation apply to the moon which is a de facto claim of sovereignty. But all signatories to the OST have agreed to make no such claims.
Space enthusiasts have to face the fact that lunar land ownership is not consistent with the OST.
Jim Davis
"Any claim of a "good title" is a claim that the laws of a certain nation apply to the moon which is a de facto claim of sovereignty."
No, it isn't. The USA recognizes the title I have to the property I own in Canada. Are you saying that the USA thus has de facto sovereignty in Canada?
The goal is to get the world's nation to recognize the validity of land claims. That's a completely separate issue, as the article Rand links to makes clear. RTA.
Brock is correct. The Common Law recognizes title regardless of location. It has been common, for instance, for English or Americans who end up on uninhabited islands, by accident or design, to have their titles recognized even if they were created prior to the resolution of sovereign issues.
By the way, I noticed Rand used the scientific convention of not capitalizing "lunar" and "martian". I think space development advocates should stop using this convention. It implies that these places are objects to be studied rather than destinations to be inhabited. I use "Martian" and "Lunar" just as I use "Californian" and "Coloradan". I would suggest that other space development advocates make a point of doing so as well.
"No, it isn't. The USA recognizes the title I have to the property I own in Canada. Are you saying that the USA thus has de facto sovereignty in Canada?"
What the US recognizes is that the government of Canada is sovereign in Canada. The US governmnt recognizes that the government of Canada can determine that you owm land in Canada.
The US does not recognize any sovereign power on the moon and therefore no claims of land ownership.
"The Common Law recognizes title regardless of location. It has been common, for instance, for English or Americans who end up on uninhabited islands, by accident or design, to have their titles recognized even if they were created prior to the resolution of sovereign issues."
Nonsense. Try this experiment. Squat on an uninhabited part of Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean. Let us know if the US government recognizes your "title".
Jim Davis
Squat on an uninhabited part of Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean.
Neither Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean are an uninhabited island.
Jim Davis here's a good paper to read on this topic; pdf.
Quoting:
"The many other aspects of the land claims recognition con-
cept are discussed in detail elsewhere,11 but a major point of
related debate involves what international law has to say about
the legality of a private entity, such as a space settlement owned
by a corporation or individual, claiming ownership of land on a
celestial body like the Moon on the basis of “occupation and
use.”12 The following discussion lays out the argument that cur-
rent international law, and especially “the Outer Space Treaty,”
does appear to permit private property ownership in space and
permit nations on Earth to recognize land ownership claims
made by private space settlements, without these nations being
guilty of national appropriation or any other legal violation."
I don't agree on all the opinions, conclusions, and suggestions of the paper but when it comes to the singular issue of land ownership they're pure gold.
That said if you're not prepared to defend what's yours (and most likely also be willing to defend what is your neighbors in return for their equal support and cooperation) then why go in the first place?
It's not a complicated issue: ask yourself why we have property rights on Earth, how it came to be.
Heh and of course the paper is the same as linked to by the NYT (should have read the link first).
I don't agree with the way the NYT article focuses on land sales in great big arbitrary chunks; any such would be completely void and null legally and that's good and proper in my opinion.
It's like some people just don't want to understand the meaning of the words "occupation and use".
And no this is not a way to finance getting there, that approach has exactly zero legal standing in international law.
Britain, Australia, and New Zealand all maintain territorial governments which include Antarctic lands, issue universally-honored stamps, and perform other sovereign functions. They function as normal administrations where they include lands above 60 degrees south; below that, claims are suspended (not abandoned) by their countries' adherence to the Antarctic Treaty. It would be entirely feasible to squat in those territories and bring claims in the relevant national courts for conversion to possession under Common Law provided that the relevant conditions had been met. In lands subject to the Antarctic Treaty, the courts would probably rule that the matter could not be considered until the Treaty issues had been resolved. In so far as I know nobody has actually tested this in practice. But the legal basis to make such a claim so cetainly exists.
"Neither Antarctica or the Pacific Ocean are an uninhabited island."
Neither is the moon. What is your point? I think the gentleman was implying that "uninhabited" was the operative word, not "island". Did I misunderstand him?
"I don't agree on all the opinions, conclusions, and suggestions of the paper but when it comes to the singular issue of land ownership they're pure gold."
Well, not if "The goal is to get the world's nation to recognize the validity of land claims." That suggests the opinions, conclusions, and suggestions are far from pure gold.
"That said if you're not prepared to defend what's yours (and most likely also be willing to defend what is your neighbors in return for their equal support and cooperation) then why go in the first place?"
Exactly. It's tough to believe that anyone obsessing over paperwork and titles is really cut out for settling space.
Jim Davis
"In lands subject to the Antarctic Treaty, the courts would probably rule that the matter could not be considered until the Treaty issues had been resolved."
In other words the courts would not consider the matter of land ownership unless they had jurisdiction (ie, sovereignty).
Note that this is precisely the opposite of your position in the case of the moon. That questions of land ownership *could* be adjudicated even if no government claims sovereignty and is bound by treaty not to.
Jim Davis
There are only two ways that title to property can be established... By agreement or by force. Russia has recently demonstrated that force is the stronger argument.
The shear volume of real estate under discussion suggests that beyond the Moon which will probably get the the antarctic treatment, a willingness to claim "this is mine" and defend that claim (usually because there's plenty to go around so why fight) is all that will be required.
Whether any nation recognizes those claims isn't going to mean much for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Mars is probably where the recognition of traditional property rights will first be established (but still not for hundreds of years.) The Moon is probably going to be legally contended for a lot longer.