You are not logged in.
Here's a link to the Outer Space Treaty:
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/public … ACE11E.pdf
I think that there's v little in it to stop commercial exploitation of Mars or other celestial bodies. All it requires is authorisation by the appropriate state. If the Mars Consortium is registered in Panama, that's Panama I would say.
It would appear to prevent states appropriating parts of the planet for themselves. I am not sure it would preclude lease arrangements. There must be some implied rights of occupation - with the Antarctica Treaty, you can't just go and build your own base in the middle of an American base. As long as there was no permanent legal claim to the land, I think de facto long leases would be allowed as "administrative arrangements" i.e. good governance, just as arresting a man for murder in an Antarctic base does not imply a jurisdictional claim to the continent.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
The Moon treaty is by its nature more or less a law of the sea for space. Most countries including the USA have at least signed that treaty. The Moon treaty does not stop commercial enterprises it just puts there regulation onto the UN and that any technology you develop has to be shared with everyone.
In international law there are two types of Law one is treaty law and the other is customs. The Moon treaty has some of the first but is strongest with the second. And since no one has put in place a regime or treaty to deal with commerce in space then the only thing to base dealings with that is the Moon treaty.
The other thing to note is that the treaties in space are not only similar to those that deal with Earths seas and Oceans but they also have been add ons to previous treaties. The treaties dealing with satelites and freedom to operate in space are part of the outer space treaty and much of the outer space treaty is also part of the Moon treaty.
The basic answer to all of this is it is far too much of a gray area and that makes buisness interests very unwilling to invest in something that could well lose in a court case.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
The Moon treaty is by its nature more or less a law of the sea for space. Most countries including the USA have at least signed that treaty. The Moon treaty does not stop commercial enterprises it just puts there regulation onto the UN and that any technology you develop has to be shared with everyone.
In international law there are two types of Law one is treaty law and the other is customs. The Moon treaty has some of the first but is strongest with the second. And since no one has put in place a regime or treaty to deal with commerce in space then the only thing to base dealings with that is the Moon treaty.
The other thing to note is that the treaties in space are not only similar to those that deal with Earths seas and Oceans but they also have been add ons to previous treaties. The treaties dealing with satelites and freedom to operate in space are part of the outer space treaty and much of the outer space treaty is also part of the Moon treaty.
The basic answer to all of this is it is far too much of a gray area and that makes buisness interests very unwilling to invest in something that could well lose in a court case.
Grypd - Do you have a source for your claim that most countries including USA have signed the Treaty? Wikipedia indicates only 17 countries have signed and ratified or signed - and USA is not among them. Indeed only France among leading space nations has signed I think.
If there is a Treaty but it hasn't been signed then I think one can call into question its provision, althoguh I agree "custom" is important and of course the Outer Space Treaty does apply to the Moon.
Has Space X failed to invest? I think not. It's identifying the business opportunity and having big nation protection that is important. Space X is under the wing of the USA, but it has seen plenty of commercial opportunities in space.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Grypd - Do you have a source for your claim that most countries including USA have signed the Treaty? Wikipedia indicates only 17 countries have signed and ratified or signed - and USA is not among them. Indeed only France among leading space nations has signed I think.
If there is a Treaty but it hasn't been signed then I think one can call into question its provision, althoguh I agree "custom" is important and of course the Outer Space Treaty does apply to the Moon.
Has Space X failed to invest? I think not. It's identifying the business opportunity and having big nation protection that is important. Space X is under the wing of the USA, but it has seen plenty of commercial opportunities in space.
The Law of the sea is here Wikisite Law of the sea
The fact that the law of the sea has so many similarities to the Moon treaty if you read them is what causes us problems. Space X is a commercial body but as part of the outer space treaty is considered to be a US organisation. It is going for commercial opportunities given by supplying the ISS and of course launching satelites into orbit it is not talking about mineral exploitation as its lawyers will be telling them just what I have said its too grey an area to get into. What is needed is to modify the outer space treaty to allow mineral exploitation.
An article on the Moon treaty The Space Review : The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
louis wrote:Grypd - Do you have a source for your claim that most countries including USA have signed the Treaty? Wikipedia indicates only 17 countries have signed and ratified or signed - and USA is not among them. Indeed only France among leading space nations has signed I think.
If there is a Treaty but it hasn't been signed then I think one can call into question its provision, althoguh I agree "custom" is important and of course the Outer Space Treaty does apply to the Moon.
Has Space X failed to invest? I think not. It's identifying the business opportunity and having big nation protection that is important. Space X is under the wing of the USA, but it has seen plenty of commercial opportunities in space.
The Law of the sea is here Wikisite Law of the sea
The fact that the law of the sea has so many similarities to the Moon treaty if you read them is what causes us problems. Space X is a commercial body but as part of the outer space treaty is considered to be a US organisation. It is going for commercial opportunities given by supplying the ISS and of course launching satelites into orbit it is not talking about mineral exploitation as its lawyers will be telling them just what I have said its too grey an area to get into. What is needed is to modify the outer space treaty to allow mineral exploitation.
An article on the Moon treaty The Space Review : The Moon Treaty: failed international law or waiting in the shadows?
From the Space Review article:
"The United States, the Russian Federation (former Soviet Union), and the People’s Republic of China have neither signed, acceded, nor ratified the Moon Treaty, which has led to the conclusion that it is a failure from the standpoint of international law.2 "
But my point stands, you only need another signatory to say "this is our company" and Space X can operate with them.
I think the key point that everyone understands is that none of the states on Earth should claim parts or the whole of celestial bodies as their own. That says nothing of course about companies operating there or indeed colonies establishing their own effective statehood.
If it were up to me I would from day one establish a functioning self-governing colony which would claim separate legal status from Earth States.
We have dual citizenship on Earth - no reason we shouldn't have it between Earth and Mars, so someone can be a US citizen say and a Mars citizen as well.
However, I realise things are likely to develop more haphazardly than that.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
From the Space Review article:
"The United States, the Russian Federation (former Soviet Union), and the People’s Republic of China have neither signed, acceded, nor ratified the Moon Treaty, which has led to the conclusion that it is a failure from the standpoint of international law.2 "
But that is the first part of the article and it goes on to show just why the belief that the moon treaty is failed is wrong.
I think the key point that everyone understands is that none of the states on Earth should claim parts or the whole of celestial bodies as their own. That says nothing of course about companies operating there or indeed colonies establishing their own effective statehood.
And no private company is treated as anything but as an agency of the Goverment it is registered to. Certainly the PRC and Russia have stated as such.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Then we just need to register in a failed, rogue state...
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
louis wrote:From the Space Review article:
"The United States, the Russian Federation (former Soviet Union), and the People’s Republic of China have neither signed, acceded, nor ratified the Moon Treaty, which has led to the conclusion that it is a failure from the standpoint of international law.2 "
But that is the first part of the article and it goes on to show just why the belief that the moon treaty is failed is wrong.
I think the key point that everyone understands is that none of the states on Earth should claim parts or the whole of celestial bodies as their own. That says nothing of course about companies operating there or indeed colonies establishing their own effective statehood.
And no private company is treated as anything but as an agency of the Goverment it is registered to. Certainly the PRC and Russia have stated as such.
Grypd - I wasn't arguing that the Moon Treaty will NEVER become part of international law - I was simply pointing out you were factually wrong to claim that most states, including the USA, had signed the treaty. You haven't admitted your error, but that's your affair.
As we know from flags of convenience at sea, state registration can mean very little in practice. It wouldn't of itself be a brake on commercial development.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Grypd - I wasn't arguing that the Moon Treaty will NEVER become part of international law - I was simply pointing out you were factually wrong to claim that most states, including the USA, had signed the treaty. You haven't admitted your error, but that's your affair.
As we know from flags of convenience at sea, state registration can mean very little in practice. It wouldn't of itself be a brake on commercial development.
Sorry Louis we are at crossed purposes here. I was stating that most countries have signed the Law of the sea and yes i agree that they have not signed the Moon treaty. What im trying to show is that in international law the precedent has been set (They signed the similar law of the sea treaty and of course the outer space treaty) and since there is no treaty currently standing that repudiates the Moon treaty its has a lot of weight in international law. It is classed as common heritage status and as such only for use for the benefit of all mankind.
I honestly hope the Moon treaty does not become international law. The other thing is that you have to note about flags of convenience is that it will not apply to space. Any accident etc will not be the private company that gets the bill to fix it but the country. All missions even if from a private source are designated as belonging to the country that sent the mission. It is the countries responsibility to register that mission with the UN and it is the country that has the fiscal liability. The normal flags of opportunity states cannot afford that liability. That is article VI of the outer space treaty.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
louis wrote:Grypd - I wasn't arguing that the Moon Treaty will NEVER become part of international law - I was simply pointing out you were factually wrong to claim that most states, including the USA, had signed the treaty. You haven't admitted your error, but that's your affair.
As we know from flags of convenience at sea, state registration can mean very little in practice. It wouldn't of itself be a brake on commercial development.
Sorry Louis we are at crossed purposes here. I was stating that most countries have signed the Law of the sea and yes i agree that they have not signed the Moon treaty. What im trying to show is that in international law the precedent has been set (They signed the similar law of the sea treaty and of course the outer space treaty) and since there is no treaty currently standing that repudiates the Moon treaty its has a lot of weight in international law. It is classed as common heritage status and as such only for use for the benefit of all mankind.
I honestly hope the Moon treaty does not become international law. The other thing is that you have to note about flags of convenience is that it will not apply to space. Any accident etc will not be the private company that gets the bill to fix it but the country. All missions even if from a private source are designated as belonging to the country that sent the mission. It is the countries responsibility to register that mission with the UN and it is the country that has the fiscal liability. The normal flags of opportunity states cannot afford that liability. That is article VI of the outer space treaty.
OK - your grammar was at fault then!: "The Moon treaty is by its nature more or less a law of the sea for space. Most countries including the USA have at least signed that treaty ."
Now you've clear up the "treaty" in the second sentence did not refer to the "treaty" in the first, I fully understand what you are saying but don't agree with you since that is a leap that I don't think has ever been attempted. The moon is land not sea. Any precedence would relate to land on Earth,not sea on Earth. I'd like to see your citation for your interpretation.
I am not sure how familiar you are with commercial practice. Really what you say about the state being responsible would be no impediment to a Mars Consortium. All they have to do is indemnify the country concerned and put up a bond to back that indemnity. For example Panama would authorise the Mars Consortium to operate in Outer Space and could require the Consortium to indemnify it to the tune of say $10billion for the period of agreement - let's say 10 years. Panama requires the Consortium to get a bond for that and the Consortium has to pay say 5% for that = $500 million. The Consortium in turn borrows the $500milion over 10 years, paying off the loan at perhaps something like $100 million per annum for ten years. In the context of a Mars Mission,paying $100million per annum for effectively a licence to operate would be no problem. Panama would no doubt get various benefits from having the Consortium's offices located in its territory.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
OK - your grammar was at fault then!: "The Moon treaty is by its nature more or less a law of the sea for space. Most countries including the USA have at least signed that treaty ."
Now you've clear up the "treaty" in the second sentence did not refer to the "treaty" in the first, I fully understand what you are saying but don't agree with you since that is a leap that I don't think has ever been attempted. The moon is land not sea. Any precedence would relate to land on Earth,not sea on Earth. I'd like to see your citation for your interpretation.
Both are classed as Common Heritage That means they belong to all of mankind not one country or agency of that country. The outer space treaty states it clearly in articles one and two.
Article I
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.
There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.
Article II
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
This is clear and precise common heritage status
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
I am not sure how familiar you are with commercial practice. Really what you say about the state being responsible would be no impediment to a Mars Consortium. All they have to do is indemnify the country concerned and put up a bond to back that indemnity. For example Panama would authorise the Mars Consortium to operate in Outer Space and could require the Consortium to indemnify it to the tune of say $10billion for the period of agreement - let's say 10 years. Panama requires the Consortium to get a bond for that and the Consortium has to pay say 5% for that = $500 million. The Consortium in turn borrows the $500milion over 10 years, paying off the loan at perhaps something like $100 million per annum for ten years. In the context of a Mars Mission,paying $100million per annum for effectively a licence to operate would be no problem. Panama would no doubt get various benefits from having the Consortium's offices located in its territory.
Very sure. Yes you could launch rockets from Panama but just like you can launch ESA rockets from Kourou. But what do you do with them.
Panama cannot grant you the right to mine metals in space for profit, no country can, only an international body (the UN) can. And there are costs the UN body that allows mining for minerals in the sea extracts billions from the only company willing to try and that then is put to use across the world.
I have been wanting to change the outer space treaty for many years now. It was perfect to stop the space arms race but it now is not fit for purpose. The trouble is that it still stands and there are very many organisations and countries that will stop such changes.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Grrr. You need to stop the UN then, given that it exists to maintain the status quo... and since there are a lot of entrenched interests (China, America, Russia, Europe...) in maintaining the status quo, you're up against the big boys.
The main problem would seem to be Article 1, given that it could be grounds for every single nation to lodge a claim in the international courts for a slice of any profit the Lunar Development Corporation makes, despite not having actually invested in it...
Damn, it's looking like a colonisation attempt is going to have to be one way, and expect no Terran support, unless several influential nations in the UN can get the treaty changed (not that the US bothers itself with honouring treaties...).
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
louis wrote:I am not sure how familiar you are with commercial practice. Really what you say about the state being responsible would be no impediment to a Mars Consortium. All they have to do is indemnify the country concerned and put up a bond to back that indemnity. For example Panama would authorise the Mars Consortium to operate in Outer Space and could require the Consortium to indemnify it to the tune of say $10billion for the period of agreement - let's say 10 years. Panama requires the Consortium to get a bond for that and the Consortium has to pay say 5% for that = $500 million. The Consortium in turn borrows the $500milion over 10 years, paying off the loan at perhaps something like $100 million per annum for ten years. In the context of a Mars Mission,paying $100million per annum for effectively a licence to operate would be no problem. Panama would no doubt get various benefits from having the Consortium's offices located in its territory.
Very sure. Yes you could launch rockets from Panama but just like you can launch ESA rockets from Kourou. But what do you do with them.
Panama cannot grant you the right to mine metals in space for profit, no country can, only an international body (the UN) can. And there are costs the UN body that allows mining for minerals in the sea extracts billions from the only company willing to try and that then is put to use across the world.
I have been wanting to change the outer space treaty for many years now. It was perfect to stop the space arms race but it now is not fit for purpose. The trouble is that it still stands and there are very many organisations and countries that will stop such changes.
Can you point me to where the Outer Space Treaty says that only the UN can authorise mining in space?
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Terraformer- When there's actual money involved, I'm pretty sure the OST will go out the window just as fast as the rockets are launching and the colonies are growing. As you noted, the US, as well as most other countries will ignore treaties when it is to their benefit and when there is no international force behind them (e.g. when another country has an immediate geopolitical reason to have the treaty enforced.) When the treaty is so obviously utopian as the Outer Space Treaty, and when the countries which did not invest in building the base/facility or whatever and thus obviously have no legitimate claim to the wealth generated thereby, I can't see it being much of a hindrance. The usual suspects will complain about treaty violations and imperialism and they will be ignored, as usual.
The Outer Space Treaty is unique in that it has a minimal near-term bearing on the world's nation-states.
-Josh
Offline
There seems to be this mind set amongst many space enthusiasts that somehome to OST is a negative thing and that if only ti could be abolished then everything would proceed ahead by leaps and bounds.
That is just nonsense, as far as I can see. Whether it comes from a failure to understand the OST, or a a mind set that does not want to see nations actions controlled by agreements, or a romantic hankering for the lawless frontier by people who did not have to live and work in such an environment, this is simply naive.
There will always be need to be a legal framework to normalise activities in space. It is in everyone's interest to have it. Few organisations will invest billions in an environment where ownership, liabilities, and obligations are poorly constrained, it is too risky. Which is why people would much rather invest on Earth in mineral exploration in Chile than they would in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Offline
There seems to be this mind set amongst many space enthusiasts that somehome to OST is a negative thing and that if only ti could be abolished then everything would proceed ahead by leaps and bounds.
That is just nonsense, as far as I can see. Whether it comes from a failure to understand the OST, or a a mind set that does not want to see nations actions controlled by agreements, or a romantic hankering for the lawless frontier by people who did not have to live and work in such an environment, this is simply naive.
There will always be need to be a legal framework to normalise activities in space. It is in everyone's interest to have it. Few organisations will invest billions in an environment where ownership, liabilities, and obligations are poorly constrained, it is too risky. Which is why people would much rather invest on Earth in mineral exploration in Chile than they would in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
I think the problem with the OST is it relates to a time when only government could mount space programmes. We now see with Space X, Virgin Galactic and other firms that cheap access to space is now a real possibility. That makes the OST seem rather dated. I think the OST really needs to be made more explicit about how the benefits are to be shared and I think it should allow for some long term leasing of land. It should explicitly recognise that a future date, humans may wish to establish self-governing communities on celestial bodies.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline