In 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order called "Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources." The order emphasizes that "the United States does not view outer space as a 'global commons" and calls the Moon Agreement a "a failed attempt at constraining free enterprise."
The Moon Treaty (1979) provided for the demilitarization of the Moon and other celestial bodies and declared the Moon and its resources to be a “common heritage of mankind.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Moon-Treaty
In a newly published policy paper, a pair of Canadian scientists warn that the United States is angling to establish itself as the de facto gatekeeper of the moon and other celestial bodies.
Earlier this year, NASA published a new set of rules for lunar mining and other space activities, dubbing the voluntary guidelines the "Artemis Accords."
Nice, simple, with a taste of precipice for inspiration.
]]>Unless there's another convention that says otherwise, I think we can treat outer space as being under the same laws as the high seas, also called the common heritage of mankind.
Wikipedia contains an article about the "common heritage of mankind". That article cites the Outer Space Treaty as an example of a legal document that contains this "principle of international law".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_he … of_mankind
However, I believe that the Wikipedia article is incorrectly citing the Outer Space Treaty as an example of a document that contains the "common heritage of mankind" doctrine. Equating that doctrine with "the province of all mankind" is a mistake.
A sentence written in French:
L'illisibilité des textes légaux et réglementaires n'est hélas pas l’apanage des institutions européennes.
English translation:
Unfortunately, incomprehensible legal documents and regulations are not the prerogative of the European institutions.
http://context2.reverso.net/info.php?q= … gTot=fr-en
“Every person has a right to a certain amount of room in the world and should not be made to feel wicked in standing up for what is due to him”.
— Bertrand Russell, On Education, page 91
https://books.google.com/books?id=joCMA … 22&f=false
Interesting. Well in context I would say that prerogative means there more a "right of exploitation" than a "birthright". But it could be felt perhaps to encompass that. I am not sure why the English text didn't make use of the word prerogative or birthright there. Perhaps "province" was felt to be more felicitous.
I think the general point is reasonably clear: as a starting principle, no part of humanity should be excluded from exploring or making use of outer space.
Louis: I edited the message that you quoted. Please note that I added some interesting information and references to that message.
]]>“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”.
"Mankind" is all Species of man with no indication of color or race, national or soverntry....which in some distant future it could include other sub species as well once they can converse with something more than sign language...
"shall be the province" as another indicated is a crude english translation of a french word "the birth right" of those born on earth....which will change to all planetary bodies in the future.....of which it is our destiny to go forth to explore..... As Spock would have said live long and prosper.....
The outer space treaty is not much different in how Antartica is run as no one owns it but all can use it and only what you make or bring has any ownership claim....of which this is also part of all bodies not of earth....
]]>I think the general point is reasonably clear: as a starting principle, no part of humanity should be excluded from exploring or making use of outer space.
I looked at the French version of the Outer Space Treaty. I found that the French version uses the word “l’apanage”, which can be translated into English as “prerogative”. “Birthright” is a synonym for prerogative.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8N4UR … ht&f=false
I could agree that the exploration and use of outer space is the birthright of all humankind.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8N4UR … ht&f=false
I could agree that the exploration and use of outer space is the birthright of all humankind.
And see appanage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appanage
"The system of appanage greatly influenced the territorial construction of France and the German states, and explains why many of the former provinces of France had coats of arms which were modified versions of the king's arms".
l’apanage and appanage and birthright are all closely linked to the ownership and control of tracts of land or provinces.
]]>“Destiny” is a synonym for providence.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti … providence
I would agree that the exploration and use of outer space is the destiny of all humankind.
Should we request that the U.N. Secretary General correct this “misspelling”?
]]>I think the last phrase is redundant, it merely restates (perhaps to reinforce?) the second phrase I quoted. The meaning seems clear enough: no Earthly nation can claim any body in space as its own territory. Presumably, this would extend to regions of space as well, not just physical bodies out there. Anything a nation does out there must benefit all, not just themselves.
The phrase I left out "including the moon and other celestial bodies,..." mere provides the specific details. Those make it clear by the word "including" as it refers to "moon and other bodies", that regions of empty space are included in the meaning. That is because "other bodies" extends to any physical celestial body out there anywhere.
Note that this does not imply anything about sovereignty over, or salvage rights to, any man-made objects out there in space or on some celestial body. Establishing what can be done with man made objects needs some law made about it. Doesn't look to me like the historic sites on the moon or Mars where man-made artifacts were left are protected as the common heritage of all people, which they probably should be.
Because it specifically includes the word "use" right alongside "exploration" connected with the preposition "and", the treaty does not seem to preclude in any way the construction of bases, and by extension, even resource extraction activities. All those are "uses". Seems clear enough to me. It just requires you to share some of whatever wealth or knowledge you create by doing it.
Now that's not law school crap, it's just basic English grammar and rhetoric from before the time this old engineer became an engineer. English class, where they make you pick apart and diagram sentences. Remember?
GW
]]>"An area of special knowledge, interest, or responsibility."
The example given is:
‘she knew little about wine—that had been her father's province’
You can tell this is the case because the Treaty refers to "use" being part of the province. So it's clear not a territorial issue.
]]>No no, that's... not what the word province means in that case.
Alberta is a province of Canada, and outer space is a province of all humanity.
You sound exactly like a graduate of Harvard Law School.
]]>Alberta is a province of Canada, and outer space is a province of all humanity.
]]>