우주자원 활용과 우주법 체계

Abstract

This study analyzes the issues in the international space law system related to the utilization of space resources and examines the views of states to consider the implications of changes in the space law system. One of the key issues at stake is how to interpret the non-appropriation principle provision in Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which states that the outer atmosphere, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation. In this regard, scholars have generally explained that Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty precludes the assertion of sovereign rights and private ownership over outer space and celestial bodies. However, the situation has recently changed with the United States, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Japan enacting domestic legislation to recognize the possession and use of space resources, and the international community has begun to discuss space resource activities. The Artemis Accords seems to have also played a role in this discussion. Meanwhile, a number of scholarly opinions have emerged that the meaning of Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty is unclear and difficult to determine. Various discussions are underway, and the issues are summarized as follows. (1) According to the structure and wording of the Outer Space Treaty, it is difficult to determine whether a sign is included; (2) It is difficult to determine whether a private entity that is subject to state authorization and supervision can engage in appropriation; (3) The different wording of the Chinese version of the Outer Space Treaty is one of the problems to be solved; (4) There is also a debate on whether space and its resources are public goods. (5) Questions remain as to whether private entities were considered in the preparatory documents for Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty. (6) It is difficult to say that the principle of non-appropriation has become customary law. The UN COPOUS established a working group to address the issue of space resources and asked for the views of States, and some States have responded, among which the views on the non-appropriation principle in Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty can be observed. First, there is a view that the space law system neither affirms nor prohibits the appropriation of space resources. Second, there are views that there is a gap in the space law regime and that the Outer Space Treaty could be supplemented by the Artemis Agreement. Third, there is a neutral view that there are gaps in the space law system and that new legal norms are needed. Fourth, some interpret space law as denying the appropriation of space resources whatsoever. Fifth, there are views that point to or are based on the inconsistency of current state practice with the Outer Space Treaty and the normative framework.