U.S. space policy: An international model.

Abstract

In their Policy Forum “U.S. policy puts the safe development of space at risk” (9 October, p. 174), A. Boley and M. Byers paint an inaccurate picture of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Artemis program and the agreements (the so-called Artemis Accords) that NASA is using to partner with other countries in this historic mission. In contrast to the authors' claims, the Artemis Accords are not intended to supplant the need for an international agreement on the issue of space resource activity. The United States has raised no objections to the scheduled “general exchange of views” regarding space resource activity in the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space ([ 1 ][1]). Moreover, the U.S. government actively encouraged the work of the Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group, which recently completed their work creating “building blocks” for a future international framework to regulate this new activity ([ 2 ][2]). In fact, many of the concepts in the Artemis Accords have their roots in the discussions of the Hague Working Group. This allegation of unilateralism is particularly unfair given that a primary purpose of the Artemis Accords is to ensure that this historic mission is carried out by a coalition of international partners who explicitly commit to comply with the existing principles of international law. Boley and Byers imply that NASA intends to unilaterally create “safety zones” around their areas of activity that will effectively “exclude other actors.” The safety zones proposed by NASA do no such thing. The Outer Space Treaty clearly protects the right of all space actors to enjoy free access to all parts of the Moon. Creating keep-out zones (areas to which other countries are prohibited entry) would be a patent violation of the treaty, and this is not the intent or the effect of the proposed safety zones (nor will NASA be the “gatekeeper” of the Moon, as the authors suggest). The safety zones are purely informational in order to permit other actors on the surface of the Moon to properly discharge their duty to act with “due regard to the corresponding interests” ([ 3 ][3]) of other actors under the Outer Space Treaty and avoid harmful interference with existing activities. NASA has no right to create keep-out zones and has no intention of doing so. NASA is not trying to “redirect international space cooperation in favor of short-term U.S. commercial interests.” Rather, NASA is working to ensure that the Artemis Program becomes a model of international cooperation that is carried out with strict adherence to international law. NASA is fully supportive of UN initiatives to explore the possibility of new law governing lunar activity, but the UN process will likely take a decade or more to produce an agreement of any significance. In the meantime, NASA is moving forward by building a team of international partners who, through the Artemis Accords, promise to observe existing space law as a condition of joining the venture. This is how responsible space actors behave. 1. [↵][4]Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Legal Subcommittee, Fifty-Ninth Session, Annotated Provisional Agenda, A/AC.105/C.2/L.312/Rev.1 (2020), p. 3. 2. [↵][5]1. O. de O. Bittencourt Neto et al ., Eds., Building Blocks for the Development of an International Framework for the Governance of Space Resource Activities (2020), p. 111; . 3. [↵][6]“United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space” (United Nations, New York, 2002), p. 6. M.J.S. is a member of the NASA Regulatory and Policy Advisory Committee. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [6]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text