Moon Agreement Research Articles

Partial Ownership for Outer Space Resources

The most widely adopted agreement on space law, the Outer Space Treaty (OST) (1967), actively promotes international partnerships and peaceful uses of outer space. It also forbids any claims of sovereignty or private property on celestial bodies; however, nothing is explicitly written about the use of resources that can be found there. Other texts, like the Moon Agreement (1979), attempted to extend provisions on this regard, but only 18 nations ratified this agreement, probably because it also contains obligations that remove all incentives for the private industry to participate in the exploitation of outer space resources, such as the obligation to disclose all discoveries and share the benefits between all state parties. Today, most missions are scientific, so there is no need to compete for using space resources. If tomorrow society wants to incentivize participation, and leverage the available funds, from the private sector to explore and exploit outer space, an allocation mechanism that allows to dispute the use of resources needs to be set up. On Earth, this is achieved by the private property system and commercial competition. However, private property is not allowed by the OST, because it has a right of exclusion, and everyone shall be free to use space resources if it does not interfere with activities of other nations. An exclusivity of use for the first nation to exploit a given resource is not desired either and is precisely why the OST was established in the first place. In full compliance with the OST, this paper introduces the concept of Partial Ownership of Outer Space Resources (POOSR). This system allows to compete for the use of resources, without granting monopoly, as it always keeps the competition for ownership open. It is based on the introduction of a Harberger tax and a Partial Ownership system, that allows to expose commonly-owned resources (such as outer space asteroids, or planetary surface areas) to the efficiency of allocation provided by market dynamics, while preserving the incentives for investment to the current owners and preventing resource locking. This paper shows how such system would foster investments from private entities, as well as how it would benefit to all the international entities or nations participating to it. The synergy between such system, international regulations, and national laws, to establish a regulation for space mining and other outer space activities is also discussed.

‘Bringing a Piece of Moon to Your Honey’: The Legal Challenges Relating to Mining of the Lunar Resources

Humankind has made significant progress with regard to understanding the outer space and how it can be beneficial for the entire species. With the rapid increase of private players across the world, it is essential that the international space law community designs apt instruments to address the challenges that we may have to confront in the future. The Outer Space Treaty has played an extremely crucial role in ensuring that outer space is used for the benefit of humankind, but one area which still lacks a strong framework relates to the Moon. The Moon Agreement has still not been signed by some of the most significant space-faring nations, making it one of the few international tools which have ‘failed’ this spectacularly. The aim of this research paper is to throw light on the history behind the Moon Agreement and discuss the controversial provisions which discouraged several powerful countries from signing this international instrument. Section 1 of this Essay explores the relevant provisions contained in the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement, while Section 2 considers the analogous provisions stipulated in the Law of the Sea Convention and the Antarctic Treaty. The final section provides concluding remarks and suggestions.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON SPACE TOURISM IMPLEMENTATION

As space tourism related technology breakthrough, the outlook of mining activities having in space moves spacious to being a fact but it should develop in consent with international law, because the issue of space is a deal of international pointing, since space pointing as explorer zone by humanity. The significant guiding instruments in international space law in relating to space tourism industry are Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, that entered into force on 10 October 1967; Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, entered into force on 11 July 1984. These international treaties mainly condition to the states the freedom on exploration and using space, but at the same time do not consider national appropriation of it. The work also proposes European legislation that is applicable to space tourism. The main attention is given to the Treaty of Lisbon. But during the studying the author proposed the opinion that it can’t be acceptable to space tourism, since it does not directly or even indirectly indicate it. Although it may be applicable as such, due to the lack of appropriate specific acts in the field of space travel. However, this act is recommended as a fundamental basis for further international development of the law on space tourism, as it directly deals with space activities, so it can serve as a guide. The study also doesn’t lose sight of US law, since space tourism increase by US entities through activities with travel destination for the mass. Research show that US have national law instrument for US enforcement in space sphere, besides grants property rights to companies to conduct actions on own risks in space with traveler issue as well and opening it to the mass. Thus interprets the freedom enshrined in the UN space acts at its own expense. However, Outer Space Treaty is not consistent in light of the freedom issue in exploration and it interprets the liberty broadly, but the interdiction narrowly. Due to that, research reaches that current space related legislation regime would let for space journey to develop but not in the path the text of former domestic laws propose. Attention is also drawn to the social meaning consideration for further law implementation. This research examines the emerging role of social data in the context of highlighting law necessity to provide properly advanced international legal act on flights to the space with tourists on a spacecraft. Since, space tourism may affect international law. The findings indicate that social awareness due to geographical indicator could improve current situation in legal regulation of space tourism at risk of international law gap. What is now needed is a cross – national international law study involving law researchers on space tourism issue. An implication of these findings is that both social position and space flights with traveler purpose should be taken into account when international law – maker communityable to implement legal acts about understanding issues on entitlement and | or restriction of space activity as space journey. The unborn looking enterprises concerned in mining outer space a goods are working on protracted timelines on focus with society’s modern needs. The major point of this article is the explanation of the ban on national allocation, as only being a veto on state appropriation. Under the presumption that exegesis would be a violation of the sense society needs, not states as along. In folding on their own the arrangements to dominate objects beyond the competency of any single state, the US is obtaining a step back out of the international community. This will not be a advantage for the interests of nations though. But nevertheless, the author explains this by the fact that such a national privilege is associated with the direct growth of private activity, which required regulation, because at the international level there is no adoption of any specific acts in this area. In order space tourism open-up affect, for commercial companies necessary the potential to gain reasonable benefits and a stable legal setting [1]. Substitute option to the unilateral implementation of a legal base, and one that would sustain law confidence both domestically and internationally, is the modernization of an international regime for the stewardship of space excavation functioning as transmitted in Article 11 of the Moon Agreement. International law does not aid the unilateral provision of rights to conduct over outer space by states to an individual way, or through private corporation and should be accordingly to interpretations of the UN Space Acts disregard the common heritage of mankind. Such would have the prospect to ensure space tourism doesn’t fair bring individual profits, but betters of humanity.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON SPACE TOURISM IMPLEMENTATION

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON SPACE TOURISM IMPLEMENTATION

The Relationship Between the Outer Space Treaty and Customary International Law

The progress in space-related science and technology has facilitated an exponential expansion of space activities, many of which were not known at the time of adoption of currently applicable international space treaties. Yet, since the adoption of the 1979 Moon Agreement, the further development of international conventional space law has all but ceased. International geopolitics, rapid technological advancement, and the increasingly commercially competitive nature of space activities have all contributed to a move away from the establishment of treaty-based rules towards ‘soft-law’ guidelines that are expressed to reflect practice. It has been argued that some principles included in the United Nations space law treaties have gained the status of customary international law. A new rule of customary international law emerges only after sufficient state practice and opinio juris and is said by some to be capable of amending and/or invalidating certain provision(s) of a treaty, or contributing towards a revised interpretation of the legal obligations under a treaty. When a treaty provision either crystallizes into, or becomes a customary rule of international law, it may give rise to binding obligations (and corresponding rights) upon a third (non-treaty party) state. This paper will examine this issue in the context of Articles I, II, VI and VII of the Outer Space Treaty, focusing in particular upon their (in)applicability to those states that have never been, or are no longer parties to the Outer Space Treaty, with respect to off-Earth mining activities for space natural resources.

Common Heritage of Mankind for Outer Space

ABSTRACTThe paper examines the intention of the drafters of the Outer Space Treaty regime to advance from the principle of “common province of mankind” and adopt “Common Heritage of Mankind”. In this context, the drafting history of the Moon Agreement, which helps discern the meanings ascribed to Common Heritage of Mankind by various countries, is considered. Moreover, the usage of the term in other realms, such as the deep seabed regime and Antarctica, is essential to understand the concept. The introduction of Common Heritage of Mankind in the United Nations Law of the Sea led to various industrialized developed countries, including the United States, to oppose the law. Hence, the approach was diluted to ensure it converts into a more liberal condition that does not enforce strict mandates on parties to the Law of the Sea. A similar view of states exists with respect to the Moon Agreement resulting to date in only 17 ratifications by states with no spacefaring states among them. Consequently, most states argue that the Common Heritage of Mankind principle in the Moon Agreement is not applicable due to not being party to the agreement. It is also argued that since there is no state practice suggesting opinion juris regarding Common Heritage of Mankind, it is not part of customary international law. The non-inclusion of the principle as a customary norm makes the relevance of Common Heritage of Mankind in the present world debatable and uncertain.

Reviewing the Moon Agreement or Amending the Outer Space Treaty?

In the context of global energy crises related to the traditional energy sources, as well as in connection with modern challenges and threats caused by the instability of the world energy markets, there is a necessity to expand and use the objects of energy complex that use renewable energy sources like solar energy.Such energy usage can be a reason for different interstate disputes due to the uncertainty in international legal regimes of space energy sources under international space law. Firstly, there is no legal definition of “space resource.” Secondly, the current international space treaties contain only basic principles and norms for regulating this kind of space activity. Finally, there could be many issues related to the responsibility and liability for such a new kind of space activity. This paper will be devoted to the issues mentioned above and to other questions related to this problem.

The Palgrave Handbook of Society, Culture, and Outer Space

The Palgrave Handbook of Society, Culture, and Outer Space

РЕАЛИЗАЦИЯ МЯГКОГО ПРАВА В КОНТЕКСТЕ «ПРИНЦИПОВ, КАСАЮЩИХСЯ ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЯ ЯДЕРНЫХ ИСТОЧНИКОВ ЭНЕРГИИ В КОСМИЧЕСКОМ ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ»: ПРАКТИКА РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ, США И ГОСУДАРСТВ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СОЮЗА

Nowadays one of the most significant discussions in the international public law relates to the concept and the role of “soft law”. Some researchers assert the point of view of existence of such law, others consider that it is a new source of public international law However, different approaches don’t exclude the basic char-acteristics of soft law that is a non-binding nature and a streamlines process of drafting. Because of this situation, Member-States of public international organizations tend to use soft law as a pragmatic way of organizing interactions among sovereign states the in case of difficulties to pass unified international treaty. This article argues that similar practices also exist in international space law. Since the entry in force of the Moon Agreement in 1979, the Member States of UN COPUOS have not passed any additional international space treaties. Instead, they have found a solution for new chal-lenges: drafting and accepting soft law acts like UN General Assembly Resolutions (hereinafter GA Resolutions) and others. While GA Resolutions are not legally binding, States can transform them into national legislations and doing so they will have to be responsible for certain space activities which have not been regulated internationally yet. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview on the establishment of soft law as a new source of international space law by analyzing and comparing state practice in Russia, the USA and in several Member States of the European Union (EU). The emphasis will be made on the transformation of provisions of the UN General Assembly Resolution “Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Pow-er Sources in Outer Space” (hereinafter the NPS Principles) as nuclear power sources in outer space should be based on a thorough safety assessment. The article starts by a short overview of the concept of “soft law” and the resolutions produced by UN COPUOS. Then it will go on to the main three parts besides conclusion. The first chapter gives a brief overview of the drafting history of the NPS Principles and the second deals with activities of UN COPUOS and IAEA on the matter of nuclear power sources use in outer space. The last chapter pre-sents several case studies focusing on the following questions which provisions of NPS Principles have been implemented into national legislative system, what is the novel and what are the differences among the various national law instruments in these countries.

Космическое пространство и общее наследие человечества: вызовы и решения

The purpose of this research is to provide a comprehensive international legal analysis of the concept of common heritage of mankind as it exists in international space law. In this article scientific methodological approach was used which facilitate determination the whole canvas of the research, identify the main aspects and concepts of the study. The author also widely investigated the concept of common heritage of mankind in the practice of States and international organizations and bodies. Since mankind succeeded to access outer space and opened the window of this infinite realm, the effort was made to systematize spatial activities by codification and adoption numerous international treaties and declarations. One of the significant result of these efforts was the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies that adopted by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space by consensus on 5 December 1979, declares the Moon and other celestial bodies to be the common heritage of mankind. This Agreement has never been ratified by any State that engaged in self-launched manned space exploration or has plans to do so and thus has an insignificant effect on spatial activities. This article analysis the concept of common heritage of mankind that consists of five elements: non-appropriation, international management of resources, sharing of financial and technological benefits, reservation for peaceful purposes and reservation for further generations. It is shown that the Moon Agreement applying the concept of common heritage of mankind to outer space, Moon and other celestial bodies which has been presented by developing countries to preserve essential resources, always been associated with some problems. Also, on the one hand, there is an attempt to scrutinize these obstacles that prevent applying this concept by paying attention to its challenges. On the other hand, author presents some solutions to strengthen this concept in outer space legal system and motivate space powers to join the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

Space – The Final Frontier: Analysing Challenges of Dispute Resolution Relating to Outer Space

The development of outer space law at an international level has arguably stagnated after the Moon Agreement in 1979. With the rise in private space activities from the end of the twentieth century, a robust framework for dispute resolution has become an increasingly vital necessity in the space law regime. Scholars have theorized several schemes for settlement of disputes such as consultative alternative dispute resolution, a tribunal for the settlement of space law disputes, a multi-door courthouse and so on, but very few concepts have transformed into operable mechanisms. In space law at the international level, diplomatic consultation, claims commission under the Liability Convention, the International Court of Justice and, in support of arbitration, the rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration for the Settlement of Disputes relating to Outer Space 2012 remain the only existing viable mechanisms. The article evaluates all these forums for dispute settlement to demonstrate their inadequacies. Thereafter, having identified its long-term limitations, the article seeks to justify a multi-tiered arbitration clause as an effective means of settlement of disputes relating to outer space.

Relaunching the Moon Agreement

Recent developments in space exploration indicate that the exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies is about to become feasible. The Moon Agreement provides the best available option for mankind, states and industry to develop space mineral resources in a harmonious way. To rekindle interest in the Moon Agreement, parties have issued a joint statement on the benefits of adherence to it and are elaborating a joint declaration on the exploitation of space mineral resources.

Beyond the Moon Agreement: Norms of responsible behavior for private sector activities on the moon and celestial bodies

The 1979 Moon Agreement was conceived as a way to help manage one of the expected outcomes of expanded activities on the Moon: exploitation of its natural resources. However, the fifth of the international space treaties elaborated in the early stages of the Space Age failed to receive widespread acceptance. Persisting polarization about key provisions in the Agreement hampers its success in the near future. This article examines the legacy of the Moon Agreement from a policy perspective by identifying key principles that are poised to resurface in the near future with the advent of new actors in space, especially the private sector. It argues that the development of norms of behavior together with national regulation and legislation represent the most promising way to engage established and emerging space actors in ensuring responsible behavior beyond Earth orbit.

Property Rights in Space

This Note will discuss why maintaining the status quo, while waiting for the technology to mature, will encourage development and strengthen the industry before being smothered by laws and regulations promulgated by parties who may have conflicts of interest. This Note will first explain why scientists are attempting to mine asteroids. It will then examine the rules that apply, including the two main space treaties (the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty), the modern view of the court, and the history of deep-sea mining. Finally, this Note will apply the treaties to modern plans being developed to harvest an asteroid.

Extraterrestrial environmental impact assessments – A foreseeable prerequisite for wise decisions regarding outer space exploration, research and development

Although existing international instruments such as the Outer Space Treaty and Moon Agreement generally express sentiments for minimizing missions' extraterrestrial environmental impacts, they tend to be limited in scope, vague and generally unenforceable. There is no formal structure for assessing how and to what extent we affect those environments, no opportunity for public participation, no uniform protocol for documenting and registering the effects of our actions and no requirement to mitigate adverse impacts or take them into consideration in the decision-making process. Except for precautions limiting forward biological contamination and issues related to Earth satellites, environmental impact analysis, when done at all, remains focused on how missions affect the Earth and near-Earth environments, not how our actions affect the Moon, Mars, Europa, comets and other potential destinations. Extraterrestrial environmental impacts are potentially counterproductive to future space exploration, exploitation and scientific investigations. Clear, consistent and effective international protocols guiding a process for assessing such impacts are warranted. While instruments such as the US National Environmental Policy Act provide legally tested and efficient regulatory models that can guide impact assessment here on Earth, statutory legal frameworks may not work as well in the international environment of outer space. A proposal for industry-driven standards and an environmental code of conduct based, in part, on best management practices are offered for consideration.

Beyond the Moon Agreement: Norms of responsible behavior for private sector activities on the Moon and celestial bodies

The 1979 Moon Agreement was conceived as a way to help manage one of the expected outcomes of expanded activities on the Moon: exploitation of its natural resources. However, the fifth of the international space treaties elaborated in the early stages of the Space Age failed to receive widespread acceptance. Persisting polarization about key provisions in the Agreement hampers its success in the near future. This article examines the legacy of the Moon Agreement from a policy perspective by identifying key principles that are poised to resurface in the near future with the advent of new actors in space, especially the private sector. It argues that the development of norms of behavior together with national regulation and legislation represent the most promising way to engage established and emerging space actors in ensuring responsible behavior beyond Earth orbit.

Mining the Moon: Is Intelsat a Useful Model for Exploitation of Lunar Resources?

By 2050 human energy needs are expected to increase eightfold over current consumption. Meanwhile, current major sources of energy are depleting and harming the Earth’s environment. Clearly, a new source of energy is needed.Over the last two decades, scientists have made great strides developing nuclear fusion, a method of producing massive amounts of energy that, unlike nuclear fission, leaves almost no radioactive waste. Unfortunately, an important fuel for nuclear fusion, helium-3 (He-3), is almost non-existent on Earth. On the Moon, however, He-3 exists in immense quantities. In the richest areas of the lunar surface, just twenty square kilometers contains enough He-3 to supply a city of ten million people with a year’s worth of electricity. Many of these areas contain approximately $3.5 trillion of total recoverable He-3. But how can we recover this valuable energy source? This paper will analyze whether a lunar mining effort could be modeled after the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT). The first part will explain the INTELSAT model and its potential application to lunar mining. The second part will argue that neither the Outer Space Treaty nor the Moon Treaty would prohibit a lunar mining effort. The third part will discuss whether another INTELSAT-type organization would attract sufficient international support in today’s geopolitical climate.

Governing the Final Frontier: A Polycentric Approach to Managing Space Weaponization and Debris

Effective space governance has become increasingly important to spacefaring and non-spacefaring powers alike given the interrelated problems of space weaponization and debris management, but thus far the applicable legal regimes remain amorphous and outdated. For example, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) establishes space as being free from national appropriation, while setting out certain property rights. But legal ambiguities persist, such as regarding what weapons are permitted in space since the military use of space has not been forbidden, only the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit and the establishment of military bases on the moon or other celestial bodies. Consensus has been difficult to build since the failure of the Moon Treaty limiting the effectiveness of the United Nations that has been central to the development of space law. As a result, polycentric regulation is increasingly been undertaken at multiple levels. This move away from the United Nations is accelerating resulting in the potential fragmentation of governance, which has been brought about at least in part by resistance to the Common Heritage of Mankind concept in the Moon Treaty. It is critical to assess whether polycentric action is addressing the outstanding security and environmental issues in outer space, including space weaponization and junk. Significant scholarly attention has not been paid to the evolution of space law in this manner, nor holistically comparing the changes in space law to what is transpiring in the rest of the global commons, including the atmosphere.

Governing the Final Frontier: A Polycentric Approach to Managing Space Weaponization and Orbital Debris

Effective space governance has become increasingly important to spacefaring and non-spacefaring powers given the interrelated problems of space weaponization and orbital debris, but thus far the applicable frameworks remain limited and outdated. For example, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) establishes space as being free from national appropriation, while setting out certain property rights. But legal ambiguities persist, such as regarding what weapons are permitted in space since the military use of space has not been forbidden, only the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit and the establishment of military bases on the moon or other celestial bodies. Consensus has been difficult to build since the failure of the Moon Treaty thereby limiting the effectiveness of the United Nations that had been so central to the development of space law. As a result, polycentric regulation is increasingly been undertaken. This move away from the United Nations is accelerating resulting in the potential fragmentation of governance, which has been brought about at least in part by the resistance to the Common Heritage of Mankind concept in the Moon Treaty. It is critical to assess whether such polycentric action is addressing the outstanding security and environmental issues in outer space, including space weaponization and junk. Significant scholarly attention has not been paid to the evolution of space law in this manner, nor holistically comparing the changes in space law to what is transpiring in the rest of the global commons, including the atmosphere.

The Moon Agreement in the 21st century

Forty years after the Promethean achievement of Apollo 11, the major space-faring nations are showing a renewed interest in missions to the Moon. While in the 1960s, in the context of the Cold War, the decision to land humans on the Moon was perceived as a strategic political instrument between the two blocs, now in the 21st century, a considerably increased number of space actors complicate the scene with multiple sectorial and national interests. Security still predominates, although economic considerations also play an increasing role. The commercialisation and privatisation of space activities leads to new challenges which raise the issue of the role of the international legal framework. In this context, the Agreement Governing the Activities of the States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1979 (known as the Moon Agreement) should be able to play a relevant role. There are several political and legal questions that arise for discussion. At its forty-sixth session, the Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) decided to include a discussion on the activities, which are being or to be carried out on the Moon and other celestial bodies in the forty-seventh session of the Subcommittee in 2008. A joint statement by some State Parties to the Agreement addresses questions raised during these discussions.