Slashdot Mirror

International law requires countries to regulate the outer space activities of private companies. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article VI:

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. ...

Article VIII:

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. ...

I don't think the treaty says anything specifically about regulating communications, but it certainly establishes the principle that you don't escape national jurisdiction by leaving the planet.

Space-based weapons are illegal. Even the Chinese anti-satellite weapons are surface-based. See here , although there are some problems with enforcement.

But the countries that did ratify it (all of them) are legally bound not to recognise a nation that does claim a body in violation of the treaty

It says no such thing. Furthermore, it says:

When activities are carried on in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such an organization

So even if they weren't recognized as a state and just as an "international organization", responsibility for compliance would be borne only by the organization itself and "State Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization" (aka, none). States have no obligation to force non-member states or international organizations to comply, unless they're members of that organization.

Concerning E.11 (the part banning the claiming of space resources), states only bear responsibility for themselves and "... non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction". Again, no bearing responsibility for third parties. There's a section for international intergovernmental organizations (E.16), which states that they have to declare acceptance of the treaty for it to apply to them. There is no section on international non-governmental organizations.

Lastly:

Any State Party to the Agreement may give notice of its withdrawal from the Agreement one year afte rits entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification

Aka, even those who've signed can leave at any point, without penalty (except losing access to the benefits of treaty membership, and encouraging others to follow suit)

Space weapons aren't illegal. You just can't have orbital weapon platforms for weapons of mass destruction (think nukes).

Debatable for orbital weapons (as those under discussion) but certainly false for any stationed on an actual celestial body. Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty:

"States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited."

(Emphasis mine.)

Article XVI

Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

Just written notice and one year later you are free of the entanglements of the treaty and it's just as written into stone as the rest of the treaty. That's why having Congress pass laws like this is interesting. It provides an easily attainable alternate framework to the original treaty.

treaty that matters in friendly PDF.

Damn, that is one of the funniest posts I've seen on Slashdot for a long time. I'm going to need to use it elsewhere at some point.

treaty that matters in friendly PDF.

treaty.

No it doesn't. You can read the treaty here.

Even if the treaty expressly forbade any commercial activity, only about 100 countries have signed on to it. All you would have to do is launch and run mission control from a country that hasn't signed the treaty.

Yeah, except... nobody owns space by international treaty anyway. So if a satellite malfunctions (or a space ship collides with one), legally it's like international waters.

Articles VI and VII of The Treaty disagree.

Which - for reference - is different from the law of the sea.

Contaminating celestial bodies with terrestrial microorganisms, is against international law.
NASA tries to avoid it

In the citations is a link to the another abbreviation of the treaty here: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html I'm not going to pour over it to find you the exact article suffice to to say: States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies. harmful can be construed in many ways of course but I think it's safe to say you are harming something when you are changing the natural state of being.

I think it's time for a more international effort in space exploration. Sure, we have the International Space Station, but why not go further? Develop a UN Space agency beyond UNOOSA. Everybody involved will benefit, especially countries like Australia.

If China or India choose not to join, so be it.

There is the Moon treaty, which we never signed, and the Outer Space treaty, which we did. (Pay careful attention to Article 8 of the OST, which says that terrestrial laws apply unless you start making stuff up there. I am convinced that in the fullness of time this will be an issue.)

There have been some other, more focused, agreements as well - a complete list is here.

Actually, there are numerous space related treaties signed between nations. International lawyer with good familiarities of those treaties is probably needed in the future to deal with those affairs. See here: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/index.html

Outer space belongs to all earthlings. I believe all businesses in space must be publicly owned, and profits too. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/FAQ/splawfaq.html Space is more like a giant public park than it is like "real estate". Will there be a Beverly Hills and a Compton ghetto on the Moon and on Mars????? Will the maids live in tin cans while the rich investors have gold tooth brushes??????? Any profits made by these "wealthy investors" should be put in trust for humanity. As a final matter, all earthlings should have equal access to THEIR property, just like they do to the Grand Canyon. It is NOT to be bought or monopolized for wealthy earthlings.

There were actually plans during the cold war to put nuclear weapons on the moon and have orbiting, nuclear-armed satellites. These plans were scrapped with the adoption of the Outer Space Treaty, which affirms that "the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes."

Excerpted from http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

What I really want to know...As does alot of the world not in the united states but still grounded under it's definition of right and wrong is why can't a foreign self governing nation control its own airspace and space space. If I built a spy satellite and orbitted it over the united states I would be a terrorist and bombed in seconds. Why the difference for china?

First, as stated in the article, pretty much no one in the Department of Defense is surprised by the Chinese attempt to counter our satellites. It was bound to happen. The Russians have done it, too. Heck, the Russians shot down one of our U2's (a plane is a little more in your face, though). In fact, the Iraqis used a Russian-built system during the ground war in 2003 that was designed try to jam our GPS satellites (ironically, it was destroyed by GPS guided bombs). The DoD is not making the fuss out of this you pretend they are.

Second, no sane person debates China's or any other self-governing nation's right to control their own airspace (see above regarding the U2 piloted by Francis Gary Powers). Remember that P3 Orion that a Chinese MiG crashed into a couple years back and made an emergency landing on Chinese soil? Part of the fuss about that, and I think the reason they actually returned the plane to us without first reverse engineering every single black box inside it, is because the plane had been so careful to stay outside of Chinese airspace until it was seriously damaged in the collision.

Third, there are no claims on space. China has no "space space." The United States has no "space space." According to UN treaties and accords as well as some de facto understandings, basically once you get above that 100 km mark you are free from governance by the laws of any particular country you happen to be over.

Fourth, the United States is not the only nation that operates spy satellites. Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few others, and I assume most if not all of those orbit over the United States (ie, they are not geosynchronous). For example, I recall seeing news blurbs about the launch of military satellites by the US, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, India, France, the UK, and Israel.

Your post is completely off base and quite misleading.

According to the UN Treaty on Outer Space (also here at wikipedia), of which both China and the US are signatories, "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". So it is not "chinese space or airspace". Attacking a satellite (or blinding it) is akin to doing the same to a ship on the open seas. It is a violation on the freedom of other nations and a violation of the neutrality of space. It's just one step short of piracy or an act or war.

And BTW, other nations including China and the Soviet Union (now Russia) have been sending spy sattelites over the US for decades without the US attacking them (although we have plans to do so in time of war).

No Entity will ever own the moon -- government or corporation. Some may think it's open season. It's not.
 
[Snippage text of the 'Moon Treaty', http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/ gares_34_0068.html .]

The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military man uvres on the moon shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration and use of the moon shall also not be prohibited

1. The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. Due regard shall be paid to the interests of present and future generations as well as to the need to promote higher standards of living and conditions of economic and social progress and development in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

2. States Parties shall be guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance in all their activities concerning the exploration and use of the moon. International co-operation in pursuance of this Agreement should be as wide as possible and may take place on a multilateral basis, on a bilateral basis or through international intergovernmental organizations.