Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian, UK Law Professors Condemn Space Mining Provisions of Commercial Space Act (examiner.com)

Posted by timothy on from the who-benefits dept.

MarkWhittington writes: The Commercial Space Launch Act, which includes provisions allowing American companies the right to keep resources that they mine in space, was recently signed into law by President Barack Obama. While the act has been hailed as groundbreaking in the United States, the space mining title has gotten an angry reaction overseas. In an article in Science Alert, Gbenga Oduntan, Senior Lecturer in International Commercial Law, University of Kent, condemned the space mining provisions as environmentally risky and a violation of international law. Ram Jakhu, a professor at Canada's McGill University's Institute of air and space law, adds that space mining is a violation of the Outer Space Treaty and should not be allowed.

8 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. The treaty says no such thing. by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It prohibits the militarization and/or colonization of space. It says fuckall about what to do with any stuff we collect there. What a disingenuous asshole.

    1. Re:The treaty says no such thing. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It prohibits the militarization and/or colonization of space.

      The Outer Space Treaty does neither of these things. It prohibits offensive nuclear weapons in space, but does not prohibit conventional weapons. It does not prohibit colonization, it just prohibits exclusive territorial claims.

    2. Re:The treaty says no such thing. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when we get to that point, we'll worry about it. Heck, various nations claim chunks of Antarctica, in one way or another, and thus far it's been meaningless flag planting.

      But when we do get to the point where we can mine other bodies in the solar system, we'll have to come up with some sort of system of claims. The UN isn't going to be mining, it's going to be commercial and state players doing the mining, and we'll have to come up with a new treaty that will inevitably recognize the rights of those players to make what amount to territorial claims.

      Probably the biggest concern, in my view, is privately-owned entities making claims independent of any national or international body.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:The treaty says no such thing. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much of how one looks at this depends on your time frame. Certainly in the near (20-50 year) future, asteroid mining won't be economically practical. And for longer time periods it may never be practical. But, our ability to cast the future is very poor. If you have money to burn in the interim, you can make an argument that staking out the high ground (so to speak) is indeed economically sensible way to spend part of your (or better yet, some other poor suckers) money.

      The big question is who gets to decide about this? A couple of bored, space nutter billionaires or some law professor somewhere?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. The law is ridiculous anyway by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea that the USA - or any other nation state alone, for what its worth - could have the power to grant anyone property rights of extraterrestrial bodies is ridiculous anyway.

  3. Nope by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Meanwhile, the Moon Agreement (1979) has in effect forbidden states to conduct commercial mining on planets and asteroids until there is an international regime for such exploitation. While the US has refused to sign up to this, it is binding as customary international law"

    This guy is a specialist in international law? You didn't sign up for a treaty, but it's still binding? Sure we'll see how that goes.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  4. Re:Sigh... by MacTO · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course there are things that can be done about it, at least by a handful of superpowers back here on Earth.

    If any of those powers see this as a big enough threat (and this is a pretty big if), they have the political, economic, and military means to take action. Since there is no practical means of doing this in space, any actions would be between the nations of this world.

    At face value, I don't think that this is going to be labelled as a big threat simply because the cost of the exploitation of space is going to be prohibitive for the foreseeable future. That being said, that prohibitive cost also makes the economic exploitation of space suspect. It wouldn't surprise me if many nations see that suspect behaviour as have short or long term military objectives.

  5. ownership of an object, sovereignty over territor by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are two distinct issues here. First, the common law says that if a person harvests a wild animal, plant, or other thing, it is his to eat or otherwise use. That's about ownership of an object.

    A different, though related concept, is that the first -country- to start using some territory has a claim of sovereignty over that territory. Meaning essentially that the area becomes part of that country.

    The treaty says that -sovereignty- rules are different in space, no country can claim the moon or another planet as part of their country, by colonizing it. The treaty's Article 2 reads, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to_national_appropriation_by_claim_of_sovereignty_, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

    The treaty says that Mars wouldn't become part of the the USA if the US colonized it. It does NOT say that you can't go to Mars, pick up a rock, bring it home, and then own that rock. That's ownership of an object, not sovereignty over territory, and the treaty doesn't prohibit ownership of an object.