Slashdot Mirror
Who Owns the Moon? A Space Lawyer Answers (theconversation.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: While the legal status of the Moon as a "global commons" accessible to all countries on peaceful missions did not meet any substantial resistance or challenge, the Outer Space Treaty left further details unsettled. Contrary to the very optimistic assumptions made at the time, so far humankind has not returned to the moon since 1972, making lunar land rights largely theoretical.
That is, until a few years ago when several new plans were hatched to go back to the moon. In addition at least two U.S. companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, which have serious financial backing, have started targeting asteroids for the purpose of mining their mineral resources. Geek note: Under the aforementioned Outer Space Treaty, the moon and other celestial bodies such as asteroids, legally speaking, belong in the same basket. None of them can become the "territory" of one sovereign state or another.
The very fundamental prohibition under the Outer Space Treaty to acquire new state territory, by planting a flag or by any other means, failed to address the commercial exploitation of natural resources on the moon and other celestial bodies. This is a major debate currently raging in the international community, with no unequivocally accepted solution in sight yet. Roughly, there are two general interpretations possible. Countries such as the United States and Luxembourg (as the gateway to the European Union) agree that the moon and asteroids are "global commons," which means that each country allows its private entrepreneurs, as long as duly licensed and in compliance with other relevant rules of space law, to go out there and extract what they can, to try and make money with it. [...] On the other hand, countries such as Russia and somewhat less explicitly Brazil and Belgium hold that the moon and asteroids belong to humanity as a whole.
That is, until a few years ago when several new plans were hatched to go back to the moon. In addition at least two U.S. companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, which have serious financial backing, have started targeting asteroids for the purpose of mining their mineral resources. Geek note: Under the aforementioned Outer Space Treaty, the moon and other celestial bodies such as asteroids, legally speaking, belong in the same basket. None of them can become the "territory" of one sovereign state or another.
The very fundamental prohibition under the Outer Space Treaty to acquire new state territory, by planting a flag or by any other means, failed to address the commercial exploitation of natural resources on the moon and other celestial bodies. This is a major debate currently raging in the international community, with no unequivocally accepted solution in sight yet. Roughly, there are two general interpretations possible. Countries such as the United States and Luxembourg (as the gateway to the European Union) agree that the moon and asteroids are "global commons," which means that each country allows its private entrepreneurs, as long as duly licensed and in compliance with other relevant rules of space law, to go out there and extract what they can, to try and make money with it. [...] On the other hand, countries such as Russia and somewhat less explicitly Brazil and Belgium hold that the moon and asteroids belong to humanity as a whole.
The two possible interpretations are that they are global commons and countries can license operators to exploit them, or they belong to humanity as a whole, and we can only exploit them together.
Both have analogies back on earth, and treaties that cover these mechanisms.
Would be nice if /. had editors. They might have been able to add this information so the summary didn't just end on an incomplete thought.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
"This is a major debate currently raging in the international community"
I hear one guy even had to re-tape his coke-bottle glasses during one their debate-cum-riots
This is a purely human invented concept and really doesn't have any true, logical definition.
Really?
Find a big nasty dog that's chewing on a steak. Try to take that steak away from the dog.
Still think it's a purely human concept?
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
You time is better spent arguing with a rock. Anybody who still buys into socialism at this point in history is just unreachable by reason.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The property taxes must be out of this world!
And there is a perfect example...just ignorant of history and proud. Own your megadeaths, then talk about morality.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Might makes right, no matter what starry-eyed people say.
He can't say he wasn't warned that she's a harsh mistress.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
There are actual counts in the 20th century. It's no contest. Marxists are covered in blood, head to toe.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
> Similar to how the Embassy of any given country, within the borders of another country, is considered to be part of the Embassys' home country.
Except it isn't and never has been.
Vienna Convention: "Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission."
This is erroneously taken to mean that an embassy is foreign soil.
Most of the time the guest country doesn't even own the embassy building and just leases it (see previous US embassy in UK, which was owned by the Duke of Westminster).
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
This mental dropping was modded to "5: insightful"? Anyone who doesn't recognize that most of the developed world -- including the United States -- has elements of socialism is someone who doesn't know history, economics, politics, and may be unreachable by reason.
Are there now brigades on Slashdot hell bent on voting up people promoting a certain message, regardless of how poorly it's made?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I think the real question is "Is owning the moon worth fighting a war over". Doubtless this is where any such claim would immediately lead.
Of *course* the Moon and everyplace will developed individually...some by corporations, some by alliances, some by new nation states as we expand out into the solar system. I expect a wild and wooly mix, and that's okay.
This silliness that "everything is owned by the common group called Mankind" will last until about 10 minutes after the first mining ship arrives to bring back a load of gold or something.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Frankly, I dont see how anyone can claim to own it (government or otherwise) which hasn't claimed it. Governments get their power through the citizenry they govern, not through some mystical power bestowed on them. I don't see how Brazil or Belgium have the right what other people do with things that are not Brazil's or Belgium's? The moon certainly isn't, nor are far off asteroids. If you want something, get there and claim it. If someone invades, and wants it for themselves, then you either have to have the means to defend it (which, lets be honest; if you are mining on the moon, you probably have the means to), or establish treaties with those who do.
The moon is no different than an island, its just the ocean that has changed. In the old days, when new islands were found, they were ruled by the people who found them (think of Hawaii). If you didn't have the means to defend yourselves against someone else who wanted it, you lost that right (again, think of Hawaii).
I will have a party on the moon, best of luck stopping me.