E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA file
An artist's conception shows a mining operation on a near-Earth asteroid.
If private ventures start building settlements and factories on the moon, on Mars or on asteroids, someone may also have to build a new legal framework for the exploitation of those extraterrestrial resources. Experts on both sides of the debate over property rights on other worlds agree that the current rules may not cover the challenges that could crop up on other worlds.
But should that take the form of legislation on a nation-by-nation basis, or a new international code of conduct? For now, the question is theoretical. But this month's debate over measures such as the 45-year-old Outer Space Treaty and the proposed Space Settlement Prize Act may mark one small step toward a giant leap in off-world commerce.
Earlier this week, we discussed the idea of using a perceived "loophole" in the Outer Space Treaty that could allow the United States to recognize the property rights of private parties on other worlds. Since then, I've gotten in touch with Tanja Masson-Zwaan, the president of the International Institute of Space Law, and now I've heard the other side of the argument.
Masson-Zwaan told me trying to get around the 1967 treaty is "not the solution."
"Things have to be agreed on an international level," she said. "I don't think that the treaty has any kind of 'loophole.'"
The idea behind the Space Settlement Prize Act is that the Outer Space Treaty bars its signatories, including the United States, from asserting sovereignty over other worlds, but may not bar them from recognizing claims made by private parties. The act's backers note that a follow-on treaty, drawn up in 1979 and known as the Moon Treaty, specifically bans private property claims — and note that the United States is not a party to that particular pact.
Wouldn't that imply that the United States still has a free hand on private property claims? Masson-Zwaan says no. She says the private-property angle is addressed by the Outer Space Treaty, and merely reiterated in the later Moon Treaty. "It's often so in treaties," she said.
The key to her argument is that Article 2 of the 1967 treaty holds nations responsible for the extraterrestrial activities of their citizens. And it's not just her arguing that. This is the view of other legal experts, including TechFreedom's James Dunstan. (Masson-Zwaan said Dunstan's comments were "quite well worded.") What's more, it's been the stated view of the U.S. government. In 2003, a State Department official cited Article 2 in turning back a claim for parking and storage fees relating to NASA's NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft on the asteroid Eros.
A later ruling in federal court rejected the claim on different grounds, saying that the claimant failed to show any property interest in Eros. Would the outcome have been different if someone landed a robotic probe on Eros, and then commanded it to put down stakes and build a homestead? What if you had actual human homesteaders working and living on Eros? Should there be a law to recognize the settlers as property owners?
"If America would make such a law, then any country would do the same," Masson-Zwaan said. And that could lead to the kind of interplanetary discord the Outer Space Treaty was designed to avoid. She pointed to statements issued by her institute in 2004 and in 2009 to back up her point.
Masson-Zwaan acknowledges that the current treaty is not perfect. "More rules are needed," she said, "but I am also of the opinion that you do not need to create property rights." She points to the example of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which set up procedures for deep-sea mining licenses. (The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which commissioned this month's white paper on the Space Settlement Prize Act, has called the Law of the Sea Treaty "a bad deal for America.")
Right now, the outer-space property debate is a theoretical blue-sky extension of the globalism-vs.-libertarianism debate that runs through so many issues here on Earth. But if private ventures start putting rovers on the moon, or start sending mining machines to near-Earth asteroids, the debate could get much less theoretical. Feel free to re-read Monday's item on the outer-space "loophole," and then register your opinion in the poll above and/or the comment space below.
More about space settlement:
- Could lunar real estate spark a future war?
- Colonies on the moon? It's not a loony idea
- Will China take over the moon?
- Russia wants to build moon colonies
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Logcommunity by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
we have more fields for wars
The UN should really handle the property rights treaty instead of one nation but something should be done sooner than much much later. Supposed a company decides to mine an asteroid with tons of gold and rare-earth elements. Could they claim the whole thing? Could another country start mining right next to them or just take their operation? Not that this will happen too quickly but at some point it is likely to happen. Also, once a company steps into space they really could establish their own laws, which is very likely what will happen because they will ultimately control life and death.
Two very key points were missed by the space law experts: first, the Outer Space Treaty in no way bans private, financial use of space bodies. Secondly, the big debate has been about ownership, but you don't even need ownership for private, commercial use! The situation would be quite analogous to mining rights granted on public lands. The mining companies have the right to extract even valuable minerals from the ground but they still do not own the land.
I do agree however, that as a practical matter such private use claims would have to be granted by an international agency.
Bob Clark
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in
the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies.
They should let opposing property owners robotics fight it out on the asteroids , moon , mars ect. , just for kicks ....
I really think it's a bit premature to even worry about now ....
We really have all what we need to sustain our lives right here ....
There is nothing on or in , anything in space that we know of yet , that could justify the immense cost of mining it ....
It's good to study samples though , but mining , no way ....
Thanks Alan ....
OMG ! Now here this b.s come on top of all the crap the world is taking man wants to own space I,m lmao !
Defacto. Period. everyone just wants press and some fancy lawyers are looking for some early cash!! The world court really is the one who settles international disputes....that is a natural given...sure the un wants a say in this debate, and some taxing authority no doubt...but, it is a defacto matter...what ya gonna do when china starts sucking up all the lithium, gold and platinum and begins vacuuming up the he3?? NOTHING!!!...ya just ain't there!!!...which is exactly why I say mitt can go to hell, it isn't his interest, he threw a zillion bucks at three elections for himself, not to protect the interests of us space entrepenours!!...and who says any of it is mine??...but if I get there WHO SAYS ANY OF IT AINT??...LIP SERVICE?? what ya gonna do? shoot down my version of the 1701C??? Even the mere suggestion gives me credence to include hi power lasers for defence, as opposed to astrerioid deterrence....as for robotics, it don't matter where the oversized r'c cars are, intl court is gonna rule they belong to the owners, even if they were north korean!!!!..common sense is what prevails in the long run, in the short run it's straight up defacto. period. As for resources, ditto, before long someone is going to buy a bigelow type greenhouse, drop near mares, and start generating o2 or h2o or what have you, with tomatoes or the like as a by product, perhaps for a robotic return mission fuel source, perhaps for sandbagged supplies for an eventual earth team....as for gravity...the first shelters will be natural, the later shelters will spin and later, well we have to wait. I for one think what you saw in 2001 by kubrick is closer than what nasa has on the boards right now...I blame that on politicians, selfish americans that can't stay for the long term investment and just plain out idiots throughout the world....china was touched by our vision back in the seventies, so go ahead, just elect another repub, all our wars were started by them (us, in my case, I am a repub...but very leary of some of em)...fight for peace and a science, else, learn chinese, like INTEL.
I am stlll reading the comment from the last story, It got buried before I could get to it last week!!, the log needs an easier way of finding old stories...
You only have the property rights you are capable of enforcing. In other words, whoever can exert the most power on the spot gets to determine the rules. Treaties of nations hundreds of thousands (or millions) of miles away are irrelevant.
Where is the United Federation of Planets when you need them?
Do you think they really say anything about how its members utilize resources within their own systems?
Any business man with any savvy could/can find loopholes, I've just thought one up myself(& I'm NO genius). Just become a citizen of any country that HASN'T signed the treaty!! BAM!! and DONE!! Ray and John's comments are valid also, You ain't out here to stop me!! :)--S--
ewwwww the * $um Thing Ruler$ * are at it again
thinks these LAWYERS need to drop off a *LETTER OF AGREEMENT of ALLOWABILITY* on each one of these PLANETS and NOT UNTIL a WRITTEN and WITNESSED Signature from that PLANET'S RULER be accepted!
oh and since Modern TECHNOLOGY of Earthling SATELLITES are orbiting in *Inter-Planetary SPACE*, perhaps there first needs to be that SIGNED *TREATY* of HOW FAR Earth $hips are allowed to penetrate into another PLANET'S SPACE
LET the SIGNING go VIRAL on VIDEO too!
Cause not one of them LYING TREATY PAPER$ have been honored in 500 years on this Continent aka U$A TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the U$A comes forth and tells the World WHY an Earth Treaty can't be kept
THEN the true ANSWER to *OUTER SPACE TREATIES* will be answered!
lol would love to see the U$A give world that ANSWER!
How does it feel to be off your meds?
Unless GBTYH has knowledge that we don't, none of the other planets in this solar system have rulers, so his entire rant is pointless.
Of course, John Carter of Virginia is Jeddak of Jeddaks and Warlord of Barsoom, but breaking a treaty with him would not be smart, assuming he would sign one in the first place.
;-)
Yes indeed, the moon and all other heavenly bodies in our solar system, are real estate. Property rights will belong to those who go there and who possess the power to enforce their rights. This is why it is long past time to have this discussion and sort these things out BEFORE they become a crisis. The 1967 treaty was always a bad idea and the US and all other signatories should reject it out of hand. A better treaty would clearly define a workable pathway to establish ownership of this valuable real estate in a way that will encourage commercial development of resources by means of private enterprise.
speaking in galactic terms didn't we just go through this yesterday ??. 500 hundred years ago the new frontier opened up which led to the genocide of millions of humans & rape the the natural resources of the land. Didn't we learn anything?? The humans that do get there, live there, put their lives on the line should decided how this plays out. Until then it's the multi national corporations who decides how this plays out. I know this sounds evil, but they pay the bills. Until as a society we decide to put fourth a concerted effort to live and colonize in these place it's only the lawyers who reap the bounty. Send all the lawyers to the moon.
The danger is that some people think they can claim the entire celestial body because they landed there first. If you land in the best solar energy spot in the north, the next logical spot is the best solar energy spot in the south. Then it gets more complicated. The next claim needs to be as far away as possible, which would be on the equator. Then the next spot on the opposite side. Such a binary progression, halving the distance between the claims would be simple and easy to enforce. It may seem to favor the first lander but why shouldn't it. Expansion of the actually occupied/utilized space would move the calculated points for the halving. Existing tenants could establish a claim of up to half the distance to the next nearest tenant and create an oval or shape determined by the size of each location. A second claim beyond the halving distance would be subject to the rules of a new claim, A claim would need to have an active operation in place to be considered valid. Travel time to and from earth plus a few years for staging the next mission being the time allowed for continuous activity. Pretty simple, although not as efficient for resource development.
"The danger is that some people think they can claim the entire celestial body because they landed there first."
That's simply not true.
Very interesting conversation on how do this right. In the end, I am afraid the rule of force will prevail. This is how our race does things. I think the so called colonial period of the Americas will be a likely template for what to expect. Earthbound sanctions might have some effect on countries/companies that won't play nice, but anyone with the resources to set up shop in space may be above control. Another great reason to keep our space program strong.
Laws and more laws. Big government and we are not even there yet. Besides, John Carter, I think, is right.
You only have the property rights you are capable of enforcing. In other words, whoever can exert the most power on the spot gets to determine the rules. Treaties of nations hundreds of thousands (or millions) of miles away are irrelevant.
History has already proven that. Ask the Greeks, Romans, and the English.
First come, first served...
though I would suggest to any government who's citizens are doing this to charge a "tariff" tax on any imported celestial ore and minerals...
The revenues to be used...how?
There is also the theological way of looking at this.
Finding a gold asteroid might be shiny, but it would simply drop the price of gold. It wouldn’t make the planet richer. Value comes from how useful we are to each other. Wealth comes from how we deny that value to others and keep it to ourselves.
Lots of 'wealthy' corporations and big government out there. How does the common person get in on this?
We should have become a space faring species starting in the 60s, we are only about 50 years behind where we already should be, pitiful. Also, its thought that a star collapsed in on itself and the only material left behind was pure carbon, and under such immense pressure it should have become a diamond weighing trillions of tons, we should harvest that thing!
Dibs on Saturn!
Unbelievable. The idea that you would ban private property in space, let alone give a fig what the UN or the US or any other terran power thinks on the matter has got to be stupidest space idea since Newt's trillion dollar moon colony pipe dream.
How did not recognizing property rights work out for the Pilgrims? [They nearly starved until they changed the rules to permit private farming]
How did it work for the Communists? [110 million dead]
How stupid are people that think that wars are somehow related to property, as opposed to competing interests, which you can't outlaw.
Property is merely what an individual or group has the power to acquire and control. There is no doubt that people are going to make claims on resources in outer space and that they are going to maim and kill anyone who infringes on those claims. Way of the world.