The conversation
Who owns the moon? A space lawyer answers
Edwin E. ‘Buzz’ Aldrin Jr. set for a photo next to the American flag that was deployed on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission on July 20, 1969. Neil A. Armstrong / NASA / AP Photo This is probably the most famous picture of a flag ever taken: Buzz Aldrin stands next to the first American flag planted on the moon. For those who knew their world history, it also sounded alarm bells. Only less than a century ago, back on earth, a national flag was planted in another part of the world, still coming down to claiming the territory for the fatherland. Did the stars and stripes on the moon mean the founding of an American colony? When people first hear that I’m a lawyer practicing and teaching something ‘space law’, the question they often ask is often with a big smile or a twinkle in their eye: ‘Tell me, who own the moon? Of course, the claim to new national territories was a European custom, applied to non-European parts of the world. In particular, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French and English created great colonial empires. But while their stance was very central to Europe, the legal notion that planting a flag was an act of establishing sovereignty quickly became entrenched and accepted worldwide as part of the law of the nations. Clearly, the astronauts had more important things in mind than considering the legal significance and consequences of the planted flag, but fortunately the issue was taken care of before the mission. Since the beginning of the space race, the United States has known that the face of an American flag on the moon would raise important political issues for many people around the world. Any suggestion that the moon could legally become part of the U.S. backwater could fuel such concerns and potentially give rise to international disputes that are detrimental to the U.S. space program and U.S. interests as a whole. By 1969, decolonization might have made the idea that non-European continents were civilized, civilized, and thus rightly subject to European sovereignty, but that not a single person lived on the moon; even life itself was absent. However, the simple answer to the question of whether Armstrong and Aldrin, through their small ceremony, transformed the moon, or at least a large part of it, into American territory appears to be ‘no’. Neither NASA nor the US government intended that the US flag would have the effect. The first space shuttle NASA Lunar Sample Return Container displayed in a vault in NASA’s Johnson Space Center. OptoMechEngineer, CC BY-SA Most importantly, the answer is contained in the 1967 Spatial Treaty, to which both the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as all other space countries, became a party. Both superpowers agreed that ‘colonization’ on earth was responsible for the great human suffering and many armed conflicts that had raged in recent centuries. They were determined not to repeat the mistake of the old European colonial powers when deciding on the legal status of the moon; at least the possibility that a “land grab” in outer space would lead to another world war should be avoided. In this way, the moon became something of a ‘global community’ that was legally accessible to all countries – two years before the first real manned lunar landing. Businessman Rajzeev V. Baagree, who bought five hectares of land on the moon for 1,400 rupees (equivalent to US in 2005) per hectare, poses next to evidence in his home in Hyderabad, India. It turns out he was cheated. Mustafa Quraishi / AP Photo The American flag was therefore not a manifestation of claim to sovereignty, but to honor the American taxpayers and engineers that made possible the mission of Armstrong, Aldrin and the third astronaut Michael Collins. The two men wore a plaque commemorating that they had ‘come in peace for all mankind’, and of course Neil’s famous words expressed the same sentiment: his ‘small step for man’ was not a ‘giant leap’ for the United States not, but ‘for’ humanity. Furthermore, the United States and NASA have lived up to their promise by sharing the lunar rocks and other monsters from the lunar surface with the rest of the world, either by giving them away to foreign governments or by allowing scientists from around the world. . to access them for scientific analysis and discussion. In the midst of the Cold War, it even included scientists from the Soviet Union. Case closed, is there no need for more space advocates? You do not need to prepare the space science students of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for further discussions and disputes about the lunar law, do you? No space lawyers needed? Not so fast. Although the legal status of the Moon as a ‘general community’ accessible to all countries on peaceful missions did not pose a significant resistance or challenge, the Convention on Spatial Space left further details troubled. Contrary to the very optimistic assumptions of the time, man has so far not returned to the moon since 1972, which has made lunar land rights largely theoretical. This 1964 file of the World’s Fair in the Queens District of New York shows a view of a lunar colony in the Futurama 2 ride compiled by General Motors. AP Photo That is, until a few years ago when new plans were devised to return to the moon. In addition, at least two U.S. companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, which have serious financial support, have begun targeting asteroids to exploit their mineral resources. Geek Note: Under the above Outer Space Agreement, the moon and other celestial bodies such as asteroids are legally in the same basket. None of them can become the “territory” of some sovereign state. The very fundamental prohibition under the Spatial Treaty to acquire new state territory by planting a flag or in any other way could not 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 yet in sight. There are about two general interpretations possible. So you want to mine an asteroid? Countries such as the United States and Luxembourg (as the gateway to the European Union) agree that the moon and asteroids are ‘common communities’, meaning that each country allows its private entrepreneurs, as long as it is properly licensed and in line with others. relevant rules of space law, to go there and get what they can, to try to make money with it. It’s a bit like the law of the high seas, which is not under the control of an individual country, but is completely open to properly licensed law-abiding fishing activities of citizens and companies of any country. Once the fish are in their nets, it is legal for them to sell. OSIRIS-REx will travel to a near-Earth asteroid called Bennu and bring a small monster back to Earth for study. The mission was launched on September 8, 2016 from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. As planned, the spacecraft will reach Bennu in 2018 and return a monster to Earth in 2023. NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center / ASSOCIATED PRESS On the other hand, countries like Russia and somewhat less explicitly Brazil and Belgium believe that the moon and asteroids belong to humanity as a whole. And so the potential benefits of commercial exploitation must somehow build up for humanity as a whole – or at least be subject to a presumably strict international regime to guarantee human benefits. It’s a bit like the regime originally set up to harvest mineral resources from the deep seabed. Here an international licensing scheme was created as well as an international enterprise that had to exploit the resources and would generally share the benefits among all countries. Although the former position would, in my opinion, certainly make more sense, legally and practically, the legal battle is by no means over. Meanwhile, interest in the moon has also been renewed – at least China, India and Japan have serious plans to return there, which will raise interest rates even higher. Therefore, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, we will have to teach our students about these issues for many years to come. Although it is ultimately up to the community of states to determine whether a common agreement can be reached on one of the two positions or perhaps somewhere in between, it is of utmost importance that agreement can be reached in one way or another. Such activities that develop without any law that is generally applicable and acceptable are a worst case scenario. Although it is no longer a matter of colonization, it can have the same damaging results. This article was published from The Conversation, a non-profit news site dedicated to the exchange of ideas from academic experts. Read more: If Earth falls, will interstellar space travel be our salvation? To exploit the moon for rocket fuel to bring us to Mars. and policy.