:strip_icc()/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_59edd422c0c84a879bd37670ae4f538a/internal_photos/bs/2019/B/B/Q6sJBeStmMBa3DfbEoWw/001.jpg)
[ad_1]
It's been almost 50 years since American astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the surface of the moon. "A small step for the man, a big step for the man," he declared at the time.
Soon after, his colleague Buzz Aldrin undertook a tour of the Sea of Tranquility, a lunar region on the visible side of the moon, and noted "a great desolation."
Since this Apollo 11 mission in July 1969, the Moon has remained virtually intact. [1] [2] [3] – no one has landed there since 1972. But that could soon change: several companies and countries are interested in exploring it and possibly exploiting their surfaces in search of resources such as the l & # 39; gold, platinum and rare earth minerals widely used in electronics.
In this case, what are the rules that will guide the exploration and possession of these elements? Is there a guarantee of preservation of the lunar landscape or can the satellite of the Earth be the target of a race for resources, in the context of commercial and political interests?
Earlier this month, China was able to pose the Chang-e-4 probe on the Moon, which for the first time sprouted a cotton seed on the lunar surface – a milestone. Beijing also wants to install a research base there.
The potential possession of celestial bodies has been under discussion since the beginning of space exploration during the Cold War. While NASA was planning its first lunar missions, the United Nations developed a sidereal space treaty, signed in 1967 by countries such as the United States and then the Soviet Union (l. current Russian Federation), the United Kingdom and Brazil.
The treaty attests that "space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, should not be the object of national appropriation by claiming sovereignty, through the Occupancy or use, or by any other means ".
It is also stated that "the exploration and use of outer space must be conducted in the interests and interests of all countries and must belong to all "humanity"; "the moon and other celestial bodies must be used for exclusively peaceful purposes."
Joanne Wheeler, Director of the space business company Alden Advisers, described the treaty as the "Magna Carta of Space." The text, she says, makes the act of laying a flag on the moon – like Armstrong and his successors – in practice "does not make sense" because it does not confer "no binding right" to individuals, companies or countries.
The rights of possession and exploitation of the moon were of little importance in 1969. But, with technological advances, the exploitation of lunar resources for commercial purposes became a more real possibility, although still a not far away.
In 1979, the UN established an agreement on the governance of country activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies, better known as the Moon Agreement, further stipulating that the The use of the Moon should only be peaceful and the United Nations should be informed. where and why, if an organization decides to build a space station there.
"The Moon and its natural resources are a common heritage of humanity," he said, stating that international standards must be established to "govern the exploitation of these resources when type of operation is about to become feasible ".
The problem with the Moon Agreement, however, is that only 11 countries have ratified it. And the main players in space exploration – the United States, China and Russia – are not part of it.
Be that as it may, says Wheeler, "it is not so easy" to put into practice the decisions of these treaties, because it depends on the incorporation of international documents in the laws of the signatory countries, so that people and businesses can be compelled to obey. them.
Professor Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Space Law, agrees that international treaties "offer no guarantees". Putting into practice the standards they have defined requires "a complex mix of politics, economics and opinion," she said.
In addition, existing treaties, which refuse individual possession of celestial bodies, have faced an additional challenge in recent years.
out of 20 15, the United States pbaded the law on trade competitiveness in the l & # 39; Space, recognizing the right of their citizens to own the resources extracted from asteroids. The law does not apply to the moon, but its principle can easily be extended to the satellite.
Eric Anderson, co-founder of the space exploration company Planetary Resources, describes US legislation as "the greatest recognition of property rights in history".
In 2017, Luxembourg approved a law that gives the same property rights to resources found in space. Deputy Prime Minister Etienne Schneider then declared that such an initiative would turn the small country into "a European leader and a pioneer in this sector".
The urge to explore and market exists, and countries seem increasingly willing to help their businesses achieve it.
"Mining, whether for the purpose of bringing materials to Earth or storing them and processing them on the moon, is obviously the opposite of not harming (as the international treaties), "says Helen Ntabeni, a lawyer. Naledi Space Law and Policy, a British law firm specializing in space issues.
She adds that it is possible to argue that the United States and Luxembourg have "forced" their own exit from the standards stipulated by the Sidereal Space Treaty. "I am very skeptical (as to the idea) that the highly moral notions of the world exploring space together as egalitarian nations are preserved," she said.
Source link
