Who owns the moon? A lawyer from the space meets

By Frans von der Dunk, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Most likely, it is the most well-known image of a flag ever taken: Buzz Aldrin standing near the first flag of United States planted on the moon.

For those who knew their world history, she also sounded the alarm. Less than a century ago, back on Earth, planting a national flag in another part of the world amounted to claiming that territory for the homeland.

Did Stars and Stripes on the Moon Mean the Establishment of an American Colony?

When people hear for the first time that I am a practicing lawyer and teaching something called "space law", the question that they ask most frequently, often with a big smile or a wink of a smile. eye, is: "So tell me Who is the owner of the moon? "

Of course, claiming new national territories was a European habit, applied to non-European parts of the world.In particular, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French and English created enormous Colonial Empires But while their attitude was very much centered on Europe, the legal idea that planting a flag was an act of sovereignty quickly became and was accepted around the world as an integral part of the law. people

in their minds than to contemplate the legal meaning and consequences of this flag planted, but fortunately the issue had been dealt with before the mission.From the beginning of the race to space, the States The United States knew that for many people around the world, the presence of an American flag on the moon would raise major political issues. To become, legally speaking, part of the backwaters of the United States could fuel such concerns and possibly give rise to international disputes prejudicial both to the US space program and to US interests as a whole.

In 1969, decolonization may have destroyed any notion that the non-European parts of the world, although populated, were not civilized and therefore legitimately subject to European sovereignty – but there was not one person living on the moon; even life itself was absent.

Yet 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 turns out to be "no" . nor did the US government want the American flag to have that effect.

The First Treaty on Outer Space

More importantly, this response was included in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which the United States and the Soviet Union as well as all other space nations, had become a party. Both superpowers agreed that the "colonization" of the Earth had been responsible for the terrible human suffering and many armed conflicts that had raged in recent centuries.

They were determined not to repeat this error of the old European colonial powers when it came to deciding the legal status of the moon; at least, the possibility of "land grabbing" in space giving rise to a new world war should be avoided. As a result, the Moon became a kind of "common good" legally accessible to all countries – two years before the first effective landing of the Moon.

Thus, the American flag was not a manifestation of claiming sovereignty, but of honor. American taxpayers and engineers who made possible the mission of Armstrong, Aldrin and third astronaut Michael Collins. The two men were wearing a plaque saying they were "coming in peace for all humanity," and of course, Neil's famous words echoed the same sentiment: his "small step for man." "was not a" giant leap "for the United States. In addition, the United States and NASA have kept their commitment by sharing lunar rocks and other lunar surface soil samples with the rest of the world, either by giving them to foreign governments or by allowing scientists from around the world to access it for scientific analysis and discussion. In the middle of the Cold War, this included even scientists from the Soviet Union.

Case filed, no longer need specialized lawyers in the space? No need for me to prepare law students from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln space for further discussions and disputes over the lunar law, is not it?

No need for lawyers in the space?

Not so fast. While the legal status of the Moon as a "global common good" accessible to all countries in peaceful missions has not met with resistance or substantial challenge, the Treaty on Outer Space has left other details unresolved. Contrary to the very optimistic assumptions made at the time, up to now, humanity has not returned to the moon since 1972, making lunar land rights largely theoretical.

That is to say, until a few years ago, when several new plans were designed to return to the moon. In addition, at least two US companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, which have serious financial support, have begun targeting asteroids in order to exploit their mineral resources.

Geek notes: Under the Treaty on Outer Space, the moon and other celestial bodies such as asteroids, legally speaking, belong to the same basket. None of them can become the "territory" of one sovereign state or another.

The fundamental prohibition of the Outer Space Treaty to acquire a new territory by planting a flag or by any other means has not allowed D & # 39; Address the commercial exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies. This is a major debate that is currently raging in the international community, without any unequivocal solution being in sight. Basically, there are two possible general interpretations

So, you want to extract an asteroid?

Countries like the United States and Luxembourg (as the gateway to the European Union) agree that the moon and asteroids ", which means that Each country allows its private entrepreneurs, as long as they are duly authorized and in accordance with other relevant rules of space law, to go there and to do so. extract what they can to try to make money. It's a bit like the law of the high seas, which is not under the control of any particular country, but completely open to law-abiding and duly authorized fishing operations of the citizens and companies from any country. Then, once the fish is in their nets, it is up to them legally to sell.

On the other hand, countries like Russia and a little less explicitly Brazil and Belgium argue that the moon and asteroids belong to all humanity.

Therefore, the potential benefits of commercial exploitation should somehow benefit humanity as a whole – or at least should be subject to a possibly rigorous international regime to ensure benefits to the economy. 39, scale of humanity. It's a bit like the scheme originally established for harvesting deep seabed mineral resources. Here, an international licensing regime was created, as was an international company that needed to exploit these resources and share the benefits between all countries.

In my opinion, the old position would certainly make more sense, both 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 further increases the stakes.

Therefore, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, we will have to teach our students these issues for many years to come. Although in the end it is up to the community of states to determine whether it is possible to reach a common agreement on either one of these two positions it It is crucial that an agreement can be reached in one way or another. Such activities developing without any generally applicable and accepted law would be a disaster scenario. Although it is no longer a question of colonization, it can have the same adverse effects

This article was written by Frans von der Dunk, professor of space law at l 39, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and originally published on The Conversation.

Read the original article.