Have you ever wondered who owns the moon? A space lawyer tries to answer this question

This is most likely the most famous photo of a flag ever taken: Buzz Aldrin, next to the first American flag planted on the moon. For those who knew their world history, it 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. The stars and the stripes on the moon meant the establishment of an American colony?

When people hear for the first time that I am a lawyer and I practice and teach something called "space law", the question they ask most of the time, sometimes with a big smile or a sparkle in their eyes, is the next: owns the moon?

In season, claiming new national territories had been a European habit, applied to parts of the non-European world. In particular, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French and British created huge colonial empires. But if their attitude was very much centered on Europe, the legal notion that the establishment of a flag was an act of establishing sovereignty was rapidly taking root and becoming accepted worldwide as an integral part of the law of nations.

Obviously, astronauts had more problems in mind than considering the legal meaning and consequences of this flag, but fortunately the problem had been solved before the mission. Since the beginning of the space race, we knew that for many people around the world, the sight of an American flag on the Moon would raise major political problems. Any suggestion that the moon could legally be part of the groundwater of the United States could fuel such concerns and give rise to disputes prejudicial to both the US space program and all US interests.

In 1969, decolonization may have destroyed any notion that parts of the non-European world, although populated, were not civilized and therefore legitimately subject to European sovereignty – however, there was not one person 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 turns out to be "no". The US government wanted the American flag to have this effect.

The first treaty on outer space

More importantly, this response was included in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which the country and all non-conventional space nations had become parties. The two superpowers agreed that "colonization" on Earth had caused terrible human suffering and numerous armed conflicts that had plagued the past centuries. They were made 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 "taking possession of land" in space giving rise to a new world war should be avoided. At that time, the moon became a kind of "common global" legally accessible to all countries – two years before the first real moon landing.

Thus, the United States flag was not a manifestation of the claim to sovereignty, but of the respect of American taxpayers and engineers who made possible the mission of Armstrong, Aldrin and the third Michael Collins.

Both men wore a plaque that they "came in peace for all humanity," and of the season, Neil's famous words echoed the same sentiment: his "" was not a "Giant leap" for the United States, but "for humanity". , NASA and NASA have kept their commitments by sharing lunar rocks and non-standard ground samples with the rest of the world, either by giving them to foreign governments or by allowing scientists around the world to access it for scientific analysis and discussion. In the midst of the cold war, scientists from the region

Closed case, no longer need space lawyers then? I do not need to prepare students at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for extraordinary discussions and disputes about the lunar law, right?

No living space lawyer?

Not so fast. While the legal status of the Moon as "global commons" accessible to all countries on peaceful mission met with no resistance or any significant challenge, the extraordinary details left unresolved. Contrary to the very optimistic assumptions made at the time, humanity has not returned to the moon since 1972, which makes lunar land rights largely theoretical.

That is to say until a few years ago, when several new plans were developed to return to the moon. In addition, at least two US companies, enjoying significant financial support, have begun targeting asteroids in order to mine their mineral resources. Geek Note: Under the above-mentioned Outer Space Treaty, the Moon and non-standard 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 very fundamental prohibition of acquiring a new State territory, by placing a flag or by any non-standard means, did not make it possible to exploit the commercial exploitation of natural resources on the moon and non-standard celestial bodies . It is currently a rage in the community, without any solution accepted unequivocally. Basically, two general interpretations are possible.

So you want to extract an asteroid?

which means that each country allows its private entrepreneurs, provided they are duly authorized and in accordance with the relevant rules of space law, to go out and extract what they can to try to win money. 'money. It's a bit like the law of the high seas, which is not under the control of a particular country, but is completely open to law-abiding, duly authorized, fishing by citizens and companies from any country. Then, once the fish is in their nets, it is up to them legally to sell it.

On the nonstandard hand, hold 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 seemingly rigorous regime to ensure human-wide benefits. It is a bit like the regime originally established to harvest the mineral resources of the deep seabed. Here, an international licensing regime was created, as well as an international company, which was to exploit these resources and share the benefits between all countries.

If, in my opinion, the old post 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 and India and have serious plans to return, which further increases the stakes. Therefore, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, we will have to teach these questions to our students for many years. If, in the end, it belongs to the community of states to understand whether a common agreement can be reached on one or other of the positions or perhaps somewhere in between, it is difficult to reach a agree in one way or another. Such activities developing without any generally applicable and accepted law would be the worst case scenario. Although no longer a colonization issue, it can all have the same harmful results.

, Professor of Space Law,

This article was originally published on. Read it .