Who Owns the Moon? A Space Lawyer Answers (theconversation.com) 208
An anonymous reader shares a report: While the legal status of the Moon as a "global commons" accessible to all countries on peaceful missions did not meet any substantial resistance or challenge, the Outer Space Treaty left further details unsettled. Contrary to the very optimistic assumptions made at the time, so far humankind has not returned to the moon since 1972, making lunar land rights largely theoretical.
That is, until a few years ago when several new plans were hatched to go back to the moon. In addition at least two U.S. companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, which have serious financial backing, have started targeting asteroids for the purpose of mining their mineral resources. Geek note: Under the aforementioned Outer Space Treaty, the moon and other celestial bodies such as asteroids, legally speaking, belong in the same basket. None of them can become the "territory" of one sovereign state or another.
The very fundamental prohibition under the Outer Space Treaty to acquire new state territory, by planting a flag or by any other means, failed to 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 in sight yet. Roughly, there are two general interpretations possible. Countries such as the United States and Luxembourg (as the gateway to the European Union) agree that the moon and asteroids are "global commons," which means that each country allows its private entrepreneurs, as long as duly licensed and in compliance with other relevant rules of space law, to go out there and extract what they can, to try and make money with it. [...] On the other hand, countries such as Russia and somewhat less explicitly Brazil and Belgium hold that the moon and asteroids belong to humanity as a whole.
That is, until a few years ago when several new plans were hatched to go back to the moon. In addition at least two U.S. companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, which have serious financial backing, have started targeting asteroids for the purpose of mining their mineral resources. Geek note: Under the aforementioned Outer Space Treaty, the moon and other celestial bodies such as asteroids, legally speaking, belong in the same basket. None of them can become the "territory" of one sovereign state or another.
The very fundamental prohibition under the Outer Space Treaty to acquire new state territory, by planting a flag or by any other means, failed to 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 in sight yet. Roughly, there are two general interpretations possible. Countries such as the United States and Luxembourg (as the gateway to the European Union) agree that the moon and asteroids are "global commons," which means that each country allows its private entrepreneurs, as long as duly licensed and in compliance with other relevant rules of space law, to go out there and extract what they can, to try and make money with it. [...] On the other hand, countries such as Russia and somewhat less explicitly Brazil and Belgium hold that the moon and asteroids belong to humanity as a whole.
I do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you rent it out for parties?
Re:I do (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, I dont see how anyone can claim to own it (government or otherwise) which hasn't claimed it. Governments get their power through the citizenry they govern, not through some mystical power bestowed on them. I don't see how Brazil or Belgium have the right what other people do with things that are not Brazil's or Belgium's? The moon certainly isn't, nor are far off asteroids. If you want something, get there and claim it. If someone invades, and wants it for themselves, then you either have to have the means to defend it (which, lets be honest; if you are mining on the moon, you probably have the means to), or establish treaties with those who do.
The moon is no different than an island, its just the ocean that has changed. In the old days, when new islands were found, they were ruled by the people who found them (think of Hawaii). If you didn't have the means to defend yourselves against someone else who wanted it, you lost that right (again, think of Hawaii).
I will have a party on the moon, best of luck stopping me.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries regularly refuse to acknowledge someone's ownership of something, even if it is obvious. For example, many countries don't acknowledge Taiwan as a country separate from China, at least not officially. It's just politics.
Re: I do (Score:2)
Which is why Taiwan buys armaments from the US and has treaties for its protection. If they can't protect themselves from Chinese intent of ownership, they are pretty much screwed. Alliances, treaties, and self defense are the solution there. Just like a moon base.
Re: (Score:2)
They are until Trump gets "Space Force" up and running to enforce those laws, anyway.
Perhaps this is how we can finally convince the US government to send a manned mission to Mars. Get China or Russia to send an unmanned mission there first that plants a flag on the planet, and then have their government release a statement saying that they "own" the planet now.
The outrage generated from Fox News and the other "America First" conservative outlets might actually be enough to get a NASA or SpaceX mars mission
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
He can't say he wasn't warned that she's a harsh mistress.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you be interested in selling it? I think it would look good next to the bridge I just bought in New York City.
Re: (Score:2)
"I own it."
Obviously it's the cheesecake factory owning it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the moon is mine, titled to me by my great gran-pappy, and I'll go to space war with anyone who leaves a slashdot comment to the contrary.
Finishing the summary.... (Score:5, Informative)
The two possible interpretations are that they are global commons and countries can license operators to exploit them, or they belong to humanity as a whole, and we can only exploit them together.
Both have analogies back on earth, and treaties that cover these mechanisms.
Would be nice if /. had editors. They might have been able to add this information so the summary didn't just end on an incomplete thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that if they could do that to a significant extent, it would make the moon habitable, right? I think a lot of people would be 100% for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a conspiracy from the Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean Mars... it takes an atmosphere to cause global warming, and that's one thing the moon doesn't have. At all. Nada. It doesn't have the gravity to sustain one, it all floats off into space.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You've missed the point entirely. If someone could cause global warming on the moon, they would need to give it an atmosphere. That would make it far more habitable than it is now.
Re: (Score:2)
It was, but the drug [google.co.uk] was aimed at children...
Ah, the sour sweet tingling pop of popping candy exploding in your mouth. If my watering mouth is anything to go by it seems just like yesterday. Who knew 40 years would pass so quickly?
Re: (Score:3)
Generally speaking, if you gain continuous control of a previously unclaimed location, that location belongs to you. Planting a flag is not sufficient. Planting a person is, but only for the area over which that person is capable of exerting control.
Treaty or no treaty, the parts of the moon will go the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me the correct answer is that they're a "free for all" as far as resource collection goes. If you're able to get there, mine the resources, and bring them back to Earth -- they're your resources to resell.
They "belong to humanity as a whole", to the extent that any or all of us are able to get there. The trip is still quite risky, costly and technically difficult to make -- so whoever invests all of that towards going there deserves to be able to profit from it on our planet, if they can.
Re: (Score:2)
What the Space Treaty was designed to prevent was the annexation of territory in space by Earthly countries. It has nothing against private developers using resources there and establishing communities of their own, so long as such governments are 'local'.
Re: (Score:2)
License with whom? There is no global licensing authority.
I would assume with the appropriate government entity that signed the treaty.
The Moon belongs to EVERYONE (Score:2)
The above, having been said, and for the sake of argument accepted as fact: I'm perfectly okay with structures on the Moon, and the ground underneath them, being owned by whoever is responsible for them. Similar to how the Embassy o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the great song lyrics of all time:
https://youtu.be/CQE8LVamYFk [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Enforced by whom? The only people with the actual ability to stop people from doing what you're worried about are the very people you're worried will secretly do those things.
In practical terms, whoever proclaims ownership of the moon (or part of it) and defends the claim (possibly involving violence) owns the moon (or the part the claimed to own). Since there is no value in making a claim or way to defend a claim at the moment, nobody owns the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're in favour of starting WW3 if, say, China lays claim to the Sea of Tranquility by establishing a permanent base there?
Bit of an overreaction, I am thinking....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Similar to how the Embassy of any given country, within the borders of another country, is considered to be part of the Embassys' home country.
Except it isn't and never has been.
Vienna Convention: "Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission."
This is erroneously taken to mean that an embassy is foreign soil.
Most of the time the guest country doesn't even own the embassy b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No military bases, of any country, on the Moon, again for obvious reasons.
Ok, you volunteering to remove the secret Space Nazi base on the dark side of the moon? Anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hyperbole (Score:3)
I hear one guy even had to re-tape his coke-bottle glasses during one their debate-cum-riots
We the people... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a citizen of the Moon (Score:2)
And I demand that Trump deport me there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most expensive viking funeral ever.
D, D, Harriman, of course (Score:2)
I thought everybody knew this.
transference (Score:2)
There is an American flag on the Moon, so I assume Vladimir Putin believes it now belongs to him.
Re: (Score:2)
Bleached to white decades ago, so French flag.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news. These colors don't run. Except from Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a new obsession. Russia is economically the size of New York City. Not even a world player. A resource export economy, like Nigeria. Russia exports energy and prostitutes. Price taker.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan wasn't a world player in 1935.
That's not a very nice way to talk about the First Lady.
Re: transference (Score:2)
That's not a very nice way to talk about the First Lady.
I know that some Americans such as yourself are completely ignorant about the rest of the world, but there are actually more countries than just America and Russia. One would think that you would at least recognise a country you bombed a couple decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has it's eye on Slovenia. It was a Soviet client state once, and it will be again if Putin has his way.
Re: transference (Score:2)
It was a Soviet client state once
It's adorable when you pretend to know stuff, but back in the real world Slovenia had been a part of the Austrian empire and then became a province of Yugoslavia ... several years before "Teh Soviets" even existed.
But all of those places are over there around that "Europe" are, though, so like they're all the same anyway, right?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think Yugoslavia was? I've lived and worked in Belgrade and own property there and in Montenegro. I am well aware of the former Soviet influence in Yugoslavia and Putin's current attempts to exert control there.
Re: transference (Score:2)
What do you think Yugoslavia was?
A sovereign state with a neural position on the split between the iron curtain and the western bloc, which was friendly with both the USA and the USSR. During the height of the cold war they managed to sell America the infamous Yugo, and had military personnel posted in the USA as part of cultural/military exchange programs.
If that's your definition of "Soviet client state" you're even more delusional than I previously thought.
I've lived and worked in Belgrade and own property there and in Montenegro.
This is a bit like the old "I have a black friend" routine. Regardless of wheth
Re: (Score:2)
You're silly. It was nothing of the sort.
The Cold War ran from 1947 to 1991. The Yugo, marketed with the help of Armand Hammer, did not start selling in the US until 1984. If you believe that was the "height" of the Cold War, then nothing you say in this discussion can be taken seriously.
Re: transference (Score:2)
You're silly. It was nothing of the sort.
You might want to pick up a history book now and then instead of pretending to be a property owner.
The Cold War ran from 1947 to 1991. The Yugo, marketed with the help of Armand Hammer, did not start selling in the US until 1984. If you believe that was the "height" of the Cold War, then nothing you say in this discussion can be taken seriously.
I see. So your claim is that Melania Trump is a "Russian export" because she was born in the nation of Yugoslavia which had a great relationship with the USA but didn't sell it the Yugo until 1984.
Strong argument there. Can't argue with your logic.
Whoever can and will defend it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Might makes right, no matter what starry-eyed people say.
It should be simple (Score:2)
Who owns any planet/moon/asteroid or whatever should be answered by, "no one", but at the same time, any probe, colonization platform, or spacecraft should be owned by whoever put it there. If a miner is on an asteroid and is working to mine resources, that miner is what should be protected, and certain rights about space around said miner should be "claimed". Any claim should have an expiration period to make sure things are not claimed and then abandoned, with an extension based on "good faith" claims
Considering mankinds history, we need to.... (Score:2)
PLACE A SPACE-MISSILE BATTERY ON THE MOON. Stick some nukes in it for fun... cuz America.
Now you can deny anybody access to space until you run outta missiles. I guarantee this is going to happen eventually. Might as well get started today.
Or I guess we can wait for China to show us how it's done. Then once it's been used a few times, the huge amounts of way-to-small-to-track (WTSTT) space garbage will deny everybody access, and we can all just fester and die on our doomed planet.
Come evict me then. (Score:2)
Whoever wins the war for the moon (Score:2)
I think the real question is "Is owning the moon worth fighting a war over". Doubtless this is where any such claim would immediately lead.
Re: (Score:2)
Earth doesn't own the Moon (Score:2)
The Moon owns the Earth.
The laws that matter are the laws of physics.
as Mike said, "Luna has many rocks"
and the high ground
Re: (Score:2)
But how many electromagnetic coil equipped aeroshells does the Moon have to put the rocks in? EM launchers can't move rocks, and rocks by themselves can't stand high angle entry into the atmosphere.
And how many electromagnetic launchers with power supplies does the Moon have that can withstand nuclear attack? Such a system could only do substantial damage on Earth with a very long, slow bombardment, lasting weeks or months. People on Earth will do something about that.
There is at best only a 19-fold energy
Who owns it if extra terrestrials claim it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You honestly think that if aliens claim the moon, who have advanced technology that allows for space travel, etc. that they are going to be defeated by a bunch of technology illiterate monkeys, aka humans??? Methinks you have been watching too much Independence Day.
--
Humans are some of the dumbest "intelligent" species in the Galaxy. Animals have lived for Billions of years without currency, yet humans are still too stupid to figure this shit out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a 3rd choice. They wouldn't _need_ human slaves because they have far superior technology, so they would leave us alone.
You'll find out in ~2030 which choice they make.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they'd want Earth, we have a nice cozy blue planet in the habitable zone, even with a little extra CO2, "what plants crave".
So they engineer a virus or some grey goo and kill all humans. Then, pop open a cold one on their new acquisition.
This is all pretty silly (Score:3, Insightful)
This silliness that "everything is owned by the common group called Mankind" will last until about 10 minutes after the first mining ship arrives to bring back a load of gold or something.
Ferret
Might makes right. (Score:2)
As with all things, sadly.
Who owns the moon? That's easy. (Score:2)
Whoever has the most firepower. As usual. If I find means to get a sustainable society up there and we have enough military force to defend our moon I can officially call myself King of the Moon. If my peasants let me that is. If not, it's probably "Republic of Moon" or something.
Same thing with Mars. If you can go and seize it and are strong enough to sustain your living there and defend the planet it's yours.
This is how it will be one we're powerful enough to build societies in space.
Re:And here you go. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a purely human invented concept and really doesn't have any true, logical definition.
Really?
Find a big nasty dog that's chewing on a steak. Try to take that steak away from the dog.
Still think it's a purely human concept?
Re:And here you go. (Score:4, Insightful)
You time is better spent arguing with a rock. Anybody who still buys into socialism at this point in history is just unreachable by reason.
Re: (Score:2)
And anyone who doesn't is unreachable by both reality and morality.
Re:And here you go. (Score:4, Insightful)
And there is a perfect example...just ignorant of history and proud. Own your megadeaths, then talk about morality.
Re:And here you go. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are actual counts in the 20th century. It's no contest. Marxists are covered in blood, head to toe.
Niether Stalin or Mao were Marxists (Score:2)
Re: Niether Stalin or Mao were Marxists (Score:2)
Agreed! No nation ever implemented a national socialist system as envisioned by Naumann. Nazism is all about equality, and having a dictator and elite ruling class is the opposite of equality. Nazism could only work with a democratic form of government. Most people have no idea that nazism is an economic system, not a form of government. Americans and the rest of the so-called 'free world' have been brainwashed and fed misinformation for many decades. Nazism threatens the wealth of the greedy ones who will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And here you go. (Score:2)
If you are twenty and you are not a communist you have no heart.
If you are forty and still a communist you've got no brain.
Don't let compassion fol you. In extreme it is just as dangerous as no havung it at all...
Re: And here you go. (Score:2)
Stupid swipe keyboard....sorry!
Re:And here you go. (Score:4, Insightful)
This mental dropping was modded to "5: insightful"? Anyone who doesn't recognize that most of the developed world -- including the United States -- has elements of socialism is someone who doesn't know history, economics, politics, and may be unreachable by reason.
Are there now brigades on Slashdot hell bent on voting up people promoting a certain message, regardless of how poorly it's made?
Re: (Score:2)
Argue with the Canadians (Score:2)
And when you get done arguing (and losing the argument to) all those people then by all means, argue with a rock. I mean, we've got just as much evidence that you can argue with a rock as we do that socialism, when actually tried, doesn't work.
Or did you mean fascists dictatorships who happen to borrow socialism for their rhetoric? I mean, if people actually acted on professed beliefs then the parts of the Bible and Koran that r
Re: And here you go. (Score:2)
You might want to check the dictionary before commenting, Einstein.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now take that big, nasty dog and try and eat your own steak in front of it, and see how well it respects your concept of ownership. Securing and taking resources by force is neither a human invention nor ownership.
I'll give him the scraps off the table, like Our Dear Leadership and Commerce does, and the big dog STFUs and contentedly chews away.*
Like we do. Right?
* works every time with my friend's two pits. They're sweethearts, tho. Kill you with slobber, they will.
GP trolling asside there is a problem (Score:2)
I'd argue that all of humanity has a birthright to the planet's resources. This doesn't mean I'm a communist (I'm not, I'm a democratic socialist) but it means that when we allow somebody to lay claim to those resources and profit from them we also make them pay back (usually in the
Re: GP trolling asside there is a problem (Score:2)
People who make $400,000 a year are laying claim to the entire world?
while also shirking their responsibility to the society and civilization that made it possible.
The 1% who pay 40% of all income tax are shirking their responsibility?
proper term is Astrolawyer (Score:2)
By 1964, experts say man will have established twelve colonies on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
The moon belongs to America,
Didn't you hear? The Americans gave up the moon after waving the white flag of surrender [gizmodo.com].
Re: proper term is Astrolawyer (Score:2)
Well that settles it then. The moon belongs to France.
Re: proper term is Astrolawyer (Score:2)
*French national anthem
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm saying is that everywhere should be like Alaska. As human beings we've all got a legitimate claim to the earth's resources.
Actually no.... we have a legitimate claim to resources we are able to take and do take from the earth and hold without interfering with what anybody else is already doing.
I get no claim to something someone else managed to extract from the earth; unless they had to intrude upon a right of mine to get it.
In the case of Sovereign states.... it was easy: The government
Re: Grab it first and it's yours? (Score:2)
You think it should be yours (including the option to deny others having some of this life-essential material), for the simple reason you happened to dig it up first?
Yes.
Of course, what I think doesn't matter if I don't have the power to keep it for myself, just like what you think doesn't matter unless you have the power to take it from me. So your entire thought exercise is just mental masturbation; in the real world it all comes down to the ability to project force.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got news for you, the standard is still who has the most power. It has nothing to do with who was there first. It has to do with who put them there, and what they will do to keep them there. See: the West Bank, and the Gaza strip. Or anywhere actually...
Re: (Score:2)
The outer space treaty isn't going to mean squat when companies/countries start claiming chunks of space real-estate. Sure everyone who isn't trying to claim their own piece of planet/asteroid is going to throw a fit but it's not likely to amount to much. Just look at the claiming of the ocean floor, Pre WWII I think it was "internationally agreed" that countries only owned a dozen or so miles off of their coasts. Today most countries claim hundreds of miles and as ocean floor mining becomes more common that is likely to increase.
I think you still need a template of some kind. Assume SpaceCo wants to land on the moon and build a mining facility.
Is it a homesteading arrangement, they build a facility according to a certain spec and they get a 1km radius, or do they buy/lease the land, contributing to some international fund?
You could probably avoid land rights entirely at first since it will be such a struggle to get up there, but it's a good idea to know what kind of eventual system you're working towards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree it would be "impossible to defend" an asteroid. Upon seeing a ship lauched on trajectory to intercept, one could start moving the asteroid. Weeks, months later the incoming rocket would miss by distances that are of interplanetary scale.
orbital mechanics make "attacking" a moveable target a bitch.