Bilateral agreements refresh debate about private exploitation of outdoor space facilities.
Who Owns the Moon? The long-standing international consensus is no one. But the United States and seven other countries recently agreed on a policy move: No one owns it whole Moon, although governments and private actors can have natural lunar resources.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently announced a set of bilateral contracts called Artemis Accords. The European Space Administration stepped in shortly afterwards, announcing that Europe planned to collaborate with NASA on the Artemis program. Through this program, NASA and its partner space agencies will seek to develop a sustainable human presence on the Moon and travel to Mars.
The Artemis Accords requires signatory countries to comply with existing international law. There is no international agreement other than the Accords, however, which specifically allows ownership of natural space resources. As a result, the signatories operate in a legal gray area: With so few countries signing up, it is not clear what the practical impact of the Accords will be.
The United States has long been pushing for the adoption of this property model, arguing that it does not violate international law. As President Donald J. Trump set out in an order of action issued earlier this year, the United States rejects the idea that all Earthlings belong together. . Instead, presidential administrations have demanded that space be treated in the same way as our planet’s oceans – no country can claim sovereignty, but public and private actors can claim for the ownership of marine resources which they extract.
Under this ownership model, federal law in 2015 allows American corporations to “own, own, transport, use, and sell” facilities anywhere they recover in accordance with “international obligations of the United States. United. ”
These responsibilities include the 1967 Outer Space Treaty – the founding document of international space law. Article II of the Treaty prohibits attempts to establish sovereignty over the Moon or any other nebulous body. Artemis Accords signatories reaffirm the principles contained in the Outdoor Space Agreement and argue that building facilities is not a “national appropriateness” of space.
Some space lawyers and scholars are not so sure, however, that the Artemis Accords comply with the Outer Space Accord. Since the Artemis program began with NASA, they argue that the boxes are a vehicle for the United States to demonstrate control of space activity. The boxes meet the Outer Space Treaty letter, but opponents are concerned that the bilateral agreements undermine the commitment to shared resources and action together that enlivens the spirit of the Space Treaty. Outer. They argue that countries and commercial clothing will oppose the use of major mining areas.
Even without divisions about who will get the best plot of lunar soil, national governments may not be equipped to handle an explosion of commercial activity in space. There is no international space agency to coordinate national regulatory efforts or monitor the emerging space economy. In addition, the boxes do not have an enforcement provision. Instead, the boxes urge signatories to make a “political pledge” to adhere to the box’s principles.
Proponents of Artemis Accords argue that the new agreements will help ensure that space exploration and resource extraction can be sustainable. Jim Bridenstine, NASA’s current administrator, describes the contracts as “working” the Outdoor Space Contract and providing a framework for future collaboration. Section 11 of the contracts, for example, requires signatories and private actors under their legal authority to establish “safety zones” around their areas of operation to prevent the work of one organization from interfere with the work of another group.
Companies in the commercial space industry that have emerged have long called for this kind of framework, arguing that the existing international space law is too dubious to allow for peaceful and sustainable development.
One remaining source of recourse is the 1979 Moon Agreement, which contradicts Artemis Accords but has never been signed by a major space-powered powerhouse. The Lunar Agreement would prevent governments or private actors from claiming ownership of natural resources on the Moon or other cloud group. Despite widespread support at the time of drafting, the Moon Agreement is currently the subject of active debate within the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Practices Outdoor.
Looking at the prospect of a reviving international effort to ban private space activity, some space policy experts and members of the commercial space industry expressed relief that President Trump’s order of action opposed the United States. United against the unparalleled Moon Pact.
While the position of the United States is clear, the international legal environment remains nothing but clear. With the Moon Pact and other space management efforts still under discussion, it is difficult to determine how many other countries will join the Artemis Accords.
Russia has announced that it will not participate in the Artemis program, and federal law prohibits the United States from entering into bilateral agreements with China. Moreover, with a viral pandemic still destroying life and livelihoods across the planet, countries with less wealth may find that they cannot afford money for a space agency.
Even if other countries do not join the boxes, the agreements nevertheless have ushered in a new chapter in the history of mankind among the stars. A strong space economy may emerge soon.