In practice, the treaty has failed because it has not been ratified by any State engaged in manned space exploration or with national launch capabilities. These include the United States, ESA`s largest members, Russia, China, Japan and India. Although it explicitly prohibits national and private ownership of land on the moon or its use for non-scientific and non-universal purposes, the treaty does not have a teeth. Apparently, the Soviets were competing to atomize the moon. On December 18, 1979, the members of the United Nations presented an agreement that would be a continuation of the Outer Space Treaty and fill its alleged gaps. Known as the “Agreement to Regulate the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” – aka. “The Moon Treaty” or “Moon Agreement” – this treaty aimed to create a legal framework for the use of the moon and other celestial bodies. Apparently, as early as 1958, America made plans to bomb the moon with nuclear weapons. Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119 On 27 January 1967, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union met to draft a treaty on the exploration and use of outer space.
Ever since the Soviets and Americans were trapped in the space race, there was a fear on all sides that any power that managed to put resources into orbit or get to the moon first could have an advantage over others – and use those resources for evil! Prof. von der Dunk: Yes, reasonable is of course a dangerous legal term, and it is not mentioned in the Outer Space Treaty. He is only talking about reasonable precautions. So, there, you actually find the word “reasonable” referenced. The idea of an area as such is partly not mentioned because there is a fear that it will eventually become territorial property, because it can give the feeling that I own what is in the area, that I can fully dictate what happens there, that I treat it as part of my own territory. This should be avoided. On the other hand, if you announce a safe zone and it`s a reasonable precaution, so it shouldn`t be 20 miles, but if it`s, say, 150 meters, that`s reasonable. And if you tell everyone that if you come to this area without notice, without announcing it, you are acting in a way that could jeopardize our operations, then we feel entitled to consider this a hostile or dangerous activity.
And we feel entitled to act accordingly. That is the political situation in which we find ourselves. It is not legally sought, so what becomes legally important is when someone officially announces such a safe zone, how do other states react? Think, yes, it`s perfectly reasonable to advertise a half-mile safe zone just to name a number, and in fact we will do it ourselves. Then, before you know it, you have the usual right that a half-mile safe zone is very reasonable. If, on the contrary, everyone came across this first State and said that it is ridiculous, that it is a violation of article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty and other rules, then the first State will probably have to withdraw gradually, unless it really wants to fight for what we do not expect in space, of course, but it is a kind of legal tension. that we are talking about. In other words, any person, organization or company operating in space is accountable to their respective governments. However, since private property is not explicitly mentioned, some claim that it is a “loophole” in the contract that allows them to claim and sell land on the moon right now. Because of that ambiguity, there have been attempts to expand the Outer Space Treaty.
With technological advances, the law and decision-makers have had to adapt. When ships were invented, laws were enacted to regulate their passage. The same applies to aircraft (Airspace Act) and later to space. Space law is a very sensitive issue nowadays, because the first space laws drafted in the Outer Space Treaty (1967) did not take into account modern possibilities: the extraction of asteroids and the moon or the colonization of other planets. Things are already tense after the U.S. Congress passed a ridiculous law last year that says U.S. citizens are now entitled to all the resources they exploit from the moon, asteroids, or any celestial body outside the Earth. The bottom line is that there is nothing that explicitly prevents companies from owning land on the moon. However, since there is no way to claim this land, anyone who tries to sell land to potential buyers is essentially selling snake oil.
Any documentation claiming that you own an earth on the Moon is unenforceable, and no nation on the planet that has signed the Outer Space Treaty or the Moon Treaty will recognize it. Moderator: Let`s say I want to set up my headquarters on the moon and represent Botswana. Let`s eliminate all the practical implications and all the costs. Would that mean that the United States could then come to my lunar complex and set up a building right in the middle and say, look, you don`t own this land, we all do? By controlling what goes into space and who does it, a government can try to regulate what happens there. But once you`re cleared for launch, you don`t need a special permit to land on the moon. There are no specific guidelines that go beyond what is in the 1967 treaty, what is happening on the lunar surface. Similar to the Outer Space Treaty, the agreement stipulated that the moon was to be used for the benefit of all humanity and not for the benefit of a single State. The treaty banned weapons testing, declaring that all scientific research must be open and shared with the international community, and that nations, individuals and organizations cannot claim anything. Who said they were “space laws”? Exploding the moon would have a great impact on the Earth. Prof. von der Dunk: Yes, with the caveat that if we use these terms in American law, it naturally implies a whole series of very specific obligations and rights, because we in the United States have been working with these terms for almost centuries, and the courts have now determined very precisely what they mean and what they do not mean.
et cetera, et cetera. Of course, we can`t just transplant the United States.
