Abstract
As the world’s technologies and capabilities to participate in space mining continue to progress at a rapid rate, the international community must consider what steps are necessary to maintain safety and peace in a largely unregulated field. Accordingly, this Comment will argue that when major spacefaring nations inevitably pass legislation allowing the ownership of space resources, they will be in violation of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty which prohibits the appropriation of celestial bodies by any state.
Part II will begin with an overview of the natural resources that exist in space by highlighting the economic and societal opportunities they offer. After discussing the incentives for nations and entities to mine space resources, this section will discuss where technological progress currently stands regarding space mining. This Comment will then provide an overview on the Outer Space Treaty and its interpretation according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It will also discuss the Moon Agreement and its relevance to international space law. Following that, it will give an outline of the domestic legislation that spacefaring nations have passed to narrow the interpretation of the non-appropriation principle through subsequent practice.
Part III will analyze the Outer Space Treaty as applied to the actions of the spacefaring nations discussed in Part II. Additionally, this section will argue that the spacefaring nations’ attempt to narrow the interpretation of the non-appropriation principle is unsuccessful under the Vienna Convention on Treaties. Thus, this section argues that spacefaring nations establishing property rights in space over celestial bodies are violating Article II of the Outer Space Treaty.
Part III will also highlight the importance of consensus in developing international space law. It argues that the opinions of countries with superior technological abilities and wealth should not carry more weight than those less developed. It is contrary to the Outer Space Treaty to give disproportionate consideration to less wealthy and technologically developed Signatories. Additionally, this Comment warns of potential conflict that may arise in safety zones envisioned in the Artemis Accords if countries are not all in agreement on the international space governance for space use and exploration.
Part IV will build on the pitfalls of current international space law. The resulting recommendation is the creation of a new multilateral treaty to replace the outdated Outer Space Treaty that leaves too much up to interpretation. It will recognize the challenges presented with creating a new multilateral treaty. Part IV will also propose a public relations campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of leaving space unregulated and advocate for the adoption of a new multilateral treaty. Part V of this Comment will reiterate that spacefaring nations are violating the Outer Space Treaty and new rules are necessary for the future of safety in space.