The Space Settlement Initiative

--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
> > > There seems to be a general consensus among these people who
know
> > the
> > > history of the UN space treaties inside and out, that the
language
> > of
> > > the Outer Space Treaty, despite what it may seem to say about
> > > nation-state responsibility, does NOT preclude private property
> > claims,
> > > or at best leaves the situation very legally ambiguous.
> >
> > They make this claim for ideological reasons and base it on the
fact
> > that the OST doesn't make specific mention of private property,
> > therefore it can't govern that area. Their argument is specious.
If
> > I am incorrect in the above, please provide me with the basis for
> > their claims.
> >
> Well, the peer-reviewed "Journal of Space Law" has been published
by
> the U. Miss. folks since 1973 - they seem to be well respected. I
> don't know why you are viewing this particular group
as "ideological" -
> they seemed pretty typical lawyers to me (well, except for Larry
Roberts).
>

I'm not using the word "ideological" as a derogatory term, simply
one that refers to a set of beliefs that motivate them; namely
advocates of one position. To me that makes them biased, and their
analysis not impartial. Further there position makes them less
appealing as a voice of authority.

My personal inclination would be to solicit advice from the lawyers
who negotiate international treaties. You'll probably find them in
the State and Foreign Affairs departments of every nation. The real
politik of statecraft will have a lot of influence on revision to
the CHM provisions of the OST.

> On the history side, that was from a personal conversation with
Amanda
> Moore (the NSS UN representative), but if I recall correctly what
she
> said, the US administration at the time very specifically selected
the
> wording of the Outer Space Treaty to allow for (but not explicitly
discuss)
> private ownership - what they were trying to prevent was a claim
to the Moon
> by the Soviet Union; the Soviets wanted to prevent the same thing
by the US.

I agree with your statement. There is no common ground between the
concepts of private ownership and Common Heritage of Mankind. No US
administration would ever embrace the CHM concept.

But the dilemma they faced was the claiming of the Moon issue. That
would be a Pandora's Box of misery for politicians of every nation
and political leaning, even today.

But I disagree with the conclusion of your lawyer friends; the fact
that the US selected wording that doesn't preclude private ownership
of celestial bodies, does not mean that the door is left open for
it. To me it means that the US saw the wisdom of this particular
direction but couldn't (espcially considering the communist threat
of the era) embrace CHM. US policy today is governed by the precept
that one can't claim ownership of a celestial body despite
the "ambiguity" of the OST. There are no efforts to push the
boundaries.

> The subsequent Moon Treaty was opposed by the US because it did not
> have the private ownership protections.

As I wrote, the CHM advocates pushed it too far and backed the US, (
the champion of free enterprise and private property) into a corner,
into an ideological position that it would never accept.

Now maybe I'm misremembering what
> she said, or she had the history wrong there, but it seemed pretty
clear
> what the process had been, and there was more knowledgeable US
involvement in
> the writing of the OST than I had expected. I'm no lawyer, but I
believe
> intent is a major factor in deciding the meaning of laws where
there
> is any ambiguity.

I believe you're right on this point but there are two sides to the
intent issue. On one side the US advocates capitalism and private
ownership, and would like to see it's citizens and corporations
benefit from celestial resources. This is what I believe you are
referring to.

On the other side is the intent of the US to prevent being locked
out of the game, to prevent entire celestial bodies being the
province of foreign powers, and perhaps to prevent the balkanization
of celestial bodies.

Imagine a scenario playing out in the next few years, where the US
has no ability to go beyond LEO and the Chinese push forward with
the Moon launch ambitions. The Chinese land on the Moon and claim
it! Further, they start selling parcels of it to private companies
with operations in China.

Will the US support this because there is private ownership of
property, or will they object to it because the Chinese have taken
the soveriegnty issue unto themselves?

Back to the "ideological" lawyers for a moment. For their position
to be consistent they would have to support the Chinese selling
parcels of the Moon. For these lawyers, if their ideology is strong
enough, that might not be a problem. But harkening back to the Cold
War days, not too many politicians or citizens would like to look up
and see a Soviet Moon or in this case, a Chinese Moon.

How to reconcile the two sides of intent that went into deciding the
wording of the OST?

This is where you come to a regime that could allow private
ownership but remove sovereignty from the national competitors. A UN
mandate perhaps? Personally, I think it'll be a cold day in hell
before that happens. The UN is as much a paragon of fairness and
efficiency as NASA is lean and innovative. The light that's been
shining into the UN's crevices over the Iraq Affair (and the years
preceding it) has not been inspiring.

So again, how do you reconcile the two intents?

>
> Now, let's suppose your approach of declaring the Moon a new nation
> goes ahead before or around the same time as the first settlements
are
> established. Say we have 10 people on the Moon - would they
suddenly
> become citizens of this new nation, and lose their previous
national
> status?

No, there are plenty of dual citizens all over the world. There
would now be 10 off of the world.

Suppose people are only there for 6 month stints, as for ISS,
> what then? What rights would these people have with regard to
equipment
> owned by Earth corporations, which would be just about everything
> up there? What rights would they have to being paid, to working in
> safe conditions, etc. etc. - wouldn't all those things have to be
> determined on Earth, not within the settlement?

You're mixing apples and oranges on this point. ExxonMobil decides
many issues at its headquarters for it foreign operations but that
doesn't in the least diminish the soverignty of the countries in
which it operates.

What good would
> settlement self-government actually do at that stage? Or any stage
> below 10's of thousands of people? In the long run, yes, it's the
> right thing, but to start with? I don't think it makes sense...
>
> Arthur

Don't think entirely of town hall democracy and citizen rights.
While they may play a part, the primary purpose of a nation is laws,
foreign affairs and governance. For such a new nation, the umbrella
of laws will be primarily for the benefit of corporations (who else
would have the capital to invest?)

Do you think OSHA is going to inspect the Lunar facilities for
working conditions and minimum wage laws? I don't.

My main point is that the US may find it more palatable to recognize
the sovereignty of a new nation than to support a UN Mandate, or to
have a patchwork of competing national claims, AND THE ENSUING
TERRITORIAL WARS THAT WILL FOLLOW. Further, I think other nations
may also recognize such a new nations for similar reasons, but a
primary one is that they thus prevent the US from extending it's
empire to the Moon.

Such a nation will not be beholden to the despots and dictators of
the world as the UN is, nor will it be beholden to a foreign power,
inclusing the US. It's lifeblood will be trade and commerce with
Earth, and constitutionally it may not preclude the participation of
any citizen's or corporations soley on the basis of national origin.
Every country's citizens and corporations will have equal access (if
they can pony up the dough!) to participate in the economy of the
new nation.

For space-nuts like us, we'd probably like it that the leadership of
the new nation would be looking after its national interest (i.e.
more space development) rather than being tied to terrestrial
national interests (i.e. one country is blocking certain activity or
technology because it would enrich another country and the space
effort is diminished) or (i.e. national space policy becomes tied to
national aerospace corporation interests.)

A new nation would look after its own interests and offer equal
opportunity to all terrestrial nations.

Don't take the position that a new nation must stand on its own feet
and be self-sufficient and have a large population, which is how I
read your above concerns. Look at Vatican City, with an area of 3.2
sq. km. and a population of 900 male citizens (no women) where only
cardinals less than 80 years old have the vote.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vt.html

My point is that a new nation is similar to a UN Mandate, but is
also quite different. The legal fiction of statehood is observed in
order to make it palatable in a world of internation tensions. The
distinction is that it is self determining rather than under the
thumb of Kofi Annan, and this is much better than a patchwork of
national claims extending into orbit.

TangoMan