Property and Sovereignty in SpaceJeff Foust reviewed the book
Unreal Estate: The Men Who Sold The Moon by Virgiliu Pop last week in an
article in The Space Review:
While most of Unreal Estate is a historical examination of the various claims of extraterrestrial property rights claims, Pop does devote a final chapter to the legality of such claims. While such claims are a “trivial issue” for space law experts, who don’t give them a second thought, the same is not true for the general public: “The issue has hijacked the public perception of the space law.” So Pop spends several pages deconstructing the Lunar Embassy’s claims in particular, using several lines of argument: that others filed claims to ownership of the Moon prior to Hope, that government recognition of such claims in general would be in conflict with the Outer Space Treaty, and that those who make such claims lack the physical ability to take possession of their property.
Let's take Pop's arguments against the claiming of extraterrestrial property slightly out of order.
OK, so the governments which signed the Outer Space Treaty cannot recognize those claims without violating the Treaty. However, not all governments signed the Outer Space Treaty, and just as Liberia and the Bahamas are flags of convenience for many shippers (hello, Canadian ex-Prime Minister Paul Martin), there will be flags of convenience for claimants of extraterrestrial property as well. Liberia didn't sign the treaty; Palau didn't sign it; Tuvalu didn't sign it; Vanuatu didn't sign it;
England hasn't signed the treaty (nor has their independent protectorate, the Isle of Man, which is already
very friendly to space companies) (
Update: Jesse Londin informed me that England did sign the treaty, and I now see that she is correct - I had looked under the names "England" and "Great Britain" but neglected to check "United Kingdom" - however, the argument still stands even though England signed the treaty.) -
only 91 countries have signed the treaty, of which only 62 have ratified it, and in addition another 36 countries have acceded to it. That leaves a lot of countries which haven't ratified or acceded to the Outer Space Treaty - out of
191 UN member nations, 93 have neither ratified nor acceded to the Outer Space Treaty. That's one hell of a lot of leeway, plenty of countries who
could recognize such claims without violating the Outer Space Treaty. If a space company has to incorporate themselves in the Isle of Man in order to claim
asteroid 3554 Amun (and in the process earn 20
Trillion dollars), then they'll do so.
Pop's third argument - the idea that those who make such claims lack the physical ability to take possession of their property - negates Pop's first argument, that others had filed claims of ownership before. If they had filed such claims with nations which were not signatories to the Outer Space Treaty, they still haven't taken physical possession of the property. Pop's third argument renders his first specious.
Further to Pop's third argument, just because nobody has taken physical possession of these properties
yet doesn't mean that it will
not happen. Every year, private space companies become more and more capable. It was
less than two years ago that
Scaled Composites won the X-prize with two suborbital flights in the space of two weeks in the same spacecraft, and just this week
SpaceX has
announced that they will be building a 7-passenger orbital craft. Other companies are becoming more and more active in space; there are currently 68 small businesses in my Space Business list in the sidebar, with more being added every few weeks. If even only a couple of these businesses are successful, then that means that private companies in general will have access to space and to extraterrestrial resources.
And with private businesses reaching space it is only a matter of time before they reach the moon and/or near-earth asteroids and take physical possession of extraterrestrial property, with their claims recognized by nations that are not signatories to the Outer Space Treaty.
The obvious primary activity of these businesses on the moon or near-earth asteroids is going to be mining. Whether looking for Helium-3 on the moon or platinum-group metals on the moon or asteroids, space mining is going to be huge business. If only 1% of the (so far) known near-earth asteroids are similar to 3554 Amun, then that 1% represents 800
Trillion dollars worth of material - equivalent to
16 times the entire earth's annual economic output. Thar's gold in them thar hills.
However, if there are mines, and if there are people manning those mines, then there will be lots of people who are doing things besides mining. If large-scale mining is occurring, then there will obviously be a habitat for the workforce. That habitat would need to have it's internal atmosphere constantly refreshed so that CO2 levels wouldn't build up and so there would be enough oxygen for everyone to breathe. Therefore there would be lots of plant life, much of which would also be grown for food for the population. There would likely be animals like chickens and
tilapia and
nubian goats and rabbits, to provide balance for the human population's diet. This implies farmers, cooks, and water management and waste management technicians. There would need to be maintenance people who would repair damage to the habitat, repair spacesuits and equipment, and so on. If the habitat exists with a fairly large population for an extended period of time, then there will need to be doctors and nurses ... and there will be children born. With children comes the need for teachers. The number of occupations goes on and on. In short, a sufficiently-large mining operation would become a
de facto space colony.
And many space colonies, each largely self-sufficient by necessity and earning as much money through mining as a major nation on earth, would likely become independent
sovereign entities themselves - that is, nations. Dan Schrimpsher of Space Pragmatism touched on this issue in
December 2005:
Over the past few months, I have read more than a few novels on Moon colonies. Most notably, Ben Bova’s Moonwar and Robert Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In these, and most other [such] novels, the lunar citizens are forced to declare independence and fight a war for their freedom.
...I have found myself asking, what makes a country sovereign?
Is it simply the will to declare as a collective the will to determine your own destiny? Or is it the point at which other countries recognize your sovereignty? At worst it is when the primary opponent of your independence gives in.
and in
January 2006:
Certainly it is possible for a lunar colony to remain an outpost of a company or government with temporary residents holding earth bound concerns. But is that practical on Mars? How about further out moons or asteroids? At some point the people of a colony will be so far out and intertwined with their environment that the connection with their Earthly concerns will loosen and break.
I would guess this is true of most colonists who move their lives to a new land. This is especially for the generations born in that new land. So I say that extraterrestrial sovereignty is a foregone conclusion, at least eventually.
...My purpose in thinking about this, as always, goes back to the Outer Space Treaty. If a colony declares its independence to the world, are they bound by that treaty? More importantly, can nations on Earth recognize their independence without violating that treaty? I am sure many countries and corporations with no presence on said colony would gladly support [their] separation. So is a declared sovereign nation, who has never signed the Outer Space Treaty, bound by it or do they have to win a battle with the world first?
I, too, think that if private businesses are successful in attaining space and making claims on extraterrestrial property and actually working the land, then an independent space colony/nation is inevitable; if one such colony is started there will undoubtedly be many to follow; and thus, there will be many such nations in space, each independent from earthly governments. Oh, sure, there will be some squawking from Outer Space Treaty signatory nations, and perhaps even embargoes on space colonies early in their independence - but let's ask Saddam Hussein just how effective embargoes are. And, I don't think that anyone is about to go to war with (for instance) England (
see update above) over its recognition of the property rights of settlers in a space colony or its recognition of the independence of that colony - certainly the USA will not go to war with England over this (and thus risk tearing NATO asunder), nor will any non-NATO nation wish to incur the wrath of the combined might of NATO by attacking England. Heck, England might even be willing to admit such a colony to membership in the British Commonwealth, and regain its "the sun never sets over the British Empire" prestige, while simultaneously attaining the ultimate high ground in any war.
In short, if any private companies succeed in space, then the mooting of the Outer Space Treaty and the development of independent, sovereign nations in outer space, is inevitable.
Technorati Tags: Space,
Asteroids,
Moon,
Politics,
Property,
Sovereignty,
Colony,
Outer Space Treaty
