Early in the negotiations for the 1967 "Treaty On Principles Governing The Activities Of States In the Exploration And Use Of Outer Space, Including The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies", generally called the Outer Space Treaty, the USSR suggested that the treaty ban private activities in space but, at the insistence of the Americans, all such provisions were dropped from the final treaty. According to the New York Times report of the U.S. Senate ratification hearings for the Treaty, (March 7, 1967) Senator Albert Gore (Senior) worried that the "benefit of all" provisions of Article 1 of the treaty might inhibit space activities. The Times says Arthur Goldberg, who negotiated the treaty for the U.S., reassured Gore by describing "the article as a 'broad general declaration of purposes' that would have no specific impact until its intent was detailed in subsequent, detailed agreements."
The one serious attempt to establish such a follow-up agreement was a disaster that the U.S. Senate refused to ratify, specifically because it attempted to ban private property. It was the 1979 "Agreement On The Activities Of States On The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies" generally referred to as "The Moon Treaty". It would have replaced the "benefit of all mankind" language with the drastically different "common heritage of mankind" doctrine. Some third world countries have claimed that the "common heritage" doctrine would mean that anyone wanting to establish a lunar settlement might have to pay off the leaders of every nation on Earth.
Fortunately, since it wasn't ratified by the U.S. or any other nation that was then spacefaring, the Moon Treaty is generally regarded as a dead letter, and is not binding on the U.S. or its citizens. Thus, The Space Settlement Institute is firmly convinced that, as things stand now, private entities can claim ownership of land on the Moon "on the basis of use and occupation" although nations cannot.
For a fully detailed, footnoted discussion of the many legal questions, opinions and precedents involved, as published in SMU Law School's Journal of Air Law & Commerce, the oldest and most respected law journal in its field, see: "Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Real Estate It Needs to Survive?" Now that article has also been reprinted, in it's entirety, as the chapter on the subject of space property rights in the important new law school textbook from Westview Press: "International Law", Silverburg, ed., (ISBN 978-0-8133-4471-3).
Note: The first 25 FAQs below are reprinted from the Space Settlement Initiative website.
What is the real purpose of enacting a Lunar land claims recognition law?
What does international law say about private property ownership in space?
Can there be property ownership without national sovereignty?
What if other nations refuse to recognize land claims in space?
Why not allow smaller, limited land claims for easier steps than settlement?
Could lunar land really be worth enough money to make a difference?
What conditions should the US set for recognition of a claim?
How much land should a settlement be able to claim... and why?
Are the weaknesses and compromises in this plan likely to be permanent?
Could other sources of revenue be enough without land claims recognition?
What effect would this have on NASA and the aerospace companies?
The FAQs above cover basic questions about Lunar Land Claims Recognition. The following questions address more advanced issues.
If we really went to the Moon in 1969, why aren't we there now?
What were the assumptions before the Outer Space Treaty, (e.g. Robert Heinlein)?
Will changing how NASA works bring the taxpayers back on board?
Could this law force the US to recognize a foreign government's Lunar land claim?
Would Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty prohibit Lunar land claims recognition?
Back from What does international law say... to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Back from What does international law say... to the Space Settlement Institute home page |