Japan has put into motion a plan to put an unmanned probe on the surface of the moon within the next 10 years (see here). China is planning to launch a hundred earth orbiting satellites within the next five to eight years (see here), and also plans to initiate a multi-step program of robotic lunar space exploration (see here). Japan’s spaceflight program was known as the most ambitious in Asia until China put astronauts into orbit in 2005. Japan has yet to launch a manned flight of its own, but tentatively plans to land a man on the moon by 2025. China has yet to announce their plan to land a man on the moon but there is little doubt that China has such intentions. The USA and the EU plan to go to the moon in preparation for a mission to mars, and Japan’s lunar objectives are said to be in line with the USA and EU. Russia plans to land men on the moon by 2015, which will be funded by sources outside of the Russian space agency (see here). The USA does not plan to have a manned lunar landing until 2020.
When considering the race to the moon, images of JFK, the USSR, and the Cold War come to mind. It was the fear of carrying age old rivalries into outer space and the moon that prompted the creation of today’s current space law. The Outer Space Treaty (OST) is a key component of today’s governing space law. Here is an essential excerpt:
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.
The OST was conceived in 1957 as the Space Race between the USA and the former USSR was intensifying. Since war was a very real possibility between the two superpowers, it was obvious that the conflict should not be carried into outer space. The UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1348 (XIII) calling on nations to “avoid the extension of present national rivalries into this new field.” This Resolution precipitated the OST, which has been signed and ratified by all the current space-faring nations and, thus far, all of the provisions of the OST have been adhered to.
The moon falls under the concept of res communis, which means it belongs to a group of people, and can be used by any member of the group, but cannot be appropriated by anyone. This concept is also applied to international waters. However, this concept of the moon and space may come under attack as more nations enter the space arena.
The advancement of technology is lessening the costs of space travel and exploration. Space tours and hotels may very well be a reality within a couple of generations (how many times has that been said?). Even more realistic are the opportunities for mining celestial resources. The moon is a large source of Helium-3 (He-3), a rare isotope ideal for certain forms of nuclear energy. He-3 is very rare on Earth, and is worth $15 billion per ton. Class-M (“M” for metallic) Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) are relatively close to Earth—sometimes closer than the moon—and they contain concentrations of metal far in excess of those of the richest mines on Earth. The smallest NEA contains more metal than has been mined in the whole of human history, and the market value of one NEA is estimated to be $5 trillion.
A lunar colony and permanent Earth orbiting research lab are just two of the imaginable situations that would require a broader body of space law to deal with issues beyond sovereignty. The OST calls space “the province of mankind.” The history of colonization and exploration is intertwined with war and exploitation. The U.S. ambassador to the UN said of the OST: “We must make sure that man’s earthly conflicts will not be carried into space.” Lyndon B. Johnson said in an address to the UN General Assembly, in 1958:
Until now our strivings toward peace have been heavily burdened by legacies of distrust and fear and ignorance and injury. Those legacies do not exist in space. They will not appear there unless we send them on ahead.
If international law seems new, then space law is embryonic. The lessons of international law seem applicable to those of space law, but no matter how it’s viewed, space law is going to present the world with new and old issues that will require a fresh body of law to untangle the wrongs and rights of the many competing nations.
(The article “Opening The Pandora’s Box of Space Law” by Paul Tobias was used in the writing of this post. See Hastings Int’l. & Comp. L. Rev. [Vol. 28:2 2005])
It surprises me no end that you have been totally silent on the legal position of China's recent ASAT test. Nonetheless, I found this piece in an Indian Weekly and am pasting the same for everyone's consumption.
Sino shock (25-02-2007) - K.K. Nair
SPACE
New laws to stop weaponisation of space needed
China destroyed an ageing weather satellite with an anti-satellite missile on January 11 and ever since the entire world has been in a state of general pandemonium. What shocked most people across the globe is the inability of prevailing legislation to prevent such a disastrous action.
The test proved that prevailing laws on outer-space need reforms. Most aspects ranging from the delimitation of outer space to the definitional issues surrounding peaceful uses of outer space are yet to be resolved in an acceptable manner. The prevailing lacuna has made such acts a norm rather than an exception.
The Chinese apparently capitalised on the legal lacuna of Article-4 of the Outer Space Treaty-1967 (OST) which says-Countries party to the treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. Since the Chinese have not used a nuclear weapon or any other weapon of mass destruction, the test does not violate the law.
Secondly, the Chinese have destroyed their own Feng-Yun satellite and so it cannot be charged under Article-7 of the OST which says states are internationally liable for damage to another state (and its citizens) caused by its space objects. The Chinese, in this case have destroyed their own property, but any other space assets getting damaged due to the debris would cause the Chinese to be held accountable for their actions.
All said and done, the test will set a bad precedent. Others could follow suit for military, political or any other consideration. A case in point is the attempt by certain agencies to sell 'real-estate' on the moon based on their own self-serving interpretation of the subject.
Prevalent laws are arcane and were made for situations of the 1960s, at best the 1980s. For example, Article-5 of the OST-1967 bestows on space travellers the unique ambassadorial status of 'envoys of all mankind' and gives certain privileges to such envoys. This is a vestige of the pioneer era when astronauts or cosmonauts were personnel of select calibre representing their particular countries. Now, with the advent of space tourism, a variety of passengers go to space driven by their quest for pleasure and self-indulgence rather than national pride.
The new millennium would need a new set of laws which would factor in the prevailing technological, political, commercial and military advances in outer space. To begin with, the issue of militarisation and weaponisation will have to be put in proper perspective.
The term militarisation implies non-aggressive use of outer space for military functions like communication, navigation and observation. Weaponisation, by contrast, implies the actual placement of weapons, or their use in or from outer space.
Most modern militaries across the world use satellites for better communications, navigation, weather-forecasting and spying. But, ?weaponisation can surely be ?æprevented for the good of mankind. Nations with a variety of interests and efforts in outer space would have to arrive at a mutually-acceptable and workable set of laws on outer space.
The writer is research officer
at the Centre for Air-Power Studies,
and author of Space,
the Frontiers of Modern Defence.
The link to the above is
http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?BV_ID=@@@&contentType=EDITORIAL§ionName=Current%20Events&programId=1073754900&contentId=2061961
Posted by: SS Yadav | March 03, 2007 at 01:12 AM