So What would you do on a colony Part 2?

[JohnFornaro]

From:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17652.msg453426#msg453426

Which is an old thread.  I guess it has exceeded the time limit for resucitating?  Without sufficient attention, I hit "Rmove Message" and inadvertently deleted the following post, which should have been aroung 07-23, or  07-24-09.

the reason I'm doing this is because the issue of lunar property rights came up in another thread, and I wanted to link:  Sorry about the confusion.

Lunar property rights? Now there is a fascinating topic!

From 07-24-09:

Political stability and respect for capital expenditures is necessary, among other things, for free market investment on a large scale, as Mike points out.  In the case of Saudia Arabia, we have an example of a monarchy respecting property rights, so this basic relationship of property and capital and political stability is recognized by a non-democratic regime.  In the case of China, even with a centrally planned socialist agenda, political stability is crucial to the regime's longevity and limited property rights are seen as the creator of wealth.

Individual property rights are a necessary precursor to lunar colonization in my opinion.  Collective property rights on the Moon may be imposed by a different colonial power.  The current treaty situation, however, allows no individual rights, and is totally wrong, in my opinion, and should be abolished in any case.  We should  withdraw from the treaty.  If withdrawal is not an option, then we should amend the treaty to specifically allow individual rights in "outer space, including the Moon and celestial bodies".

From reading the treaty, it seems that only States have any rights, per Article VIII below.  Further, it does not address mineral extraction in the least.

Article VIII

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

Text of the OST:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/space1.html

The signatories:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/space5.txt

I don't think that North Korea has signed yet.  Plus, the treaty doesn't mention ponies or platinum, a serious oversight as well.

[mlorrey]

So the treaty recognises the property rights of the owners of any equipment sent into space, but does not allow for any prospecting claims to lunar or other planetary surfaces and subsurface resources.

This essentially allows for claim jumping when one party has invested a lot into discovering and proving the existence of valuable resources.

Without necessarily withdrawing from the treaty, which would be a lot of negative PR (unless we get another Bush-type in office, who gained good PR among his base for doing such things), I'd suggest copypasta language from the sea treaties dealing with mining of abyssal nodules and administering mining claims wrt these. This would at least establish an office for mining concerns to register claims for exclusive use. I dont' see how any of the internationalist types around could oppose such an amendment to the space treaties with this sort of language.

[clongton]

I dont' see how any of the internationalist types around could oppose such an amendment to the space treaties with this sort of language.

Especially when they are already signatories to similar wording in the open seas treaties.

[Rhyshaelkan]

How do international laws affect private businesses on the open sea? Are they held responsible according to their home country? How about multi-national companies like GE? I find this fitting since it is possible that a well funded private group might have a go at space one of these millenia.

[mlorrey]

How do international laws affect private businesses on the open sea? Are they held responsible according to their home country? How about multi-national companies like GE? I find this fitting since it is possible that a well funded private group might have a go at space one of these millenia.

re: multinationals, all have an HQ in one country and are incorporated there. "Multinational" merely means that they have operations in more than one country, which is a lot more common than most people expect. So even multinationals are responsible to at least one government.

the law of the sea has regs for various activities in international waters. Generally, any activities within 200 miles of a nations shores are in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) even if those waters are international waters (beyond 12 miles). The nation holding EEZ over an area can control fishing, drilling, mining and is generally considered responsible for policing any pollution and rescuing any vessels in distress. The primary thing a nation can't do in its EEZ is prevent right of way to vessels of other nations, even military vessels, although that is still considered provocative (as you might recall from Reagan's naval activities in the area of Libya in the 80's). One exception to this is a treaty regulating access to the Black Sea by naval forces of nations not on the Black Sea.

Outside EEZ's things are pretty wild west unless there is a treaty in operation, like the whaling ban. The World Wildlife Federation has attempted to parlay its NGO status at the UN into de facto sovereignty with proposed conventions that would give the WWF control over underwater seamounts in international waters outside of any EEZ, allowing it to tax fishing and other activities in a split revenue arrangement with the UN.

Mining of abyssal nodules came under UN convention regulation in the 70's when it was found how rich these nodules were in many minerals, including gold. Multinational mining interests that wanted to limit competition worked with the East Block and the Non-Aligned Movement to pass a convention that would have banned nodule mining completely however the US said they would veto it unless it allowed for a regime of limited term exploration and exploitation claims for ventures to attempt to mine these resources. At the present there are, I believe, three companies with registered claims to various areas. One of these is a recent claim, and a fourth company lost its claim several years ago due to lack of activity.