Who Owns the Moon? SPACE REGULATIONS LIBRARY VOLUME 4 EDITORIAL BOARD Managing Editor PROF. R. JAKHU, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada MEMBERS M. DAVIS, Ward & Partners, Adelaide, Australia S. LE GOUEFF, Le Goueff Law Office, Luxembourg P. NESGOS, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York, U.S.A. S. MOSTESHAR, Chambers of Sa’id Mosteshar, London, U.K. & Mosteshar Mackenzie, California, U.S.A. L. I. TENNEN, Law Offices of Sterns and Tennen, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. For other titles published in this series, go to www.springer.com/series/6573 Virgiliu Pop Who Owns the Moon? Extraterrestrial Aspects of Land and Mineral Resources Ownership 123 Virgiliu Pop Romanian Space Agency Str. Mendeleev 21-25 Bucuresti 010362 Romania [email protected] ISBN: 978-1-4020-9134-6 e-ISBN: 978-1-4020-9135-3 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9135-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008935661 c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper 987654321 springer.com Introduction This work investigates the permissibility and viability of property rights on the ce- lestial bodies, particularly the extraterrestrial aspects of land and mineral resources ownership. In lay terms, it aims to find an answer to the question “Who owns the Moon?” The first chapter critically analyses and dismantles with legal arguments the issue of sale of extraterrestrial real estate, after having perused some of the trivial claims of celestial bodies ownership. The only consequence these claims have on the plane of space law is to highlight the need for a better regulation of extraterrestrial landed property rights. Next, the book addresses the apparent silence of the law in the field of extraterres- trial landed property, scrutinizing whether the factual situation on the extraterrestrial realms calls for legal regulations. The sources of law are examined in their dual dimension – that is, the facts that have caused and shaped the law of extraterrestrial real estate, and the norms which express this law. It is found that the norms and rules regarding property rights in the celestial realms are rather limited, failing to define basic concepts such as celestial body. The following chapter examines precisely this issue, pondering whether asteroids and comets are immovable land-like territorial extensions that cannot be legally appropriated, or floating movable goods, capable of being captured and reduced into private ownership. The employment of the spatialist and functionalist approaches, the use of the criterion of actual movability from orbit by human action, and original theories such as the analogy between the legal status of asteroids and icebergs, are considered, concluding that some extraterrestrial resources are not, legally speaking, celestial bodies. An examination follows of the relationship between appropriation under inter- national law, and civil law appropriation, namely whether the non-appropriation principle in the Outer Space Treaty on the international plane, results also in the prohibition of the appropriation of the celestial bodies on the private property rights plane. It is offered that, while appropriation of land can exist outside the sphere of sovereignty, its survival is dependent upon backing from a sovereign entity, yet such endorsement would be unlawful as a means of national appropriation. The next chapter answers to the main question of this book, offering that de lege lata the extraterrestrial realms, as a commons, belong to “everybody and nobody”. v vi Introduction The contents of Res communis is duly scrutinized. Res publica is then presented together with the “Public Trust Doctrine”. The commons regime currently accepted by most space actors is being challenged on two fronts. On the left, the adepts of the Common Heritage of Mankind paradigm have enacted the Moon Agreement, effectively planting the Marxist standard in the lunar soil. The egalitarian regime of extraterrestrial resource development would sanction the culture of entitlement, favouring a “fair outcome” over “fair process”. Such an approach has failed on earth and is poised to fail in outer space, as argued in the following chapter. On the right, the adepts of the “frontier paradigm” seek to promote individualism, competition, economic liberty, efficiency and laissez-faire economics – all linked to a privatization of the international public domain. The frontier paradigm has proven its worth on our planet, and it most likely will do so in the extraterrestrial realms. Property rights are a useful engine and, in al likelihood, a precondition for push- ing forward the development of the extraterrestrial realms. Securing property rights would be more beneficial to humankind, compared to the alternative of keeping the extraterrestrial realms undeveloped. The last chapter addresses the lex lata status of materials extracted from the Moon, these pertaining to the legal category of movable goods. Several viewpoints are presented, the conclusion being the permissibility, under the current regulations, of extracting and appropriating extraterrestrial material – be it as a scientific sample or as a commercial commodity. Contents 1 Is the Moon for Sale? ............................................. 1 1.1 Introduction . .......................................... 1 1.2 TheTrivialIssue:“ExtraterrestrialRealEstate”................... 2 1.3 Arguments For Invalidating the “Extraterrestrial Real Estate” Claims 10 1.3.1 TheNon-AppropriationPrinciple........................ 11 1.3.2 ClaimingDoesNotMeanOwning....................... 12 1.3.3 PriorClaims ......................................... 15 1.3.4 Qui Tacet Negat: Silence of Authorities is Not Acquiescence . 16 1.3.5 Jocandi Causa . ................................... 19 1.4 Conclusion ................................................. 20 2 The Sources of Landed Property Rights in Outer Space ............. 23 2.1 Introduction . .......................................... 23 2.2 Real Property Rights Implications of Space Activities ............. 24 2.3 The Material Sources of Landed Property Law in Outer Space . 25 2.3.1 Technical Progress as a Material Source . ............. 26 2.3.2 Nature as a Material Source . ........................ 29 2.3.3 Actors as a Material Source . ........................ 31 2.4 The Formal Sources of Landed Property Law in Outer Space . 34 2.4.1 International Conventions . ........................ 36 2.4.2 International Custom . ............................... 38 2.4.3 The General Principles of Law . ........................ 39 2.4.4 JudicialDecisions..................................... 40 2.4.5 The Teachings of Publicists . ........................ 43 2.4.6 The Completeness of International Law . ............. 44 2.5 Conclusion ................................................. 45 3 The Object of Landed Property Rights in Outer Space ............... 47 3.1 Introduction . .......................................... 47 3.2 The Concept of “Res” in International Space Law . ............. 48 3.3 Territorial Resources vs. Material Resources, Immovablesvs.Movables.................................... 49 vii viii Contents 3.4 The Different Approaches in Defining Celestial Bodies . ......... 51 3.4.1 The Spatialist Approach . ............................... 51 3.4.2 The Control Approach . ............................... 53 3.4.3 The Functionalist Approach . ........................ 55 3.4.4 The “Space Object” Approach . ........................ 55 3.4.5 The Iceberg Analogy . ............................... 57 3.5 Conclusion ................................................. 58 4 The Relationship Between Property and Sovereignty in Outer Space ... 59 4.1 Introduction . .......................................... 59 4.2 The Prohibition of National Appropriation in Outer Space . ......... 59 4.3 What Is Property? . .......................................... 61 4.4 The Impact of the Non-Appropriation Principle Over Property Rights 62 4.4.1 First Viewpoint: Outer Space Treaty Allows PrivateAppropriation................................. 63 4.4.2 Second Viewpoint: Outer Space Treaty Prohibits PrivateAppropriation................................. 64 4.4.3 Third Viewpoint: Private Appropriation Is Not Legally Enforceable .................................. 66 4.4.4 Fourth Viewpoint: Private Appropriation Can Occur Under Individual Sovereignty . ....................... 69 4.4.5 Fifth Viewpoint: Private Appropriation May Occur Under International Sovereignty . ....................... 71 4.5 Conclusion ................................................. 72 5 The Commons Regime: Everybody’s and Nobody’s ................. 73 5.1 Introduction . .......................................... 73 5.2 TheExtraterrestrialRealmsasaCommons ...................... 73 5.3 The Celestial Bodies as Res Communis .......................... 75 5.3.1 Attributes of Res Communis ............................ 75 5.3.2 Conflict of Users vs Conflict of Uses . .................... 77 5.3.3 DeJureandDeFactoAppropriation ..................... 81 5.3.4 Property Status of Planetary Structures . ............. 83 5.4 Res Publica andthePublicTrustDoctrine......................