05 Dec The Law of the Moon? The U.S. Plans to Establish Permanent Moon Base
The U.S. space agency NASA announced plans yesterday to establish a permanent base on the moon by 2020. Other than its enormous cost, this seems sufficiently remote in time as to cause little international reaction. Unlike the new island Duncan noted last week, no nation has yet claimed sovereignty over the Moon as a whole under traditional principles of international law. On the other hand, because none of the space-faring nations (the U.S., Russia, China, or the EU) have ratified the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, it is still possible for some country to establish sovereignty over the Moon or at least some parts of it. I presume the U.S. will do so with respect to its new base. Still, it is worth reminding ourselves of the laws that do limit and regulate the establishment of such a base.
No Militarization of the Moon (see Article IV, “. . . The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes.”)
Open Access to Moon Installations (see Article XII “All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity.”)
This is helpful, but it leaves many issues unresolved. If the U.S. really establishes such a base (and that’s a big if), expect the international debate over the legal regime governing the Moon to revive.
Julian, you say, “it is still possible for some country to establish sovereignty over the Moon or at least some parts of it.” I don’t think the space treaty you cite, which is considered the most important of the bunch, and to which the spacefaring nations do all belong, leaves that option open. Article II says, “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” I expect that the model for the legal status of any permanent stations, at least for the US, would be (our view of) the legal regime for Antarctica, which allows ownership of facilities but not a claim of sovereignty. (I realize that some other countries do claim sovereignty over parts of Antarctica, but the US has never accepted those claims as valid, and the Antarctic Treaty has put those disputes on ice, so to speak.) Cheers, John
Thanks for the correction. I was trying in my inexact way to get at the complex problem of ownership of facilities without exercising sovereignty. The U.S. has continued to object to language in the “Moon Treaty” that would limit is ability to grant ownership or property rights and my point is that this is likely to be one of those disputes in the future. But thanks for pointing out my error.
That same treaty, the Outer Space Treaty, in its Article VIII, provides a pendant to ownership and apropriation, namely jurisdiction and control. So instead of sovereignty on that moon base, the US would exercise J&C over it, which answers your concern about lack of ownership or property rights.
Cheers