Abstract
Over the past few years, an intense debate on the development of private commercial activities in outer space has commenced. This discussion presupposes the existence of relevant intentions, the attraction of significant investment, and the development of the necessary technology, in order for planned private activities in outer space, such as space tourism or the exploitation of mineral resources from celestial bodies, to enjoy a promising future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
“Antinomy,” online: Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antinomy (last accessed on 12 August 2018).
- 2.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, adopted on 19 December 1966, opened for signature on 27 January 1967, entered into force on 10 October 1967, 610/U.N.T.S./205 [Outer Space Treaty].
- 3.
Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, adopted on 29 November 1971, opened for signature on 29 March 1972, entered into force on 1 September 1972, 961/U.N.T.S./187 [Liability Convention].
- 4.
Agreement governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 5 December 1979, 1363 UNTS 3 (entered into force 11 July 1984) [Moon Agreement].
- 5.
S. Hobe, “The Impact of New Developments on International Space Law (New Actors, Commercialization, Privatization, Increase in the Number of “Space-faring Nations”), Uniform Law Review (2010), Vol.15 issue 3–4, 869 at 870.
- 6.
Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, adopted on 5 December 1979, opened for signature on 18 December 1979, entered into force on 11 July 1984, 1363/U.N.T.S./3 (hereinafter “Moon Agreement”).
- 7.
…Such as the UNCOPUOS Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines (A/RES/62/217, 1 February 2008), the IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, the Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (A/RES/41/65, 3 December 1986) or the EU International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.
- 8.
A Yokaris, International Law of Airspace and of Outer Space (in Greek) (Greece: Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 1996), at 264–265.
- 9.
Ibid, at 265 (emphasis added).
- 10.
Hobe, “The Impact…,” supra note 5, at 878.
- 11.
W. White, “The Legal Regime for Private Activities in Outer Space,” paper presented at “Space: The Free Market Frontier” (15 March 2001), online: Space Future http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_legal_regime_for_private_activities_in_outer_space.shtml (last accessed on 12 August 2018).
- 12.
It is important that, in accordance with Art. 1 of the Moon Agreement, references to the moon in the treaty shall be understood as applicable to all celestial bodies within the solar system, other than the Earth.
- 13.
S Freeland and R Jakhu, “Article II,” in S Hobe, B Schmidt-Tedd, K-U Schrogl, and G Meishan Goh Eds, Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Vol. 1 Outer Space Treaty (Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2009), at 50; S Hobe, “Adequacy of the Current Legal and Regulatory Framework Relating to the Extraction and Appropriation of Natural Resources,” in Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Policy and Law Relating to Outer Space Resources: Examples of the Moon, Mars, and other Celestial Bodies, Workshop Proceedings, 28–30 June 2006, at 206; S Hobe, “The Legal Framework for a Lunar Base Lex Data and Lex Ferenda,” in Gabriel Lafferranderie and Daphné Crowther, Eds, Outlook on Space Law over the Next 30 Years: Essays Published for the 30th Anniversary of the Space Treaty (Springer, 1997), at 138–139.
- 14.
Emphasis added.
- 15.
Yokaris, supra note 8, at 268–269.
- 16.
Ibid.
- 17.
Bryon C Brittingham, “Does the World Really Need New Space Law?” (2010) 12 Oregon R.I.L., 37.
- 18.
Ibid, at 39.
- 19.
Jeremy L Zell, “Putting a Mine on the Moon: Creating an International Authority to Regulate Mining Rights in Outer Space” (2006), 15 Minnesota J.I.L., at 496.
- 20.
Fabio Tronchetti, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the Netherlands: Nijhoff, 2009), at 44–45.
- 21.
Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, “The ‘province’ and ‘heritage’ of mankind reconsidered: A new beginning,” NASA Johnson Space Center, Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the twenty-first century, vol. 2, 1992, at 692.
- 22.
See Daniel Goedhuis, “Some Recent Trends in the Interpretation and Implementation of the Rules of International Space Law,” (1981) 19 Columbia J.T.L., at 212.
- 23.
See also Resolution 1348(XIII) of 13 December 1958 (above cited).
- 24.
Ram Jakhu, “United Nations Principles in Outer Space,” in Proceedings of the United Nations/Nigeria Workshop on Space Law on “Meeting international responsibilities and addressing domestic needs” held on 21–24 November 2005, in Abuja, Nigeria, pat 28–38.
- 25.
Statement of Arvid Pardo, 1 November 1967, First Committee, UNGA, 22 UN GAOR, 1515th and 1516th Meeting, at 8–9 (1515th) and 2 (1516th) (emphasis by the author).
- 26.
Kelly M Zullo, “The Need to Clarify the Status of Property Rights in International Space Law,” (2001–2002) 90 Georgetown L.J., at 2424.
- 27.
See Ricky J. Lee, Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space (Switzerland: Springer, 2012), at 15.
- 28.
Daniel A. Porras, “The ‘Common Heritage’ of Outer Space: Equal Benefits for most of Mankind” (2006), 37:1 California West.I.L.J., at 154.
- 29.
Kemal Baslar, The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind in International Law (The Netherlands: Nijhoff, 1998), at 73; Leo B Malagar and Marlo Apalisok Magdosa-Malagar, “International Law of Outer Space and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights” (1999), 17 Boston U.I.L.J., at 343.
- 30.
Stephen Gorove, “The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind: A Political, Moral, and Legal Innovation?” (1972), 9 San Diego L.R., at 393.
- 31.
As Mineiro observes, “the vast majority of commentary on the Outer Space Treaty that assess the concept of mankind focuses on the operative nature of the relevant treaty provisions as they relate to and among States – overlooking the possibility that mankind is a distinct holder of international legal rights” – Michael Mineiro, Space Technology Export Controls and International Cooperation in Outer Space (Switzerland: Springer, 2012), at 182.
- 32.
Surabhi Ranganathan, “Global Commons,” European Journal of International Law (2016), 27:3,1, at 693–717.
- 33.
See Olivier Ribbelink, “Article III,” in S Hobe, B Schmidt-Tedd and K-U Schrogl, Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Vol. 1, Outer Space Treaty (Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2009), at 66–67.
- 34.
USSR, the UK, and the USA.
- 35.
As revised by the Law of 1 December 2013. More information herein online: Belgian Science Policy Office http://www.belspo.be/belspo/space/belaw_en.stm (last accessed on 12 August 2018).
- 36.
Belgian Law of 1 December 2013, articles 13–15 (idem). See also Articles 3, 10, 11, 13, and 17 of the Greek Law 4508/2017 which contains similar arrangements.
- 37.
However, the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (H.R. 2262) seems to go to a different direction, as “commercial” exploration and recovery of space resources are encouraged and promoted, whereas US citizens are explicitly entitled, by Act of State, to “possess,” “own,” and “sell” asteroid resources; thus the US Act explicitly confers to US citizens’ property rights to resources in outer space – Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, H.R.2262, 114th Congress (2015–2016) online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262/text (last accessed on 12 August 2018). On 25 November 2015, the Act was signed by the president and became Public Law No: 114–90 – see information online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262/all-info (last accessed on 12 August 2018), and see George D. Kyriakopoulos, “Legal Challenges Posed by the Action of Non-State Actors in Outer Space,” in M Manoli and S. B. Habchi, Eds, Conflicts in Space and the Rule of Law, Monograph Series V (Montreal: McGill Centre of Research in Air and Space Law, 2017), at 273–290, at 283 et seq.
- 38.
See also Articles I(2) and III(3) of the Greek Law 4508/2017 (idem).
- 39.
See “Governance” in Cambridge dictionary, online: Cambridge dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/governance.
- 40.
Based on Article 12 of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation: “...Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention.”
- 41.
UN General Assembly, Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 UNTS 3, entry into force 16 November 1994.
- 42.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, entry into force 27 January 1980.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kyriakopoulos, G.D. (2019). Positive Space Law and Privatization of Outer Space: Fundamental Antinomies. In: Kyriakopoulos, G.D., Manoli, M. (eds) The Space Treaties at Crossroads. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01479-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01479-7_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01478-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01479-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)