Abstract
The beginning of the space race, which took place during the 1950s, led to the establishment of the foundations for the regulatory framework for space activities, i.e. the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Today, however, space missions significantly differ from the achievements of the 1950s as humanity is close to deploying manned missions to Mars. Yet, the relevant legal framework remains the same as 40 years ago, which raises doubts on its current relevance.
The present space race to Mars – mainly led by the private sector – already reincited discussions on appropriation, use of resources and possible settlement. To support their projects, private companies are interpreting the treaties loosely. According to them, the legal term “celestial bodies” does not include Mars, while the non-appropriation principle allegedly only applies to states, not to possible private owners.
Even though private actors constitute the driving force in future space activities, states are still responsible for their national activities. Therefore, the existing legal shortcomings of the OST need to be revisited. However, amending the OST or creating a new space treaty is unlikely to occur due to world politics; hence, the need for a novel solution to incorporate and reinforce the fundamental philosophies behind the OST.
Therefore, this paper proposes the use of three-tier legal frameworks, crafted after the legal model adopted for the so far most complex space mission, the ISS. More specifically, this paper suggests that Mars missions be regulated explicitly and individually among participating entities, which would facilitate enforceability. Thereby, missions to Mars would still be guided by the principles of the OST, yet protected through specific obligations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See further Set of Questions provided by the Chair of the UN COPUOS Legal Subcommittee’s Working Group on the Status and Application of the Five UN Treaties on Outer Space, taking into account the UNISPACE+50 process.
- 2.
Boeing CEO Says Boeing Will Beat SpaceX to Mars, Space.com, https://www.space.com/39014-will-boeing-beat-spacex-to-mars.html, last accessed 19.03.2018; The Race to Mars: Here’s How SpaceX Ranks against the Competition, The Verge, https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/30/13114704/spacex-elon-musk-vs-mars-one-nasa-mission-timeline, last accessed 19.03.2018; Journey to Mars Overview, NASA, Washington DC, USA, https://www.nasa.gov/content/journey-to-mars-overview, last accessed 19.03.2018.
- 3.
See, e.g. “Public-private partnerships are the future of space exploration”, statement from Dava Newman, a former NASA deputy administrator, CNBC News, February 2018; Six Private Companies That Could Launch Humans into Space, Space.com, https://www.space.com/8541-6-private-companies-launch-humans-space.html, last accessed 19.03.2018.
- 4.
E. Helmore, Who owns the moon? “Space lawyers” increasingly needed for legal issues beyond Earth’s atmosphere, in The Telegraph, Sept 26, 2013, at http://news.nationalpost.com/news/who-owns-the-moon-space-lawyers-increasingly-needed-for-legal-issues-beyond-earths-atmosphere; see further Start-Up Space 2018: Update on Investment in Commercial Space Ventures, A Bryce Space and Technology Publication, 2018.
- 5.
S. Worral, Three billionaires are racing for space. Who will win?, National Geographic, Apr 7, 2018, at https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/04/three-billionaires-are-racing-to-space%2D%2Dwho-will-win-/; Planetary Resources, About the Exploration Programme, at https://www.planetaryresources.com/missions/arkyd-301/; E. Helmore, Who owns the moon? “Space lawyers” increasingly needed for legal issues beyond Earth’s atmosphere, in The Telegraph, Sept 26, 2013, at http://news.nationalpost.com/news/who-owns-the-moon-space-lawyers-increasingly-needed-for-legal-issues-beyond-earths-atmosphere.
- 6.
M. Listner and C. Newman, Failure to launch: the technical, ethical, and legal case against Mars One, in The Space Review, Mar 16, 2015, at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2712/1.
- 7.
Mars One, Mars One presents an updated mission roadmap, Jan 31, 2017, at http://www.mars-one.com/news/press-releases/mars-one-presents-an-updated-mission-roadmap.
- 8.
Madeleine Stern, Mankind is Mars-Bound: All the Facts on Mars One, June 11, 2014 at https://lawstreetmedia.com/issues/health-science/mankind-mars-bound-facts-mars-one/.
- 9.
Madeleine Stern, Mankind is Mars-Bound: All the Facts on Mars One, June 11, 2014 at https://lawstreetmedia.com/issues/health-science/mankind-mars-bound-facts-mars-one/.
- 10.
BFR and BFR Overview, http://www.spacex.com/mars, last accessed 13.04.2018.
- 11.
E. Musk, New Space. June 2017, vol. 5, issue 2, pp. 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/space.2017.29009.emu.
- 12.
E. Musk, New Space. June 2017, vol. 5, issue 2, pp. 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1089/space.2017.29009.emu.
- 13.
M. J. List, International space law and commercial space activities: the rules do apply, in The Space Review, Jun 3rd, 2013, at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2305/1.
- 14.
Amanda Wills, Is Mars for Sale?, in Mashable, Apr 09, 2013, at http://mashable.com/2013/04/09/mars-land-ownership-colonization/.
- 15.
E. Helmore, Who owns the moon? ‘Space lawyers’ increasingly needed for legal issues beyond Earth’s atmosphere, in The Telegraph, Sept 26, 2013, at http://news.nationalpost.com/news/who-owns-the-moon-space-lawyers-increasingly-needed-for-legal-issues-beyond-earths-atmosphere.
- 16.
J.Hurtak, M. Egan, “A Multilateral Agreement For A Manned Mission To Mars” p 2 (2006).
- 17.
Robotic Exploration of Mars, ExoMars Mission team, ESA, Paris, France, http://exploration.esa.int/mars/56623-exomars-mission-team/, last accessed 18 January 2018.
- 18.
Art VI, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 610 UNTS 205, entry into force Oct 10, 1967.
- 19.
United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 1348 (XIII) (13 December 1958) “Question of the Peaceful Use of Outer Space”.
- 20.
1721 GA Resolution (XVI), V. Kopal, History of OST”, http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/tos/tos.html.
- 21.
United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 2222 (XXI) of 19 December 1966 “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”.
- 22.
Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched Into Outer Space, 22 April 1968, 672 UNTS 119, 19 UST 7570, TIAS No 6599, 7 ILM 151 (entered into force 3 December 1968) [Rescue Agreement].
- 23.
Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 29 March 1972, 961 UNTS 187, 24 UST 2389, 10 ILM 965 (1971) (entered into force 1 September 1972) [Liability Convention].
- 24.
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, 6 June 1975, 28 UST 695, 1023 UNTS 15 (entered into force 15 September 1976) [Registration Convention].
- 25.
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].
- 26.
Antarctic Treaty, 12 UST 794; 402 UNTS 71; 19 ILM 860 (1980).
- 27.
See further J. Hanessian, “The Antarctic Treaty 1959”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 9 (1960).
- 28.
Journey to Mars Overview, NASA, Washington, DC, USA, https://www.nasa.gov/content/journey-to-mars-overview, last accessed 19.03.2018.
- 29.
P. R. Harris, Space Law and Space Resources, at http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html; E. Helmore, Who owns the moon? ‘Space lawyers’ increasingly needed for legal issues beyond Earth’s atmosphere, in The Telegraph, Sept 26, 2013, at http://news.nationalpost.com/news/who-owns-the-moon-space-lawyers-increasingly-needed-for-legal-issues-beyond-earths-atmosphere.
- 30.
F. Tronchetti, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime, p 3 (2009).
- 31.
Art II of the Outer Space Treaty provides as follows: “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”.
- 32.
H. DeSaussure, The Freedoms of Outer Space and their Maritime Antecedents in Space Law: Development and Scope, p 3 (ed. N. Jasentuliyana, 1992).
- 33.
Article II, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 610 UNTS 205, entry into force Oct 10, 1967.
- 34.
The Space Settlement Institute, Lunar Land Claims Recognition, at http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/strategy.html.
- 35.
P. M. Sterns and L. I. Tennen, Privatering and Profitering on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Debunking the Myth of Property Rights in Space, Proceeding of the Forty-Fifth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, p 60 (2002); F. Tronchetti, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime, p 29 (2009).
- 36.
Article 31, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, entry into force Jan 27, 1980.
- 37.
Currently only 17 states have ratified the Agreement. See Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2017, A/AC.105/C.2/2017/CRP.7.
- 38.
Article VI, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 610 UNTS 205, entry into force 1967-10-10.
- 39.
Statement, Board of Directors of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) on Claims to Property Rights Regarding the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, at http://www.iislweb.org/docs/IISL_Outer_Space_Treaty_Statement.pdf.
- 40.
R. Simberg, Homesteading the Final Frontier – A Practical Proposal for Securing Property Rights in Space, p 8–9 (2012); F. Tronchetti, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal für a Legal Regime, p 29 (2009).
- 41.
F. Tronchetti, Legal Aspects of Space Resource Utilization, in Handbook of Space Law (ed. Frans von der Dunk, 2015), p 781; F. Tronchetti, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime, p 31 (2009).
- 42.
S. Gorove, “Interpreting Article II of the OST”, Fordham Law Review Vol. 37 No. 37, pp. 349–351 (1969).
- 43.
See, e.g. A. Wills, Is Mars for Sale?, in Mashable, Apr 09, 2013, at http://mashable.com/2013/04/09/mars-land-ownership-colonization/, last accessed 12.01.2018; Amanda Wills, Is Mars for Sale?, in Mashable, Apr 09, 2013, at http://mashable.com/2013/04/09/mars-land-ownership-colonization/, last accessed 02.02.2018; Lunar Embassy, Extraterrestrial Property and Space Law: Fact and Fiction, 1329 US Highway 395 North, Nevada, USA, http://lunarembassy.com/current-space-law/, last accessed 19.03.2018.
- 44.
R. Simberg, Homesteading the Final Frontier – A Practical Proposal for Securing Property Rights in Space, p 9 (2012).
- 45.
For example: water, carbon dioxide for oxygen and rocket fuel; nitrogen and other elements for fertilizers; iron oxide and silicon oxide for iron, steel and glass; geothermal energy as a power source. See M. Wall, Incredible Technology: How to Live on Mars (2013), at https://www.space.com/22342-how-to-live-on-mars-colony-technology.html; NASA, in Situ Resource Utilization (2012), at https://isru.nasa.gov/SPACERESOURCES.html.
- 46.
A. Wills, Is Mars for Sale?, in Mashable, Apr 09, 2013, at http://mashable.com/2013/04/09/mars-land-ownership-colonization/.
- 47.
F. Tronchetti, The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and other Celestial Bodies: A Proposal for a Legal Regime, p 31 (2009).
- 48.
Article 1, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1363 UNTS 3, entry into force Jul 11, 1984.
- 49.
F. Tronchetti, Legal Aspects of Space Resource Utilization, in Handbook of Space Law (ed. F. von der Dunk, 2015), p 789.
- 50.
M. Listner and Christopher Newman, Failure to launch: the technical, ethical, and legal case against Mars One, Mar 16, 2015, in The Space Review, at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2712/1.
- 51.
M. Listner and Christopher Newman, Failure to launch: the technical, ethical, and legal case against Mars One, Mar 16, 2015, in The Space Review, at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2712/1.
- 52.
P. R. Harris, Space Law and Space Resources, at http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html.
- 53.
(Art 6 (2) Moon Agreement allows State parties the right to collect on and remove from the Moon samples of its mineral and other substances in carrying out scientific investigation).
- 54.
R. Simberg, “Property Rights in Space”, in The New Atlantis, No 37, Fall 2012, pp. 20–31, at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/property-rights-in-space.
- 55.
P. R. Harris, Space Law and Space Resources, at http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/spacelaw.html.
- 56.
K. Cramer, “The Lunar Users Union – An Organization to Grant Land Use Rights on the Moon in Accordance with the OST,” IISL-97-4.13 Proceedings from the 40th Colloquium on The Law of Outer Space, Oct 5–10, 1997, p. 352; J. Hurtak, Legislation and Space Law Concepts proposed for the eventual industrialization of Mars by Men, p 860 (1998).
- 57.
K. Cramer, “The Lunar Users Union – An Organization to Grant Land Use Rights on the Moon in Accordance with the OST”, IISL-97-4.13 Proceedings from the 40th Colloquium on The Law of Outer Space, Oct 5–10, 1997, p. 352.; J. Hurtak, Legislation and Space Law Concepts proposed for the eventual industrialization of Mars by Men, p 860 (1998).
- 58.
Article I, Liability Convention; I. Diedriks-Verschoor, An Introduction to Space Law, p 37 (1999).
- 59.
J. Silver, Houston, we have a (Liability) Problem, 112 Mich. L. Rev. 833 (2014).
- 60.
Article VII, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 610 UNTS 205, entry into force Oct 10, 1967.
- 61.
V. Kayser, Launching Space Objects: Issues of Liability and Future Prospects, p 34–36 (2006).
- 62.
J. Silver, Houston, we have a (Liability) Problem, 112 Mich. L. Rev. 833 (2014).
- 63.
J. Silver, Houston, we have a (Liability) Problem, 112 Mich. L. Rev. 833 ff (2014).
- 64.
M. Mineiro, Space Technology Export Controls and International Cooperation in Outer Space, p158 (2011).
- 65.
Article I Outer Space Treaty states: “Outer Space (…) shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind”.
- 66.
Article IX Outer Space Treaty states: “In the exploration and use of outer space (…) State Parties to the Treaty (…) shall conduct all their activities in outer space (…) with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other State Parties to the Treaty”.
- 67.
Article 4 para 2, Moon Agreement states: “State Parties shall be guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance in all their activities concerning the exploration and use of the moon. (...)”.
- 68.
M. Mineiro, Space Technology Export Controls and International Cooperation in Outer Space, p158 (2011).
- 69.
The TRIPS Agreement, which came into effect on 1 January 1995, is to date the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property. It covers copyright and related rights, trademarks including service marks, geographical indications including appellations of origin, industrial designs, patents and undisclosed information including trade secrets and test data; see also https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) [hereinafter TRIPS Agreement].
- 70.
WIPO, International Bureau, Intellectual Property and Space Activities, at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/patent-law/en/developments/pdf/ip_space.pdf.
- 71.
WIPO, International Bureau, Intellectual Property and Space Activities, at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/patent-law/en/developments/pdf/ip_space.pdf.
- 72.
J. Hurtak, M. Egan, “A MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT FOR A MANNED MISSION TO MARS” p 1 (2006).
- 73.
J. Hurtak, M. Egan, “A MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT FOR A MANNED MISSION TO MARS” p 1–2 (2006); WIPO, International Bureau, Intellectual Property and Space Activities, at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/patent-law/en/developments/pdf/ip_space.pdf.
- 74.
SpaceNews, OpEd – Competition: Driving Force for the Second Space Age (2004), at http://spacenews.com/oped-competition-driving-force-second-space-age/#sthash.ZNfMWlx1.dpuf.
- 75.
SpaceNews, OpEd – Competition: Driving Force for the Second Space Age (2004), at http://spacenews.com/oped-competition-driving-force-second-space-age/#sthash.ZNfMWlx1.dpuf.
- 76.
Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, Washington, 29 January 1998, entered into force 27 March 2001 (1998 IGA-Agreement).
- 77.
Memorandum of Understanding between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America and the Government of Japan concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, done at Washington, DC, Feb 24, 1998, at http://web.archive.org/web/20091029094939/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_japan.html (MOU NASA/JAXA)
Memorandum of Understanding between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America and the Canadian Space Agency concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, done at Washington, DC, Jan 29, 1998, at http://web.archive.org/web/20091029094938/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_csa.html (MOU NASA/CSA)
Memorandum of Understanding between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America and the Russian Space Agency concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, done at Washington, DC, Jan 29, 1998, at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_rsa.html (MOU NASA/ROSCOSMOS)
Memorandum of Understanding between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America and the European Space Agency concerning cooperation on the Civil International Space Station, done at Washington, DC, Jan 29, 1998, at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_esa_prt.htm (MOU NASA/ESA).
- 78.
ESA, International Space Station Legal Framework, at http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/International_Space_Station/International_Space_Station_legal_framework.
- 79.
Article 2 IGA states:
-
1.
The Space Station shall be developed, operated, and utilized in accordance with international law, including the Outer Space Treaty, the Rescue Agreement, the Liability Convention, and the Registration Convention.
-
2.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as:
-
(a)
modifying the rights and obligations of the Partner States found in the treaties listed in paragraph 1 above, either toward each other or toward other States, except as otherwise provided in Article 16;
-
(b)
affecting the rights and obligations of the Partner States when exploring or using outer space, whether individually or in cooperation with other States, in activities unrelated to the Space Station; or
-
(c)
constituting a basis for asserting a claim to national appropriation over outer space or over any portion of outer space.
-
(a)
-
1.
- 80.
Arts 3–21, IGA.
- 81.
Art 16, IGA.
- 82.
J. Hurtak, Matthew Jude Egan, “A MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT FOR A MANNED MISSION TO MARS”, p 4–5 (2006).
- 83.
Arts 19–21, IGA.
- 84.
Article 19 paras 3–4 IGA state: “The Partners agree that transfers of technical data and goods under this Agreement shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in this paragraph. The transfer of technical data for the purposes of discharging the Partners’ responsibilities with regard to interface, integration and safety shall normally be made without the restrictions set forth in this paragraph. If detailed design, manufacturing, and processing data and associated software is necessary for interface, integration or safety purposes, the transfer shall be made in accordance with paragraph 1 above, but the data and associated software may be appropriately marked as set out below. Technical data and goods not covered by the restrictions set forth in this paragraph shall be transferred without restriction, except as otherwise restricted by national laws or regulations.
(a) The furnishing Cooperating Agency shall mark with a notice, or otherwise specifically identify, the technical data or goods that are to be protected for export control purposes. Such a notice or identification shall indicate any specific conditions regarding how such technical data or goods may be used by the receiving Cooperating Agency and its contractors and subcontractors, including (1) that such technical data or goods shall be used only for the purposes of fulfilling the receiving Cooperating Agency’s responsibilities under this Agreement and the relevant MOUs, and (2) that such technical data or goods shall not be used by persons or entities other than the receiving Cooperating Agency, its contractors or subcontractors, or for any other purposes, without the prior written permission of the furnishing Partner State, acting through its Cooperating Agency.
(b) The furnishing Cooperating Agency shall mark with a notice the technical data that are to be protected for proprietary rights purposes. Such notice shall indicate any specific conditions regarding how such technical data may be used by the receiving Cooperating Agency and its contractors and subcontractors, including (1) that such technical data shall be used, duplicated, or disclosed only for the purposes of fulfilling the receiving Cooperating Agency’s responsibilities under this Agreement and the relevant MOUs, and (2) that such technical data shall not be used by persons or entities other than the receiving Cooperating Agency, its contractors or subcontractors, or for any other purposes, without the prior written permission of the furnishing Partner State, acting through its Cooperating Agency.
(c) In the event that any technical data or goods transferred under this Agreement are classified, the furnishing Cooperating Agency shall mark with a notice, or otherwise specifically identify, such technical data or goods. The requested Partner State may require that any such transfer shall be pursuant to a security of information agreement or arrangement which sets forth the conditions for transferring and protecting such technical data or goods. A transfer need not be conducted if the receiving Partner State does not provide for the protection of the secrecy of patent applications containing information that is classified or otherwise held in secrecy for national security purposes. No classified technical data or goods shall be transferred under this Agreement unless both parties agree to the transfer.
4. Each Partner State shall take all necessary steps to ensure that technical data or goods received by it under subparagraphs 3(a), 3(b), or 3(c) above shall be treated by the receiving Partner State, its Cooperating Agency, and other persons and entities (including contractors and subcontractors) to which the technical data or goods are subsequently transferred in accordance with the terms of the notice or identification. Each Partner State and Cooperating Agency shall take all reasonably necessary steps, including ensuring appropriate contractual conditions in their contracts and subcontracts, to prevent unauthorized use, disclosure, or retransfer of, or unauthorized access to, such technical data or goods. In the case of technical data or goods received under subparagraph 3(c) above, the receiving Partner State or Cooperating Agency shall accord such technical data or goods a level of protection at least equivalent to the level of protection accorded by the furnishing Partner State or Cooperating Agency”.
- 85.
Art 19, IGA.
- 86.
The Legal Framework for the International Space Station, http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/pres/lsc2013/tech-05E.pdf.
- 87.
Art VIII, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 610 UNTS 205, entry into force Oct 10, 1967.
- 88.
F. Claasen, P. Weber, H. Ripken, V. Sobick, “Promotion of Industrial ISS Utilisation by the German Space Agency”, in International Space Station, the next Space Marketplace (eds. G. Haskell, M. Rycroft), p 156 (2000).
- 89.
International Cooperation, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/cooperation/index.html#.VPNQC3zF-8o.
- 90.
International Cooperation, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/cooperation/index.html#.VPNQC3zF-8o.
- 91.
M. Ferrazzani, A. Farand, “A European Perspective on Lessons Learned from the Intergovernmental Agreement on International Space Station Cooperation”, 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada (2014).
- 92.
M. Ferrazzani, A. Farand, “A European Perspective on Lessons Learned from the Intergovernmental Agreement on International Space Station Cooperation”, 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada (2014).
- 93.
The US side decided that the IGA is formally to be treated as an “Executive Agreement”, which under US practice does not require ratification by the Senate, as it does not require changes to US laws. See A. Farand, The Space Station Cooperation Framework, ESA Bulletin 94 (1998), at http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet94/FARAND.pdf.
- 94.
There are some scholars who follow the view that the IGA does not qualify as a “full-fledged treaty in the formal sense of international law”, as the USA implemented the IGA as an executive agreement, hence without advice and consent of the US Senate. This debate is beyond the scope of this article; however, following this view, these executive agreements are politically binding and provide for political security and are in practice not less effective; see R. Loosch, The International Space Station – the Legal Framework, p 56, in Les Stations Spatiales Habitées – Aspects Juridiques. Manned Space Stations – Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Colloquium held 7–8 November 1989 in Paris. Edited by Duc Guyenne. ESA SP-305. European Space Agency (1990), p 55.
- 95.
See further F. Von Der Dunk, “Space Law in the Age of the International Space Station” (2009), https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.de/&httpsredir=1&article=1005&context=spacelaw, last accessed 18 January 2018.
- 96.
J. Hurtak, M. Egan, “A MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT FOR A MANNED MISSION TO MARS” p 8, (2006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Germann, S., Nakarada Pecujlic, A. (2019). Legal Challenges of the New Space Race to Mars: Proposal for the Use of a Three-Tier Legal Framework. In: Kyriakopoulos, G.D., Manoli, M. (eds) The Space Treaties at Crossroads. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01479-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01479-7_11
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)