There are fortunes in space, and the feasibility of mining asteroids raises a lot of questions as to the ownership of the proprietary rights in space. Are there original owners in space resources or are the ownership rights merely derivative? Does the extraction of these minerals from asteroids automatically confer ownership on the resource mined? The determination of who owns these proprietary rights in space resources speaks to the owner's ability to extract use and dispose of these space resources; this is particularly so as an owner has full and final right of alienation, use and disposition of property or resources in space without seeking the consent of another party. The owner of a property or resources can use it for any purpose: material, immaterial, substantial, non-substantial, valuable, invaluable, and beneficial or even for the purpose detrimental to his personal or proprietary interest. This article discusses the legality or otherwise of the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act 2015, and it further proposes that Article 1 of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty) that speaks about “benefit and interest” of all, should be considered as laying the foundation of ownership in space resources. The article further introduces a balance of obligation in considering the principle of “benefit/equitable sharing.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Handbook on Measuring the Space Economy. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development, 2012.
2.
SchroglK-U, et al. Yearbook on Space Policy 2008/2009: Setting New Trends. Nature Switzerland AG, 2008.
Space Foundation. Space Foundation Annual Report. Space Foundation, 2019.
5.
JollyC, et al. The space economy at a glance. 2007.
6.
AndreyI. Russia's Space Program in 2006: Some Progress but No ClearDirection. Moscow Defense Brief Centre for Analysis of Strategies andTechnologies, 2006. http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2007/item1/item3/ (last accessed January10, 2021).
7.
BrombergJL. NASA and the Space Industry. John Hopkins University Press, 2000.
8.
For exampleDeep Space Industries plans to launch a spacecraft capable of prospecting near Earth asteroids for valuable resources. See Deep SpaceIndustries. Prospecter-1: First Commercial Interplanetary MiningMission. PHYS.ORG, 2016. https://phys.org/news/2016-08-prospector-1first-commercialinterplanetary-mission.html (last accessed April13, 2021).
9.
BilderRB, et al. A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon. The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1989. See also Miller JT, Coit DT. Lunar Property and Mining Rights. Unpublished B.S. thesis, Worchester Polytechnic Institute, 2008 (on file with Digital WPI).
10.
Hard rock minerals could be mined from an asteroid or a spent comet. Precious metals such as gold, silver, and platinum group metals could be transported back toEarth, while iron group metals and other common ones could be used for construction in space. SeeWikipedia. AsteroidMining. Wikipedia, The FreeEncyclopedia, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining (last accessed January10, 2021).
11.
Paxson EWIII.Sharing the benefits of outer space exploration: space law and economic development. Michigan J Int Law. 1993; 14(3):487.
12.
ChekeraYT, NmehielleVO. The international law principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources as an instrument for development: The case of Zimbabwean diamonds. Afr J Legal Stud. 2013; 6(1):69–101. International Court of Justice Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands. Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda. ICJ Reports 244. International Court of Justice, 2005.
13.
GabrynowiczJI.Space law: Its cold war origins and challenges in the era of globalization. Suffolk Univ Law Rev. 2004; 37(4):1041–1043.
TronchettiF.The non-appropriation principle under attack: Using article II of the outer space treaty in its defence. Proc L Outer Space, 2007; 50:526–530.
16.
G.A. Res. 1721 (XVI), at 6 (Dec. 20, 1961); Tronchetti, supra note 18, at 530.
17.
G.A. Res. 1802 (XVII), at 5 (Dec. 14, 1962); Tronchetti, supra note 18, at 530.
18.
AbigailD. Pershing, “Interpreting the Outer Space Treaty's Non - Appropriation Principle: Customary International Law from 1967 toToday“, 44 YaleJ. Int'l L. (2019). https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol44/iss1/5., argues that States have carved out an exception to the non-appropriation principle which in turnhas had the effect of changing customary international law relating to the non-appropriation principle. Shifting away from its original blanket application in 1967 (last accessed September29, 2021).
19.
WrenchJG.Non-appropriation, no problem: the outer space treaty is ready for asteroid mining. Case W Res J Int Law. 2019; 51:437.
20.
The Case of theS.S. Lotus, 1927 PCIJ Series A, No. 10.
21.
Weil. “The court cannot conclude definitively…” non liquet revisited. Columbia J Transnational Law 1998;36:109–112; Dupuy. ‘L’Unité de l'Ordre Juridique International: Cours Général de Droit International Public (2000). The Hague, The Netherlands: Recueil des Cours 2002; Roth. The enduring significance of state sovereignty. Florida Law Rev, 2004; 56:1017–1029. Handeyside. The lotus principle in ICJ jurisprudence: was the ship ever afloat? Michigan J Int Law 2007–2008;29:71–72.
22.
Frowein. Kosovo and lotus. In: FastenrathU, et al. (eds), From Bilateralism to Community Interest. 2011.
23.
Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports. (1996) 226; Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 22 July 2010, ICJ Reports (2010) 403. This principle is not free from criticism. For criticisms against this principle see; Hertogen A. Letting lotus bloom. Eur J Int Law, 2015; 26(4):901.
24.
ZwaanTL, et al.Space law: Views of the future: A compilation of articles by a new generation of space law scholars. Kluwer Law Taxation, 1988; 45–55.
25.
GoldieLFE. Is there a general international law of original ownership?The possible relevance of general doctrines governing the possession of deep ocean-bed resources. See GoldieL.F.E. (1979) “Customary International Law and Deep SeabedMining,” Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce: Vol. 6: No. 2, Article 3. https://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol6/iss2/3 (last accessed September29, 2021).
26.
Other scholars have analogized UNCLOS and the Antarctic Treaty System to the law of outer space as models for potential development. See, for example, Heim BE. Exploring the last frontiers for mineral resources: A comparison of international law regarding the deep seabed, outer space, and Antarctica. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law, 1990; 23:819–845. Wrench Supra note 20, however, “asserts that those property regimes share the same doctrinal foundations as the non-appropriation principle, and therefore are useful for a different purpose—to determine the scope of rights available in extracted resources under the non-appropriation principle. In other words, Wrench used those regimes as examples of what scope of property rights in extracted resources the non-appropriation principle already permits.”
27.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space Including the Moon and Other CelestialBodies, opened for signatureJan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205 (entered into force October 10, 1967).
28.
TronchettiF. The non-apropritaion principle under attack: using articleII of the outer space treaty in its defence. In: TanjaMasson-Zwan ed. Proceedings of the Fiftieth Colloquium on the Law of OuterSpace. 2007:10.
29.
OgunbawoO. International Law and Outer Space Activities. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 1975.
30.
MeyerZ.Private commercialization of space in an international regime: a proposal for a space district. Northwestern J Int Law Bus, 2010; 30(1):252.
31.
Seaford Court Estates Ltd v Asher [1949] 2 KB 481.
32.
Ibid [1949] 2 KB 481, 498–500.
33.
“The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” Article I of The Outerspace Treaty.
34.
“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.” Article II of The Outerspace Treaty.
35.
PopV.Appropriation in outer space: The relationship between land and ownership and sovereignty on the celestial bodies. Space Policy, 2000; 16:275. (noting how the treaty neglected to mention individuals or corporations).
36.
PatonGW. A Textbook of Jurisprudence. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972.
37.
HohfeldWN.Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law J. 1917; 26(8):710–770.
38.
SmithIO.Practical Approach to Law of Real Property in Nigeria (5th edn). Lagos: Ecowatch Publication Nigerian Limited, 1999.
39.
BacaKA.Property rights in outer space. J Air Law Commerce. 1993; 58:1041–1068.
40.
Absolute title is synonymous with ownership. U.S.-based businesses like Planetary Resources and Deep SpaceIndustries have plans to profit from space mining, see for example, WernerD. California Eyes Launch IncomeRegulation, Not a New TaxSPACENEWS. 2017. http://spacenews.com/california-eyes-launch-income-regulation-not-anew-tax/.
41.
HR2262 - US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (NI) 2015–2016. “This same step was followed by Luxembourg which adopted its Law on Exploration and Use of Space Resources in 2017. Other nations of the world seem to be heading towards the same destination as countries are in the process of developing national legal frameworks for the commercial exploitation of space resources, such as the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.”
42.
According to RamJakhu, a professor at McGill University's Institute of Air and SpaceLaw, the 1967 Outer SpaceTreaty, signed by theU.S., makes it clear that the surfaces and contents of asteroids and other celestial bodies are protected from commercial harvesting; harvesting of space-based resources must be done “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”. In his view the overarching purpose of the treaty leads to the conclusion that “there really shouldn't be any private property rights in outer space. RidderhofR. Space Mining and (US) SpaceLaw. Peace PalaceLibrary, 2015. https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/2015/12/space-mining-and-u-s-space-law/ (last accessed January10, 2021).
43.
QiwuZ.Some reflections on the most important principle of outer space law: To the common interests of all mankind. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. 1989; 25–30.
44.
See the proposal of Mr. Krishna Rao of India, Summary Report of 63rd meeting, 5th Session of Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, U.N. Doc. AlAC. 105/C.2/SR.63, at 7 (1966).
45.
The objection was formulated by Senator Gore at Treaty on OuterSpace, Hearing on Executive D Before the Committee on Foreign RelationsU.S. Sen., 90th Cong., 1st Sess.
46.
Nevertheless, it remains clear that the article I (1) provision was ratified by the UnitedStates under the tacit interpretative reservation in respect to the non-compulsory character of the “common interests” principle.See Markoff G. Disarmament and “peaceful purposes” provisions in the 1967 outer space treat. J of Space Law. 1976; 4(1):3–23.
47.
Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties, opened for signatureMay 23, 1969. Article 23(1) states: “A reservation must be formulated in writing and communicated to the contracting States and other States entitled to become parties to the treaty.”
48.
OduntanG.Who owns space? US asteroid-mining act is dangerous and potentially illegal. The Conversation.2015. https://theconversation.com/who-owns-space-us-asteroid-mining-act-is-dangerous-and-potentially-illegal-51073 (last accessed January10, 2021). See also for example: Does international space law either permit or prohibit the taking of resources in outer space and on celestial bodies, and how is this relevant for national actors? What is the context, and what are the contours and limits of this permission or prohibition? International Institute of Space Law, Directorate of Studies, 2016. http://iislweb.org/docs/IISL_Space_Mining_Study.pdf; Hobe S, Schmidt-Tedd B, Schrogl KU (ed.). Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Volume I. Germany: Carl Heymanns, 2009; Hobe S, Schmidt-Tedd B, Schrogl K-U (ed). Cologne Commentary on Space Law, Volume II. Carl Heymanns, 2013; Tronchetti F. The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. The Netherland: Nijhoff, 2009.
49.
Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other CelestialBodies, opened for signatureDec. 18, 1979, 1363 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter Moon Treaty].
50.
CoffeyS.Note: Establishing a legal framework for property rights to natural resources in outer space. Case Western Reserve J Int Law. 2009; 41:119–120.
51.
BabcockHM.The public trust doctrine, outer space, and the global commons: time to call home ET. Syracuse Law Rev. 2019; 69(2):214.
52.
GabrynowiczJI. The “province” and “heritage” of mankind reconsidered: a new beginning. In: MendellWW (ed). The Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, Proceedings from a conference held in Houston, TX April 5–7, 1988. NASA Conference Publication 3166. 1992:692.
53.
DiMariaS. Starships and enterprise: private spaceflight companies' property rights and theU.S. commercial space launch competitiveness act. St. John's Law Rev. 2016; 90:415:419. Resources in outer space are either res communis, “to be enjoyed and shared by all people in common,” or res nullius, not subject to being owned, “but attainable by the first person to occupy of capture the property.”
54.
AbramsB.First contact: Establishing jurisdiction over activities in outer space. Georgia J Int Comp L. 2014; 42:812.
BuxtonCR.Property in outer space: The common heritage of mankind principle vs. the “first in time, first in right. Rule Property Law J Air Law Commerce, 2004; 69:689–703.
57.
Giuseppe Reibaldi (President of the moon association) on MVA webinar Series: Governance of Global Moon Exploration andSettlement, Episode 3—Sharing Benefit of LunarActivities. September 8, 2020.
58.
This is also in consonance with The “ArgentineDoctrine” maintains that benefits derived from harvesting space resources must be made available without discrimination to all humanity, and that an effort should be made to distribute these benefits in a way to promote higher living standards and conditions of economic development pursuant to Article 55(a) of theU.N. Charter. See WilliamsSM. ThePrinciple of non-appropriation concerning resources of the moon and celestial bodies. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Colloquium on the Law of OuterSpace. 1970:157–158. However, see the argument in Kleiman MJ. The Little Book of Space Law 2013;157. As Gangale and Dudley-Rowley put it, “Has there ever been a serious challenge to the US or Soviet/Russian governments over their ownership (or at least their control) of the material they brought back from the Moon? These precedents established a principle of customary law that ‘if you take it, it's yours.’” Gangale&DudleyRowley.
59.
Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly 41/65. Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space.
60.
MarcoffMG.Traita de Droit International Public De L'Espace. Editions universitaires, Fribourg, Suisse. 1973; 351:671–672.
61.
Smith also believes that countries should be free to determine when and how to share the benefits of their exploration. See SmithML. The commercial exploitation of mineral resources in outer space. In: ZwaanTL, de VriesWWC, TuinderPH, KuskuvelisII (eds.). Space Law: Views of the Future: A Compilation of Articles by a New Generation of Space Law Scholars. Deventer, Kluwer, 1988:47–49.
62.
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties on 29 October 2010, in Nagoya, Japan.
63.
See Article 5 (1) which provides that “In accordance withArticle 15, paragraphs 3 and 7 of theConvention, benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources as well as subsequent applications and commercialization shall be shared in a fair and equitable way with the Party providing such resources that is the country of origin of such resources or a Party that has acquired the genetic resources in accordance with theConvention. Such sharing shall be upon mutually agreed terms.”
64.
KułagaL.Space mining governance from the perspective of international consultations with regard to marine genetic resources and the multilateralism-unilateralism dichotomy—preliminary considerations. Polish Rev Int Eur Law. 2017; 6(2):13.
65.
Vancouver Recommendations on Space Mining Outer Space Institute, April 20, 2020.
ThomasJ.Privatization of space ventures: Proposing a proven regulatory theory for future extraterrestrial appropriation. Int Law Management Rev. 2005; 1:191–202.
68.
The benefit should not only be on resources, but also on science and technology, on information etc.
69.
SattlerR.Transporting a legal system for property rights from the earth to the stars. Chicago J Int'l Law. 2005; 6(1):23–34.
70.
United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea preamble, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 [hereinafter UNCLOS].
