Abstract
The purpose of this article is to test a novel idea according to which basic human rights, such as equal access to space resources deemed critical for astronauts/spacecraft personnel's well-being for survival in outer space, on the Moon, or on any other celestial bodies, can be secured through international space law and prevent monopolistic abuse whereby a sole manufacturer of products or service provider restricts or cuts vital supplies. Both the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Rescue Agreement of 1968 can be interpreted in that sense, by (1) combining higher ethical principles of space law such as the duty to assist, peaceful uses/purposes, due regard, and non-harmful interference and considering that these principles be considered as negative obligations in addition to their current interpretation, and (2) ensuring that corporate human rights (CHR) that could potentially be invoked by future monopolies do not interfere with basic human rights in space. Further, the proposed reinterpretation, however, must stand the test of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and create consensus, based on the changing circumstances of the space sector whereby conventional warfare is being gradually replaced by commercial warfare. The lex mercatoria spatialis plays an increasingly central role within the lawfare witnessed today and, therefore, it can be inferred that CHR could clash with the humanitarian purposes of space law (e.g., for the benefit of [hu]mankind). For this reason, to mitigate the risk that monopolistic abuse and the toxic competition infringe on basic human rights and space law principles, and to enforce both a humanitarian law threshold and fair competition principles, mindful of the values of outer space law, this article recommends reinterpreting the existing space law instruments under a different light and determining specific injunction measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.