Jurists try to make law and order in outer space
A short stroll on the Internet reveals plenty of agencies selling land on the moon, and even on other celestial bodies, where no human foot has yet set foot. For less than $10, you too can be the proud owner of a dunam of moon land in a desirable area, with a beautiful view, and hope that your grandchildren or great-grandchildren will one day get to visit the property, and even make a profit from it. But the hope of generating profits, or of officially recognizing your ownership of land on the moon, has no legal validity, according to the international space treaties. "The treaties say that space or a certain celestial body cannot be appropriated to a certain country, by way of claiming sovereignty by using or occupying a certain area, this includes the moon, or in any other way. In other words, there is currently no legal way to acquire ownership of the space environment, including the lunar area," explains attorney Neta Falkovich, the legal advisor of the Dutch satellite company ISIS, and the first Israeli company in the International Organization of Space Lawyers.
No fewer than five international treaties regulate space matters, the first of which was signed already in 36,000, two years before Neil Armstrong was the first person to set foot on a celestial body other than Earth. The statutes not only prohibit the purchase of land in the space, but also the purchase of the space itself. Almost forty years ago, several equatorial countries signed the Bogota Treaty, which claims sovereignty over the flight path of communication satellites, approximately XNUMX km above the equator. In the end, they abandoned the demand, which is inconsistent with the art of space.
A gold mine in the sky
About two years ago, the company Planetary Resources was established in the United States, which develops methods for mining precious minerals in asteroids. Scientists estimate that in the large space rocks you can find rare metals such as platinum, cobalt, tungsten, gold and more - which are running out on Earth, but are very necessary for the advanced technology industry. The company is developing several programs to land spacecraft and robots on asteroids, mine the minerals and bring them back to Earth. There is even an ambitious plan to divert an asteroid into orbit around the moon, so that it will be available in our area. These technologies are still far from implementation, and it will take years before they become economically viable, but the legal question is already standing. If no one is allowed to declare ownership of an area in space, is it allowed to exploit its resources? "It may be permissible to use natural resources without claiming ownership," says Falkovich. "Countries are expected to create arrangements regarding the mining of natural resources in space, when technological progress allows it. As soon as binding arrangements are really created, with full consensus, it will be completely legal."
In the end the insurance pays
While the question of ownership of territories and economic rights in space are still mainly theoretical questions, another issue is already preoccupying jurists on Earth - tort law in space. In 1970, a Soviet satellite crashed in Canada. There were no casualties or property damage, but its nuclear fuel caused environmental pollution. Although the USSR did not admit responsibility for the accident, it paid half of the cleanup costs. Even in recent years we have witnessed several crashes of satellites into the earth, and it is only a matter of time until one of them causes real damage. "The Torts Convention, which regulates damage caused by self-inflicted space, establishes two tort regimes," says Falkovitz. "The first is the case of a space object that hits a person or property on the ground, or in the airspace, and in this case it is absolute responsibility." In other words, the owner of the satellite is responsible. The situation is more complicated when the accident occurs in space itself. In an age where the orbit around the earth is full of satellites and especially a lot of space debris, accidents are almost inevitable. But when there are two vehicles, without clear rules of right of way, it is very difficult to determine who is at fault in the accident. A few years ago, a fragment of an old Soviet satellite collided with an active communications satellite. The communications company accused the Russians of responsibility, but they claimed that they had no control over the broken satellite and that the communications company could have deflected the satellite a little and prevented the accident. In the end, the matter was settled without legal proceedings, and just like in car accidents on the ground, the one who bore the title was the insurance company. "In the case of a collision between man-made objects in space, proof of guilt is required," Falkovich explains. "Because there is no definition in art for guilt in space, and because these cases are very rare, the issue has not yet reached an international court in The Hague, or any other tribunal, and the cases of damage in the past were resolved through diplomatic procedures between countries."
The sky's the limit
The five space treaties do regulate some main matters, but they are still very far from providing a real legal basis for legal issues in space, what's more, not all countries have signed them. Israel, for example, only ratified the first three articles. Several bodies such as the United Nations Space Agency, COPUOS, and the European Union are trying to formulate more rules, in view of the changing reality, such as the increasing activity of private companies in space, and not just countries. "The existing law was created in the 60s, during the Cold War, and it still applies today, even though the reality of human activity in space has changed a lot, mainly because of the commercial activities of private companies," says Falkovich. "Therefore it is important that countries give their opinion regarding the legal development of the field, which concerns all human activity in space. In addition, because there is more and more activity, it is expected that there will be more conflicts between countries, so the issue will be more and more significant as time goes by."
In the coming decades, it can be assumed that human activity in space will expand considerably. More and more legal issues will arise when man moves to permanent settlement on Mars and the Moon, builds space stations manned by thousands of people, and lands spaceships in more and more distant regions. The situation will surely be even more interesting, when we meet other intelligent beings, hopefully they will not seek to destroy the Earth to clear a fast space path. It is possible that the aliens will have their own sets of laws, and that the war of the worlds will be a legal war at all.
To the original article on the website of Network B Click on the icon under the title to listen to the article from the "weekly diary"
Related links:
COPUOS - UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
37 תגובות
It's a shame that the article has so many errors in Hebrew, some of which could have been discovered even with a computerized spell check.
point
You did not answer me….
Even in the ghetto the Jews were free to choose between a rotten potato and a piece of stale bread.
Every person is free in some sense.
point,
Polikar once sang: "Free is completely alone". Even this is not true, but in social life laws are created that affect social life. I don't know an existing subsidiary where there are no rules, do you know one? Assuming that such a society does not exist, or at least failed to exist for a significant period of time, in which society of the societies that have existed so far would you prefer to live that they are all equal in your eyes in terms of the (average) freedom they give to the people who make them up, is it for example the average freedom in Iran, China or Russia Is it the same as the freedom offered in Israel, Germany or the United States?
point
Is it true you don't have children?
mouthhole
The solution is to eliminate those bad people. But that can't happen because they control.
withering,
The answer I gave is empty for one thing. deleted
I have nothing to say to those who like to be ruled by rules. He is probably the kind of slave who likes slavery and submission to the leader. Maybe it stems from a fear of taking responsibility for the things that happen around us.
You wrote something right, that in a system where there are no laws, laws are created by those who practice violence. And my claim is that we are exactly in the middle of this result of a government that uses violence when it feels like it. And she grew to monstrous proportions. in all countries. And today we are already talking about a worldwide government. Which means one central government that eliminates anyone who opposes it.
point,
The answer you gave me is empty, in fact the solution you gave to the problem is to say that there is no problem, but in a system where there are no laws, laws are created by those who act violently, this is what happens in nature and there is no reason to think that man will act differently (in fact the absolute majority if not all the evidence from human history shows that we are alive to everything. Don't you think it matters how the conflict is resolved? If your neighbor decides one day that you don't like the landscape and that he actually vaguely remembers that his grandfather even gave your grandfather the land on loan for a limited period, and now he demands that you vacate the land otherwise he I promise he will take you out by force, and what can you do, if he has more guns/knives than you have and it's quite clear that you won't be able to protect yourself and your family. You try to talk about his heart but he refuses to discuss the matter and you only annoy him until he impatiently interrupts you and tells you that you have until tomorrow to get out of his sight if you don't want to see your family murdered before your eyes. Losing the territory means a life of poverty and wandering full of danger for you and your family (your wife is very beautiful and you know that your neighbor is not the only maniac in the area). Which of the two solutions would you prefer the conflict Will it be resolved? To leave your home and your property or to be killed trying to defend yourself or do you think that if you trust in the supreme providence God will already come to him in a dream and inform him that it is not nice and that this is not the way to behave?
I will ask another way, many people in the past and present believe that life can be maintained without a central government, there is even such a current called the network culture. I don't know any company that has managed to maintain such a lifestyle for a reasonable amount of time (say about 100 years), although many have tried. Do you know such a company? If not, why do you think such a society did not emerge even though many people believe in this kind of sociality and some even tried to realize it?
I also want to participate in the journey to understand the point.
Point, I don't believe you believe in the goodness of man. After all, it is clear that without laws there will be other groups that will control much more terrible terrorism than the current situation.
I think you are only expressing your utopian state and your fantasies and don't really think that human beings will be able to live without certain laws and enforcement. I too would have preferred it if there was no need for it, but unfortunately and in my opinion man is not smart enough to understand this and is also greedy and not satisfied with what he has.
Is the righteous selfish?
point
Let me tell you about a certain area in South America where there is no police. Your chances of murder there are over 50%.
Let me tell you about a short police strike that I remember - during a strike of several hours in a large North American city: 6 banks were robbed, over 100 stores were robbed, a dozen fires were set and millions of dollars in damage were caused.
Only the forceful return of the police to work stopped the damage.
I recommend you learn a little about the world and man before you spew such nonsense. Your recommendations are idiotic.
I advise you not to be afraid to live among humans as they are.
And I advise you to want to be free and not under someone else's rule. Even if it makes you feel good.
point
I got you. I will ask again. Do you give up on the police? Do you recommend shutting down the police?
Police is an institutional body and as such it serves the government. not the company.
Camila, very simple. In a conflict situation, either it is resolved or it is not resolved. Is it possible otherwise?
point,
That is, you would prefer that everyone act according to their best understanding and desires?
And what will happen in cases of conflicts of interest? After all, not all people are kind and nice to each other, and respect privacy, property and even your right to live. What do you think is the solution in conflict situations?
point
Don't you think we need the police?
withering. By and large I don't believe in managing others.
I was blocked* and two*
Oops, sorry…
I think I got stuck... I can't send messages for some reason and two relatively detailed messages (not very long but not short either) disappeared... and I really don't feel like writing them down again.
MouthHole
I risk all my money and open a very successful enterprise. Fair means I will make a good profit for the risk and effort. Right says I am the one who decides what will happen to the capital I earned. Equality means, let's say, that everyone contributes what they can and gets what they need.
point,
Would you be willing to propose here your own model for managing a human society in which you would make sure, for example, that a subgroup of powerful people who might use it to the detriment of the rest of the group does not develop? If I understand correctly, this is one of the things that bothers you a lot in the way the current company is conducted, do I understand correctly?
Nissim, first of all, define fair, define just (egalitarian, I think that's clear). Then I'll tell you if it's interesting 🙂
MouthHole
A society cannot be both just, fair and egalitarian. Think about it a bit and I'll be happy to expand if it's interesting.
miracles,
I have no argument. I was just trying to explain Mr. Point's point as I understood it, and you have to admit that there is some truth in his words..
Of course we must have a set of rules, but ours is very far from ideal.
proof:
It was said that a human being (called Adam) was born in the USA (only because you mentioned it as an example), according to the constitution he has equal opportunities and is equal before the law, right? So that's not exactly. It depends on what family he is born into, if he is born into a poor family, his chance of changing his luck and becoming rich is less than one percent. Compared to if a person was born into a rich family - apparently he would have remained rich and there is a very low chance that he would have become poor. In fact wealth and ability are inherited. This is a fact. And as time goes by, the rich families move away from the poor and bigger gaps are created.
Therefore, it is a correct point that there are small groups that control most of the world's resources...
Click on my name for more data that will prove that we are in an ideal company...
MouthHole
I suggest you, and everyone, to read the US Declaration of Independence. It is written there, among other things: everyone has a right to life, to freedom and to the pursuit of happiness - in order to maintain these rights, man established a system of government for himself.
are you between In a democracy, the citizens determine the form of government so that it preserves the most basic rights.
Another point: Man cannot exist in a world of scarcity without a governmental system - and I will explain. When there were very few people then everyone could do what they wanted without affecting the others. Even then, it is not exact, and even in the smallest community a system of rules is needed. Even with cheetahs with 2 cubs on a huge area, there is still a strict set of rules designed to allow the mother to safely raise her cubs and teach them how to survive (for example - the mother tells the cubs not to leave the den while she goes hunting).
To understand the need for laws in a situation of scarcity - read Gert Hardin's tragedy of the commons.
A point is, in the eyes of a spoiled child, from the current generation of "I deserve it".
Nissim, I think a point looks at everything from a higher perspective, not as an Israeli or a Jew but as a human being. And then he is right.
He (we) was born here, he was told that he had enemies, he was told that he had debts, he was told that he had payments and that he could not settle where he wanted...even though he is an animal born on earth. And all this for what? Because there are those who are stronger and have control...
Now you listen to what they want you to listen to and you can't listen to what they don't want you to listen to. This is called brainwashing.
And I really don't understand what the argument is about. Are you saying that the government has no power or what?
point
No, no one brainwashed me. I just listen to what my enemies say, and look at their actions. As they say, when you grow up you will understand.
You write that the government made a person afraid to break the law. And I ask, what wretched person does not break the law because he is afraid?
deer
Thank you for the clarification. A good friend of mine saw the book in a bookstore and read it, liked the book
in his eyes and he recommended me to read it. In light of all the comments that appeared here, I began to doubt the recommendation
This one because my friend didn't read the book. Now after reading your comment I understand that there is not much connection
Among the responses here to the book itself, which is on the face of it an interesting book that was definitely not written with anti-Semitic motives.
Miracles,
You have been brainwashed that Israel is in real existential danger.
But I'm not talking about this intimidation. This is intimidation that is mainly intended to distract the public from the governmental corruption.
I'm talking about the fact that a person is afraid to break the law (for example not to pay Bibi taxes) that the government has established because the government has power (police, army, etc.) that it can exercise.
In the same way, those who took and will take ownership of the space are not me and you, but those powerful people who can do whatever they want.
Buy as many as you want as long as they don't forget to pay property tax, improvement tax, maintenance tax, purchase tax, purchase tax, non-rental tax, VAT and cigarette tax. And please don't leave a baby in the car with the windows closed
father
I understand you are the thief. As for your question, it depends on the extradition agreements between Earth and Mars.
If a person lives in a colony on Mars, but stole money on Earth?
point
Israel is in real existential danger. The government denies it.
Again - do you live in Israel?
Terror from the language of intimidation.
The government instills fear in the citizens.
point
Do you live in Israel? What terrorism are you talking about?
Let them make as much art as they want. 99.999% of humans have never signed these treaties.
No one has ownership of either land on Earth or land outside Earth.
The only thing that exists is intimidation, violence and terror that the government operates. Government has power. And in nature the power speaks.
"Owning" a thing in this sense is the ability to endanger someone who will try to take control of the same thing.