Implementation Of Article 11 Of The Moon Agreement And Practical Problems | Author : Komal Srivastava | Volume II Issue IV |

ABSTRACT

The Moon treaty of 1979 is not ratified by major space flaring nations such as the USA, Russia, and other European Countries due to the flaws which is found in the text of Article 11 of the treaty. It is known to be the most controversial treaty due to the presence of uncertainties and ambiguities present in it, which would be elaborated later in the paper. These are controversies surrounding the principle of the common heritage of mankind, setting up a future international regime to govern the exploration of natural resources, national appropriation, and property rights. While the developing nations support the inclusion of the Common Heritage of Mankind, it is one of the significant reasons that stand in its way of ratification. The text of article 11 fails to mention the power and structure of an international regime and the right time to establish it. Besides that, another problem that proves to be existing is that the drafters of the Agreement were trying to formulate binding rules decades before the actual capabilities of exploiting such resources existed. The texts of the Agreement were framed long before the feasibility of the exploitation became a reality. The regulations that are drafted regarding the new resources were mainly based on historical fears of colonialism rather than on factual reports identifying the Moon’s natural resources, the technology required for exploitation, and the funding of such activities.

The paper explores the areas of conflict that exist because of article 11 and how it has been unsuccessful in closing the loopholes of the Outer Space treaty of 1967. The objective would be to study how Article 11 is a reason why the major space flaring nations have chosen not to ratify it even after actively participating in the drafting of it. The approach of the third world countries and the major space flaring nations towards article 11 would be studied.

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. A Brief History of the Space Law Treaties.

Five international space law treaties govern international space law. They are concluded by the Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS), which is a legal subcommittee developed by the United Nations for the development of the international space laws and also to study various technical and legal aspects of the space exploration.

The first treaty to have come into existence in the international space law is the ‘Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,’ also known as the ‘Outer Space treaty’ adopted by the General Assembly in 1967. It was followed by the Rescue Agreement 1968, Liability Convention 1972, and the Registration Convention 1976. The last part of the space treaties is the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, commonly known as the ‘Moon Treaty.’ It was adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 34/68 and came into force on 11 July 1984.

All these treaties are jointly referred to as the ‘Five United Nations Treaties on Outer Space’ and deal with issues such as non-appropriation of outer space, property rights, arms control, space activities, controlling, and managing the exploitation of natural resources, etc. The outer space should be used for the benefit of mankind and the international community.

With the launch of the first man-made satellite, Sputnik, by the USSR in 1957, there began a space race between the two superpowers of the Cold war, the United States and the USSR^[1], and this rivalry and competition lasted for decades about who would first successfully conquest the outer space.  However, with the fall of the USSR at the end of the Cold war and at the dawn of globalization, the competition gradually turned into a cooperative effort of the international community.  The visions of the future exploration seemed feasible to potentially explore the outer space with the cooperative efforts of the States. Moon and other celestial bodies were seen as an excellent opportunity for exploration, which would immensely help mankind^[2], and hence this led to a shift from mere exploration to economically motivated exploration. An important step was taken by Resolution 1721 of the General Assembly in the year 1961, recognized the common interest of mankind in the exploration of outer space. It also stated that  the benefits have to be shared among all the nations irrespective of the stage of their economic development. This paved the way for the formation of the first space law treaty.

1. The Outer Space Treaty, 1967

The UNCOPOUS framed its first treaty, the Outer Space Treaty in 1967, which talks about no appropriation of the outer space, free use and equal rights of all states, freedom of scientific principles, sovereign rights over the objects launched, and installed in the outer space, etc. This treaty is the ‘Magna Carta’ of the space treaties. The main objective of this treaty was to accept the concept of the outer space as ‘res communis,’ i.e., open access to all the resources and no claim of ownership or exclusion of others, instead of ‘res nullis’ which means a no man’s territory but available for conquest.

The following articles of the Outer Space Treaty are essential as they form the basis of the subsequent treaties that followed, notably the Moon Treaty, which is the main focus of research.

Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty talks about the exploration of the Outer Space, including Moon and Other celestial bodies, for the benefit and interest of all the countries….. and shall be for the province of mankind. [3]The Outer Space Treaty does not define the expression’ province of mankind’ thus leaving it ambiguous and uncertain.  However, it is interpreted to mean that it will be for the benefit of mankind, which again has led to various other interpretations. Article 1(2) confirms the res commuis character of the outer space. ^[4]

The term ‘exploitation’is not used in the entire treaty, but this does not mean that the treaty does not allow direct or indirect exploitation of the resources in the outer space. The term ‘resources’ has no has an uncertain legal status and is undefined in the treaty.

The treaty is interpreted in a way that the extraterritorial resources will be exploited for the benefit of mankind. The meaning of the article remains vague and requires further clarification.

Article II of the Outer Space Treaty talks about the non-appropriation of the outer space and that no nation can claim sovereignty over it; this, however, disregards the claim of ownership on any resources they have discovered.  One of the reasons why the governments do not want to invest in the exploration is that they don’t get to have exclusive control even after investing so much.
Article II fails to mention the claim of ownership by the business entities and private operators. Many business entities and private operators whose countries are not signatory to the treaty use this loophole to assert that the non-ownership (res communis) principle does not apply to them.^[5]The scope of article II remains uncertain.

With the treaty in force, the States, for the first time, were legally obliged to carry out their activities in outer space within a set framework of rules. While the drawback of the treaty is that it has neither defined nor established a system to enforce its mechanism, the legality and binding value of it has never been under discussion.

Since the Outer Space treaty failed to provide any detailed solution to the problems that may arise in the future exploration of the extraterritorial resources, there occurred a need for a more comprehensive set of rules to govern the activities on the man on Moon and other celestial bodies. This led to the formation of the Moon Agreement. 

• The Moon Agreement

1. The Moon Agreement is not only the last of the Space law treaties series but also the most controversial child of the UNCOPOUS.^[6] The Moon agreement reinstates the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. It was an attempt to close the loopholes of the Outer Space treaty. While it was successful in clarifying some aspects of it, it sparked some major controversies, which ultimately led to its failure. It applies not only to the Moon but other celestial bodies too. It covers a vast range of all the asteroids and planets, thus giving scope to explore an almost infinite source of minerals that would benefit mankind.

The Moon Agreement developed on the principles of the Outer Space Treaty. It was intended to clarify the legal status of celestial bodies’ resources and set out rules governing their utilization.^[7] This instrument was referred to as the ‘Moon Treaty’ in its entire gestation period and isknown the same henceforth.^[8]

Even though the Moon treaty was formed to give solutions to the problems that existed in the previous space law treaties, it is a failure on the international plane because of the non-ratification by the major space flaring nations such as the USA and Russia owing to its uncertainties and ambiguousness in its text.

While the Moon treaty successfully closed some of the loopholes of the Outer Space Treaty, it has managed to spark controversies regarding the sharing of benefits of the outer space exploration and other such problems ( as discussed in chapter 2) because of the vagueness of the terms used in the treaty especially in article 11. The Moon treaty, like the Outer Space, focuses more on future goals without establishing a clearly defined framework for achieving the same.

If we look into the space law, it is typically vague, and the obligations and benefit-sharing of the space exploration have sparked controversies between the developing states and the spacefaring states.^[9] While the developing nations are in favor of the maximum sharing benefits of space exploration, the space flaring nations are reluctant to do the same and believe in minimal sharing benefits.^[10] The sharing obligations in the space treaties will be more precise if the State parties interpret these obligations in the light of international cooperation and give effect to it. Let us first look into the background of how the Moon agreement came into existence. The later part of the chapter would elaborate on the problems and controversies of article 11 of the Moon treaty. 

1. Brief Background of the Moon Agreement

The Moon Treaty has been known as the most far-reaching international Agreement because of the provisions in the Agreement cover not only the Moon but also every celestial body in our solar system, except the planet Earth. It also covers all the trajectories and the orbits which revolve around them.

After the US landing of man on Moon in 1969, Argentina in July 1970 presented a “Draft Agreement on the Principles Governing Activities in the Use of the Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” following which the Soviet Union in 1971 also proposed an agenda namely ‘the Preparation of an International Treaty Concerning the Moon.’ The United Nations General Assembly agreed on a Resolution 2779 (XXVI) in 1971 and took into consideration the draft of the Soviet Union and requested the Outer Space Committee and Legal sub Committee to work on it on priority. It took eight years to reach consensus, which finally led to the formation of the Agreement. ^[11]

This Agreement was then opened to the signature on 18 December 1979 and entered into force on 11 July 1984. Till now, 18 states have signed the Moon treaty, out of which only seven have ratified. Due to certain drawbacks, this treaty has not been ratified by the major powers, i.e., USA, Russia, Member states of European Space Agency, Japan, and the Republic of China, which has ultimately led to its failure on the international plane. 

CHAPTER II

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE MOON TREATY OF 1979 – ARTICLE 11

Article 11 of the Moon Treaty

Article 11 forms the crux of the entire Moon treaty. Clause 1 of the article boldly declares that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind. The article further elaborates on the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty by stating that the Moon is not subject to national appropriation, and no sovereignty can be claimed over it by any State. It says that the surface or subsurface of the Moon cannot become the property of any State, international intergovernmental or non- governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person nor any right of ownership be created. This is an elaboration on article II of the Outer Space Treaty.

The article states that the States have the right to exploration without any discrimination. It also talks about setting up an international regime under Clause 5, which would govern the exploration of the natural resources when it becomes feasible. Clause 7 of the article talks about the equitable sharing of the benefits derived from the resources to be shared among the developing countries and the countries that have contributed directly or indirectly in the exploration. 

The Moon treaty has the distinction of mentioning the phrase ‘Common Heritage of Mankind’ and, for the first time bringing this concept into focus.

Areas of conflict in Article 11 of the Moon Treaty

1. Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM)

This expression is found in paragraph 5 of Article 11 of the Moon Agreement. While drafting the Moon agreement, one of the concerns was to extend the scope of the term ‘Province of all Mankind,’ as was mentioned in the Outer Space Treaty, 1967.  The province of all mankind only covered the exploration and other activities on the Moon, and the expression was vague too, hence there was a need to expand the scope to ‘material objects too.’[12] Also, the right to have equal opportunities in sharing the benefit of space exploration by the developed and developing nations was a significant consideration. To incorporate these new additions, the term Common Heritage of Mankind was included in the Moon Treaty.

 The CHM has the element of a “beneficial domain,” which means it consists of the enjoyment, profit, and other space benefits which were not a part of the Outer Space Treaty.[13] Those nations who accept the CHM principles have to pre supposedly share the technology and the material benefits too. There is disagreement over the meaning and context of the Common heritage of mankind.

The CHM principle fundamentally consists of five elements:

 1) there can be no appropriation of the areas under consideration

2) the management has to be shared by all the countries

3) the sharing must be active

4) all exploration has to be done for peaceful purpose

5) sustainable exploitation so that it can be preserved for future generations.

This principle believes that there will be no ownership of properties that are labeled as ‘common heritage,’ and the sharing of the benefits would be without regard to the countries contribution in the endeavor.[14]

On reading of Article 11(1), it is seen that it does not provide any details on how the Moon can be commercial exploitation, especially lunar mining. There is no real implementation of the CHM principle provided by the Moon Agreement.

The Third World Approach to the Common Heritage of Mankind is that the developing countries wanted the inclusion of this phrase while the drafting of the moon agreement was going on. The developing countries see this phrase as a critical factor in the state of inequality that exists. The equitable distribution of the raw materials, technology, information, benefits is what exactly the developed nations opposed. The developed and spacefaring countries like the US have been reluctant about signing the Moon Treaty because it does not accept the concept of the CHM principle. The developing countries, on the other hand, insist on its inclusion because it prevents the private investment and, consequently, the sharing of the resources.

The most common reason why the spacefaring nations have not signed the treaty is that they are not willing to share all the benefits, technology, and material resources with the countries whose investments to the space exploration are very less to compared to them.

1. Establishment of an International Regime

Article XI provides for the establishment of a regime, an international governing body, which would govern the exploration process of the natural resources when it would be feasible. It provides for a condition that the establishment of the regime would only begin when the recovery of the resources becomes technically feasible. However, the treaty does not provide for any guideline, structure, or the formation of the governing body.[15] It only mentions that it would be required in the future.  In the provision, there is no specification of the timeline between the implementation of the Agreement and the setting up of the international regime.

One of the reasons why the spacefaring nations are reluctant to accept the Moon agreement is that the establishment of the international regime is a concept similar to the idea of ‘Enterprise’in the Law of the Sea Convention.

Enterprise  was a governing body setup to oversee the harvesting of the mineral resources of the sea. It required the nations exploring the sea to relinquish a portion of the wealth mined from the sea to the Enterprise so that it would distribute it among the developing countries. The idea of relinquishment of their resources extracted and technology is keeping them vary from accepting this proposal.

Another concern regarding the same is that it mandates that the states have to ratify the treaty before they can join in for the establishment of the regime. This idea is also not acceptable to the developed countries like the USA and Russia because ratifying the treaty means that they have to accept the CHM principle. Unless these concerns aresatisfied,the majority of the spacefaring nations will refrain from ratifying the treaty. The word ‘resources’ is also not defined in the treaty, which again causes more ambiguousness.

Another problem associated with the development of the regime is that it can be economically not viable. It could be extremely costly even to begin the initial process. The problems regarding the control and operational management would then be needed to be dealt with. The bottom line is its mere existence would not solve the issue.

• Moratorium

Looking at the moratorium issue, two schools emphasize on two different perspectives. The first school says that there is a moratorium on mineral exploitation.  The other school says it does not. Let us first look at the primary school of thought.

 The developed countries face two kinds of moratorium 1) Legal Moratorium

 2) De facto Moratorium

Legal Moratorium: The pending creation of the international regime is the legal restriction, which is causing a restraint on the initiation of the exploitation of the mineral resources.[16]  The creation of the international regime precedes exploitation. Hence unless the regime comes into existence, the whole process cannot begin. Also, the establishment of the international regime comes with its own set of problems.

De Facto Moratorium: this is related to the acceptance of two vague concepts, i.e., common heritage principle and the international regime. Since there is no commonly accepted definition of the common heritage of mankind, it can lead to the possibility of having an extensive interpretation by the developing states resulting in unacceptable common ownership.[17]Another is the unwillingness of the potential owners to involve in 10-15 years of investments, which could ultimately result in the establishment of an unfavorable regime. Their efforts would be nullified.

The second school of thought involves the exploitation of natural resources.

Paragraph two of article 11 provides that “the moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”

Para one of the articles states that surface or the subsurface of the Moon or any part of the natural resources cannot become the property of anyone. The definition of appropriation is not defined in the Moon Treaty. Still, on the reading of these two articles, it appears to limit an entity’s activities on the Moon to a great extent.

However, there is a subsequent provision in the Moon Treaty, which partially negates the prohibition of national appropriation. The provision states that the placement of space vehicles, installations, etc. on the surface of the Moon shall not generate any right of ownership of that specific state. The prohibition on the national appropriation and the property rights mentioned in the Moon Treaty appears to be misleading because various activities that are usually related to the national appropriation are eventually allowed by the latter part of paragraph 3.  Hence we can conclude that the prohibition on national appropriation is not absolute. It partially allows it in the form of various activities mentioned in paragraph 3.

This now leads to the second school of thought on the issue of Moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources. The CHM principle, national appropriation, and exploitation are closely related to it. Going by the previous argument, it can be said that the prohibitions placed against the national appropriation as well as the property rights are not absolute. They are mainly illusory. Hence it can be inferred that there is no actual moratorium upon the exploitation of natural resources.

This argument is also substantiated by Article 6 of the Moon Agreement that it does not prohibit the recovery of soil or other mineral samples from the Moon for non-pecuniary purposes. Also, the same can be retained for scientific use too. This means that eventually, there is no moratorium placed on mineral exploitation.

Article 11(8) of the Moon Agreement mentions that the activities related to the exploitation should be carried out per paragraph 7 of article 11 and article 6(2).[18]The text of this article intent that the activities must be allowed according to certain limitations placed by the above-given articles. This again proves that there is no moratorium on the exploitation, and the Moon Treaty places no restriction on the face of it.

1. Lunar Mining

The Lunar mining issue is an extension of the sharing of benefits concept under the Common Heritage of Mankind principle. The Outer Space Treaty proved to be insufficient to restrict the activities of the nations on the Moon. Although the space law and other developing countries have wanted to prohibit the lunar mining in space or if the lunar mining is carried out in the future, the benefits of the same to be distributed equitably to all these nations irrespective of their investments and contribution in the mining. On an interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty, it can be seen that the prohibition on lunar mining is unlikely. There has been no explicit mention of the ban on the lunar mining in the Outer Space Treaty, and the treaty has explicitly prohibited wherever it desires to prohibit certain activities in the outer space.  Also, if the treaty is interpreted in a way to restrict the activities of lunar mining, it will, in a way, be detrimental to the developing states because the benefits of the mining would be shared with them also. So it can work against the benefit of humanity. 

In the Moon Agreement, too, there has been no resolution on the issue of lunar mining. This indicates further that the Outer Space Treaty did not prohibit lunar mining. No lunar mining moratorium has been envisioned in the Moon treaty. They are also talking about the Moratorium the drafters of the Agreement would have explicitly mentioned it like it was expressly mentioned by the 1969 UN General Assembly resolution which placed a moratorium on the exploitation of the deep seabed resources. [19]

1. Private Enterprise and private commercial activity on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

There is an interesting opportunity for private entities to pursue commercial activities as long as the current legal system allows it. Therefore a restrictive approach should be adopted by the private Enterprise concerning its activities if looked at from the general public’s perspective. There is rather a very dubious position of the Moon when it comes to the private entities’ activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies. There are specific reasons for it. ^[20]

First, while everything related to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources is dependent on the formation of the international regime, there is no existence of the same in reality. There is no consensus on it, to begin with. Whether the Moon is a teracommunis or terra nullis is still debate over, and there has been no solid conclusion till now.

Secondly, the principle of the common heritage of mankind is also not accepted by a majority of the states, especially the spacefaring nations. The only appropriate provision for the private Enterprise is the prohibition of territorial sovereignty in outer space. This now leads to another problem that is in the absence of an actual international governing body, and the municipal laws should step in to protect the interests of the private Enterprise in the outer space. The major limitation of applying the national laws along with certain other complications is that the national laws can only extend to space objects.

The uncertainty in the scope of the private Enterprise has led to a specific set of other problems too. The loophole in the Agreement has allowed one private Enterprise to enter into the business of selling real states of the Moon and its parts. In 1980, a Lunar Embassy was formed to promote this business of selling the parcels of the Celestial bodies to the private entities. Later this entered into joint ownership with the US Government. This selling of the property of the celestial bodies was never contested even after being informed in the UN. A single signatory did not challenge it. The problem of the title of the real state further complicates if a property is purchased by a man whose country is not a signatory to the Moon Treaty. In these scenarios, the question of whose right will have more weightage? The obligation of the country to the Moon treaty or the individual’s personal right of ownership? The conflict can also arise if an individual who is not a party to the Moon treaty claims over a property that an individual from the US has purchased from the lunar embassy? These issues remain unsolved and unclear by the text of the Moon Treaty.

CHAPTER III

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (COMMITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USE OF OUTER SPACE)

1. 58^th Session of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, 2019

This session was headed in the direction of establishing a working group for the development of an international regime. A working paper proposed it by Belgium and Greece. The potential models for the regulation of activities were discussed in the preceding 57^th session. An idea of creating an ad hoc working group was proposed, which would make certain clarities regarding the necessary actions for exploration.  A need for asolid and straightforward legal regime is required to be formulated based on the underlying principles of the International space law.  First is that the exploration must be as a province of mankind, and the Outer Space is to be regulated by international law.

The need for the international regime is because there will be conflicts in the competitive players. They are let to evolve without the guidance of international law. A clear need for a strong international institution was felt by the Committee, the mention of which is given in article 11. It’s a sine qua non for efficient exploration. ^[21]

1. 62^nd session- United Nations Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Sixty-second session

This session mentioned a lot of issues related to outer space. It also held a talk related to the activities of the international intergovernmental and non-governmental entities. It highlighted the vital role and their contributions to promote and develop international space law. It was stressed that these organizations should present their activities report to the legal subcommittees in their 59^th session because of the exchange of information. ^[22] Also, stress was given on proposing a strong and stable national legislation by the countries who are interested in space exploration for the peaceful use of the outer space was given. An exchange of the draft of the national regulations should be shared with the legal subcommittee to have a better understanding of the national laws.

CHAPTER IV

SUGGESTIONS

• There is no denial in the fact the moon and other celestial bodies’ exploration and exploitation can really benefit mankind and also improve the quality of life. However, to achieve sustainable exploitation, there is a clear need for a suitable legal framework to help organize the exploitation in a sustainable manner. A sound legal regime is key to the removal of unambiguousness from the treaty.
• The rights and duties of the states should be clearly defined.
• Discarding the Moon Treaty would not be an ideal solution. Instead, the Moon treaty can be sustained by an amendment only. The amendment should be radical and restructure Article 11,especially.
• The principle of the Common Heritage of mankind needs to be further clarified while maintaining the interests of the nations who are heavily investing in research and money and private players. There needs to be more clarification on the status quo of the private players. A mere placement and recognition of the CHM principle will not solve the existing problem.  Some stakeholders suggest that the phrase common principle of mankind should be carved out altogether since its one of the major hindrances in the ratification of the treaty.
• The Moon treaty can be renegotiated, giving allowance to the private and free Enterprise to operate along with a governing body to regulate their activities. It should be redrafted in a way that should encourage private investment.
• Just like in the Law of Seas, the concept of ‘Enterprise’ and technology transfer was abolished by subsequent resolutions, the concept of the setting up of an international regime should also be abolished.
• If the international regime nonetheless has to be made, then there should be an immediate establishment of the regulatory body. Also, that should be done with a setting out a detailed list of the powers, functions, funding, etc. of the regulatory body that needs to be created.
• The whole concentration of the exploration and exploitation should not be focused on the Moon and other celestial bodies only but also other naturally occurring space objects such as comets and asteroids.
• There is also a need to clearly define the term ‘resources’ to clarify what is allowed for exploration and exploitation purposes.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

The central concept of the space law treaties has been the sharing of the benefits of outer space since almost its inception. The Moon treaty has a rather a limited approach when it comes to this. Going by the text of the treaty, it can be said that there is an obligation on the spacefaring nations to share the benefits of the exploration of outer space. Although the obligations of sharing the benefits have not been clarified by the treaty and hence remain unambiguous. There are no definitive obligations on the developed nations to share the benefits more than they assume fit. The future international regime should take into consideration the interests of the spacefaring nations too. Different international regimes have been suggested but have failed in the implementation due to financial issues, non-consensus, or political infeasibility.

On an analysis of the Moon agreement, it is clear that Article 11 has created a barrier in the exploitation of the natural resources and has put a hold in the development of the space law by restricting the investments by the private enterprises.  The principle of the common heritage of mankind poses a big obstruction in its ratification by the space flaring nations; hence it of prime importance to clarify its meaning. It is unclear as to why the phrase which is of such value to the treaty has been left undefined. The ambiguities and the vague future commitments in the text of article 11, the treaty is impeding the exploitation of the national resources. The space law treaties have also failed to keep pace with the developments of the future, and the international law governing the exploitation and exploration of the outer space is premature. The future commitment of making the international regime to govern the activities is also one of the major reasons why the Moon treaty has failed on the international plane.

The Moon Treaty as a treaty and customary law cannot be tested until the actual exploitation becomes feasible. The shortcomings in the Moon treaty need to be addressed if ever the technology reaches the level to develop the Moon. The Moon Treaty has been concluded untimely and in haste, as is evident by the various ambiguities and uncertainties present in it.

[1]Michael J Listner, Ownership And Exploitation Of Outer Space: A Look At Foundational Law And Future Legal Challenges To Current Claim, 1.REGENT J. INT’L. L 75-94(2003)

[2]4 Fabio Tronchetti, The exploitation of natural resources of the moon and other celestial bodies a proposal for a legal regime 23-29 (2009).

[3]See The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of

Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, [hereinafter

the Outer Space Treaty] (ratified in 1967, the Outer Space Treaty was the first international space law

treaty).

[4]Tronchetti, Supra Note 2.

[5]Listner, Supra Note 1.

[6]Listner, Supra Note 1.

[7]IISL/ECSL Space Law Symposium 2017, Vienna 27 March 2017, available on   https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/copuos/lsc/2017/symp-01.pdf (Last visited 3rd March, 2020)

[8]Bin Cheng, Studies in International Space Law , 40 Jurimetrics 357–362 (2000).

[9]Edwin W. Paxson III, Sharing the Benefits of Outer Space Exploration: Space Law and Economic Development, 14 Mich. J. Int’l L. 487 (1993).

[10]Id.

[11]Tronchetti, Supra Note 2.

[12]Gabrynowicz, J. I., The “Province” and “Heritage” of Mankind Reconsidered: A New Beginning, NASA/ADS 691 (1992).

[13]Antonella BINI,  The Moon Agreement: Its effectiveness in the 21st century,  ESPI (2008)

[14]Listner, Supra Note 1.

[15]Id at 86.

[16]Nancy L. Griffin, Americans and the Moon Treaty, 46 J. Air L. & Com. 729 (1981)

¹⁷ Arthur Miller, Report On The Proposed Agreement Governing The Activities Of States On The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies, ABA, 23 (1983).

 

[18]Moon Agreement, Article 11(8) states: All the activities with respect to the natural resources of the moon shall be carried out in a manner compatible with the purposes specified in paragraph 7 of this article and the provisions of article 6, paragraph 2, of this Agreement.

[19]Paxson III, Supra  Note 10.

[20] Von der Dunk, Frans G., “The Dark Side Of The Moon The Status of the Moon: Public Concepts and Private Enterprise” Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications (1997).

[21]United Nations General Assembly, Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Legal Subcommittee Fifty-eighth session ,Vienna, 1–12 April 2019,

Available at https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/events/data/2019/58th_session_of_the_legal_subcommittee.html (last visited 23rd March, 2020)

[22]Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space, Sixty Second Session (12-21 June, 2019), available on https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2019/a/a7420_0_html/V1906077.pdf (Last visited 23rd March ,202