Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:24:02.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal status of abiotic resources in outer space: Appropriability, ownership, and access

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2022

Jinyuan Su
Jinyuan Su*
Affiliation:
Institute of International Law, School of Law, Wuhan University, 299 Bayi Road, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China Academy of International Law and Global Governance, Wuhan University, 299 Bayi Road, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China
*
Email: jinyuan.su@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Humankind’s exploration and use of outer space are first and foremost limited by the obligation of non-appropriation. This prohibition, with an aim to prevent conflicts arising from competing territorial claims, does not extend to the exploitation of abiotic resources in space. Recent state practice has shown a clear trend of regarding such exploitation as a freedom of exploration and use of outer space. The future international legal regime should prohibit property claims over natural resources in place on celestial bodies, avoid the controversial issue of ownership, co-ordinate the resource activities of different entities by a stage-specific and priority-right-based mechanism, and harden the obligations of capacity-building and co-operation. The ideas of parallel system and monetary benefit sharing should not be discarded although resistance from major space-faring countries is foreseeable.

Keywords

abiotic resources in spacebenefit sharingcommon heritage of mankinddeconflictionnon-appropriation
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 825 - 852
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law in association with the Grotius Centre for International Law, Leiden University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty), 610 UNTS 205.

2 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Agreement), UN Doc. Res 34/68 (1979), Art. 1, para.1.

3 States parties of the Moon Agreement are Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Signatories include France, Guatemala, India, and Romania. See ‘Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2021’, available at www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2021/aac_105c_22021crp/aac_105c_22021crp_10_0_html/AC105_C2_2021_CRP10E.pdf.

4 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Public Law 114-90, 25 November 2015; Loi du 20 juillet 2017 sur l’exploration et l’utilisation des ressources de l’espace (Luxembourg), available at www.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2017/07/20/a674/jo; Federal Law No.12 on the Regulation of the Space Sector, Official Gazette, issue No.669 (UAE), for unofficial English translation see ‘Law of July 20th 2017 on the exploration and use of space resources’, available at www.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2017/07/20/a674/jo/en; Act on Promotion of Business Activities Related to the Exploration and Development of Space Resources, Official Gazette, on 23 June 2021, available at kanpou.npb.go.jp/old/20210623/20210623g00141/20210623g001410004f.html (Japan), for an English introduction see www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-09-15/japan-space-resources-act-enacted/.

5 2016 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-fifth session, UN Doc. A/AC.105/1113 (2016), paras.74–8.

6 The Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group, ‘Building Blocks for the Development of an International Framework on Space Resource Activities’, November 2019, available at www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/instituut-voor-publiekrecht/lucht--en-ruimterecht/space-resources/bb-thissrwg--cover.pdf (Hague Working Group Building Blocks). For commentaries to the building blocks see O. de O. Bittencourt Neto et al., Building Blocks for the Development of an International Framework for the Governance of Space Resource Activities: A Commentary (2020), available at boeken.rechtsgebieden.boomportaal.nl/publicaties/9789462361218#152.

7 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 1972, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1972), Principle 21; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol I) (1992), Principle 2.

8 D. J. Bederman, ‘The Sea’, in B. Fassbender and A. Peters (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (2012), at 359, at 362.

9 See generally P. Turrini, ‘The Sky’s Not the Limit: Legal Bonds and Boundaries in Claiming Sovereignty over Celestial Bodies’, in T. Natoli and A. Riccardi (eds.), Borders, Legal Spaces and Territories in Contemporary International Law: Within and Beyond (2019), at 173–209.

10 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Art. 137.

11 UNCLOS, Art. 137, para.1. The UNCLOS does not explicitly prohibit the claim of property over fisheries in place in the high seas. This is, however, implicit in the rule that fishing is one of the freedoms of the high seas for coastal and land-locked states. To allow the claim of property over fisheries in place in the high seas would render the freedom meaningless.

12 UNCLOS, Art. 87, para.1.

13 Island of Palmas (US v. Netherlands), (1928) II RIAA 829, 838.

14 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Art. II.

15 E. W. Paxson III, ‘Sharing the Benefits of Outer Space Exploration: Space Law and Economic Development’, (1993) 14(3) Michigan Journal of International Law 487, at 494.

16 B. C. Gruner, ‘A New Hope for International Space Law: Incorporating Nineteenth Century First Possession Principles into the 1967 Space Treaty for the Colonization of Outer Space in the Twenty-First Century’, (2004) 35 Seton Hall Law Review 299, at 324.

17 M. N. Shaw, International Law (2018), at 1027.

18 M. Lachs, The Law of Outer Space: An Experience in Contemporary Law-Making (2010), at 41, referring to Island of Palmas case (US v. Netherlands), (1928) II RIAA 829, 839–40.

19 Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, P.C.I.J. Series A/B No.53, at 46.

20 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975, [1975] ICJ Rep. 12, at 38–9, para. 79.

21 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Art. I.

22 Turrini, supra note 9, at 182.

23 Lachs, supra note 18, at 42.

24 R. Jakhu and S. Freeland, ‘The Relationship between the Outer Space Treaty and Customary International Law’, in Proceedings of the 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2016): Making Space Accessible and Affordable to All Countries, (2016) International Astronautical Federation 11648, at 11661; S. Freeland, ‘Common heritage, not common law: How international law will regulate proposals to exploit space resources’, (2017) 35 QIL 19, at 22–3.

25 1962 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, UN Doc. A/RES/1962(XVIII) (1962), para. 3.

26 D. J. Bederman, ‘Acquiescence, Objection and the Death of Customary International Law’, (2010) 21 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 31, at 38.

27 R. Jakhu, ‘Legal Issues Relating to the Global Public Interest in Outer Space’, (2006) 32(1) Journal of Space Law 31, at 48

28 S. Wolf, ‘Territorial Sea’, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2013), available at www.opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1229?rskey=qo2ChE&result=1&prd=MPIL.

29 J. Su, ‘The Delimitation between Airspace and Outer Space and the Emergence of Aerospace Objects’, (2015) 78 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 355–78.

30 J. Su, ‘Legality of Unilateral Exploitation of Space Resources under International Law’, (2017) 66 ICLQ 991, at 996.

31 C. Q. Christol, ‘The Common Heritage of Mankind Provision in the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies’, (1980) 14 International Lawyer 429, at 455.

32 Lachs, supra note 18, at 42.

33 1959 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UN Doc. A/4141 (1959), at 69, para. 31.

34 Christol, supra note 31, at 455.

35 Moon Agreement, supra note 2, Art. 11, para. 2.

36 Ibid., para. 3 (emphasis added).

37 1971 USSR: Draft Treaty Concerning the Moon, UN Doc. A/C.1/L.568 (1971), Art. VIII, para. 1.

38 United States of America: working paper (17 April 1973), in ‘Report of the Legal Sub-Committee on the Work of Its Sixteenth Session’ (14 March–8 April 1977), UN Doc. A/AC.105/196 (1997), Annex I, at 16–17.

39 Bederman, supra note 8, at 363–9.

40 See, e.g., Policy of the United States with respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf, 28 September 1945, available at www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_proc_2667.pdf.

41 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, [1969] ICJ Rep. 3, at 22, para. 19.

42 UNCLOS, Art. 76(1).

43 Policy of the United States with respect to the Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas, 28 September 1945, available at www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/02668.html.

44 UNCLOS, Art. 57.

45 Deepsea Ventures, INC.: ‘Notice of Discovery and Claim of Exclusive Mining Rights’, (1975) 14 ILM 51–8. See also G. Biggs, ‘Deepsea’s Adventures: Grotius Revisited’, (1975) 9 International Lawyer 271.

46 International Legal Materials, Vol. XIV-No.1, January 1975.

47 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, 30 U.S.C § 1402 (2002).

48 Hague Working Group Building Blocks, supra note 6, at 8.3, 11.3; The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes (Artemis Accords), Section 10, para. 2.

49 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, Sec. 403.

50 2017 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-sixth session, UN Doc. A/AC.105/1122 (2017), at 32, para. 248.

51 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment of 16 March 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep. 40, at 112, para. 236.

52 A. Kiss, ‘The Common Heritage of Mankind: Utopia or Reality?’, (1985) 40 International Journal 423, at 423–4; J. West, ‘Outer Space: Global commons or a wild frontier – open for competitive exploitation, profit and resettlement?’, (2016) 37 Ploughshares Monitor 20, at 22–3.

53 For instance, asteroids, when taken as a kind of resource, are regarded by some as res communis. See West, ibid., at 22–3.

54 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Art. I.

55 USSR: working paper (28 March 1973), in 1977 Report of the Legal Sub-Committee on the Work of Its Sixteenth Session, UN Doc. A/AC.105/196 (1977), Ann. I, at 12.

56 Moon Agreement, supra note 2, Art. 11, para. 1.

57 Ibid., para. 5.

58 2017 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-sixth session, supra note 50, para. 226.

59 Ibid., para. 227.

60 H. Hertzfeld and F. von der Dunk, ‘Bringing Space Law into the Commercial World: Property Rights without Sovereignty’, (2005) 6 Chicago Journal of International Law 81. See also 2017 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-sixth session, supra note 50, para. 227; 2019 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-eighth session, UN Doc. A/AC.105/1203 (2019), para. 80.

61 Executive Order on Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources, 6 April 2020, Section 2.

62 Status of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as at 21 February 2022, available at treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI-6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en#1.

63 2021 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its sixtieth session, UN Doc. A/AC. 105/1243 (2021), para. 184.

64 Freeland, supra note 24, at 26.

65 United States of America: working paper (A/AC.105/C.2(XI)/Working paper 12: 13 April 1972), in: 1977 Report of the Legal Sub-Committee on the Work of Its Sixteenth Session, UN Doc. A/AC.105/196 (1977), Ann. I, at 23.

66 Argentina: draft agreement on the principles governing activities in the use of the natural resources of the moon and other celestial bodies (A/AC.105/C.2/L.71 and Corr.1), initially presented to the Legal Sub-Committee in 1970, in: 1977 Report of the Legal Sub-Committee on the Work of Its Sixteenth Session, UN Doc. A/AC.105/196 (1977), Ann. I, at 21.

67 Moon Agreement, supra note 2.

68 UN General Assembly, 22nd Session: 1st Committee, 1515th meeting, UN Doc. A/C.1/PV.1515 (1967), para. 104.

69 Declaration of Principles Governing the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor, and the Subsoil Thereof, beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, UN Doc. A/RES/2749(XXV) (1970), para. 1.

70 Question of the reservation exclusively for peaceful purposes of the sea-bed and the ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, underlying the high seas beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction, and the use of their resources in the interests of mankind, UN Doc. A/RES/2574(XXIV)A-D (1969).

71 UNCLOS, Art. 136.

72 Ibid., Art. 137, para. 2.

73 Ibid., Art. 157, para. 1.

74 A. Pardo, ‘Law of the Sea Conference – What Went Wrong’, in R. L. Friedheim (ed.), Managing Ocean Resources: A Primer (1979), 137, at 139, cited in L. F. E Goldie, ‘A Note on Some Diverse Meanings of “The Common Heritage of Mankind”’, (1983) 10 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 69, at 86–7.

75 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the UNCLOS), UN Doc. A/RES/48/263 (1994), 2nd preambular paragraph.

76 Ibid., Art. 1(1).

77 Ibid., Art. 2(1).

78 M. L. Nash, ‘Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law’, (1980) 74 AJIL 418, at 422.

79 Ibid, at 423–4.

80 Ibid, at 424–5.

81 Ibid, at 425.

82 ‘L5 News: Moon Treaty Hearings’, NSS, available at www.space.nss.org/l5-news-moon-treaty-hearings/.

83 Executive Order, supra note 61, Section 1. See also J. S. Goehring, ‘Why Isn’t Outer Space a Global Commons?’, (2021) 11 Journal of National Security Law & Policy, at 573, which makes a distinction between an enabling concept used in military or geopolitical contexts and a constraining concept used in economic contexts.

84 2017 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-sixth session, supra note 50, para. 227.

85 UN Doc. A/37/PV.10 (1982), 37th Sess., 10th Mtg., at 17; UN Doc. A/C.1/38/PV.42(1983), 38th Sess., 1st Comm., Summary Record of the 42nd Mtg, at 20.

86 CRAMRA, Art. 18(1).

87 Ibid., Art. 21(1).

88 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Art. I.

89 2018 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-seventh session, UN Doc. A/AC.105/1177 (2018), paras. 237–8; 2019 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-eighth session, supra note 60, para. 252.

90 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), Art. 31, paras. 1, 2.

91 COPUOS, Legal Sub-Committee, Fifth Session, Summary Record of the Sixty-Third Meeting, 20 July 1966, UN Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/SR.63 (1966). See also Official Record of the General Assembly, Twenty-First Session, First Committee, 1492nd Meetings, 17 December 1966, UN Doc. A/C.1/SR/ 1492 (1966), at 430, para. 22.

92 COPUOS, ibid., paras. 10, 11.

93 VCLT, Art. 31, para. 3(b).

94 ILC, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966), Vol. II, at 241, para. 15.

95 Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(b). See also North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 41, at 44, para. 77; Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment of 3 June 1985, [1985] ICJ Rep. 13, at 29–30, para. 27; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 21 June 1986, [1986] ICJ Rep. 14, at 97–8, para. 184; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226, at 253, para. 64.

96 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, § 51303.

97 International Legal Materials, Vol. XIV-No.1, January 1975.

98 1958 Convention on the High Seas, Art. 2.

99 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, supra note 47, § 1402.

100 Ibid.

101 Loi du 20 juillet 2017 sur l’exploration et l’utilisation des ressources de l’espace, Art. 1.

102 Federal Law No. 12 on the Regulation of the Space Sector, at 111.

103 Act on Promotion of Business Activities Related to the Exploration and Development of Space Resources, Art. 5.

104 Executive Order, supra note 61.

105 Ibid.

106 Artemis Accords, supra note 48, Section 10, para. 2.

107 Hague Working Group Building Blocks, supra note 6, at 8.1.

108 Ibid., at 8.2.

109 C. Pace, ‘Space Exploration and the Artemis Accords’, 20 November 2020, available at 2017-2021.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-official-blog/space-exploration-and-the-artemis-accords/index.html.

110 CNSA & ROSCOSMOS, International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) Guide for Partnership (V 1.0), 16 June 2021, available at www.cnsa.gov.cn/english/n6465652/n6465653/c6812150/content.html.

111 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Preamble, para. 1.

112 R. Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (1922), at 192.

113 North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 41, at 43, para. 74. See also ILC, ‘Identification of customary international law’, in Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty-eighth session (2 May–10 June, 4 July–12 August 2016), at 120, Conclusion 8, para. 1; at 136–7; at 136, fn. 715.

114 R. Z. Pearlman, ‘NASA Busts Woman Selling $1.7M Moon Rock’, SPACE.com, 26 May 2011, available at www.space.com/11804-nasa-moon-rock-sting-apollo17.html.

115 Letter from H. R. Hertzfeld, M. Schaefer, J. C. Bennett and M. J. Sundahl commenting on Professor Joanne Gabrynowicz’s letter, dated 15 May 2015, in Congressional Recording on Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015 (21 May 2015), H3518–9; J. E. Dunstan, ‘Toward a Unified Theory of Space Property Rights: Sometimes the Best Way to Predict the Weather Is to Look Outside’, in E. L. Hudgins (ed.), Space: The Free Market Frontier (2002), 223, at 229; S. Coffey, ‘Establishing a Legal Framework for Property Rights to Natural Resources in Outer Space’, (2009) 41 CaseWResJIntlL 119, at 126.

116 Su, supra note 30, at 1004–5.

117 UNCLOS, Art. 87, para. 1.

118 Ibid., Art. 143, paras. 2, 3.

119 Ibid., Art. 137, para. 2.

120 Antarctic Treaty, Art II.

121 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol), Art. 7.

122 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Art. I. See also N. M. Matte (ed.), Space Activities and Emerging International Law (1984), at 261.

123 E.g., on the sample gifted to New Zealand, it is inscripted: ‘This flag of your nation was carried to the Moon and back by Apollo 11, and this fragment of the Moon’s surface was brought to Earth by the crew of that first manned lunar landing.’ See Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa at www.collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/64368.

124 2019 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-eighth session, supra note 60, para. 253.

125 Moon Agreement, supra note 2, Art. 6.

126 Christol, supra note 31, 465–6.

127 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan; New Zealand intervening), Judgment of 31 March 2014, [2014] ICJ Rep. 226, at 259, para. 92.

128 1946 International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, Art. VIII, para. 2.

129 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 127, at 259–60, para. 94.

130 SS Lotus case (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Rep Series A No.10, at 18.

131 A. Hertogen, ‘Letting Lotus Bloom’, (2015) 26 European Journal of International Law 901.

132 F. von der Dunk, ‘The US Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015’, JURIST, 30 November 2015, available at www.jurist.org/commentary/2015/11/frans-vonderdunk-space-launch/.

133 2018 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-seventh session, supra note 89, para. 260. See also D. Zannoni, ‘The Dilemma Between the Freedom to Use and the Proscription against Appropriating Outer Space and Celestial Bodies’, (2020) 19 Chinese Journal of International Law 329, at 338–41.

134 2017 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-sixth session, supra note 50, para. 241.

135 Cf. Board of Directors of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL), ‘Position Paper on Space Resource Mining’, 20 December 2015, available at www.iislweb.space/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SpaceResourceMining.pdf, at 3.

136 Su, supra note 30, at 997.

137 UNCLOS, Art. 76(1).

138 Lachs, supra note 18, at 44.

139 Cf. G. Oduntan, ‘Who Owns Space? US Asteroid-Mining Act Is Dangerous and Potentially Illegal’, The Conversation, 25 November 2015, available at theconversation.com/who-owns-space-us-asteroid-mining-act-is-dangerous-and-potentially-illegal-51073, arguing that the Moon Agreement reflects customary international law and forbids states from engaging in commercial mining on celestial bodies until there is an international regime to govern such exploitation.

140 Christol, supra note 31, at 470–1.

141 COPUOS, Verbatim Record of the Two Hundred and Third Meeting, Held at Headquarters, New York, UN Doc. A/AC.105/PV.203 (1979), at 22.

142 Nash, supra note 78, at 422–6.

143 Ibid., at 422–3.

144 S. N. Hosenball, Statement, Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications, Committee on Science and Technology, US House of Representatives, 6 September 1979, at 6–7, cited in Christol, supra note 31, at 469.

145 Moon Agreement, supra note 2, Preamble, para. 5.

146 Christol, supra note 31, at 468.

147 H. G. Johnson, ‘The New International Economic Order’, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Selected Papers, No.49, at 1, available at www.chicagobooth.edu/~/media/0ABF9E91CCDB42C4BBA92737DCE91EEA.pd.

148 Question of the reservation exclusively for peaceful purposes of the sea-bed, supra note 70, declaring that ‘pending the establishment of [an] international regime: (a) States and persons, physical or juridical, are bound to refrain from all activities of exploitation of the resources of the areas of the sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction; (b) No claim to any part of that area or its resources shall be recognized’.

149 CRAMRA, Art. 3.

150 Executive Order, supra note 61, Section 1.

151 S. B. Rosenfield, ‘The Moon Treaty: The United States Should Not Become a Party’, (1980) 74 ASIL Proceedings 162, at 165–6; I. Feichtner, ‘Mining for humanity in the deep sea and outer space: The role of small states and international law in the extraterritorial expansion of extraction’, (2019) 32 Leiden Journal of International Law 255, at 265–6; T. Cheney and C. J. Newman, ‘Managing the Resource Revolution Space Law in the New Space Age’, in R. J. Wilman and C. J. Newman (eds.), Frontiers of Space Risk: Natural Cosmic Hazards & Societal Challenges (2018), at 256–7.

152 2016 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-fifth session, supra note 5, para. 75.

153 Ibid., para. 76.

154 H. Reis, Press Release USUN-37(73), P.5, 19 April 1973, cited in Christol, supra note 31, at 462–3.

155 Nash, supra note 78, at 426.

156 COPUOS, Verbatim, supra note 141, at 22.

157 Nash, supra note 78, at 424–5.

158 Rosenfield, supra note 151, at 164.

159 Moon Agreement, supra note 2, Art. 11, para. 5.

160 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-fifth session, supra note 5, para. 82.

161 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, supra note 47, §1401–1473.

162 J. Dingwall, ‘Commercial Mining Activities in the Deep Seabed beyond National Jurisdiction: the International Legal Framework’, in C. Banet (ed.), The Law of the Seabed: Access, Uses, and Protection of Seabed Resources (2020), 139, at 153–4, citing US Department of Commerce, NOAA, Deep Seabed Mining: Approval of Exploration License Extensions (7 September 2017) Vol. 82, Issue 172 FR 42327, 42328; and US Department of Commerce, NOAA, Deep Seabed Mining – A Report to Congress (December 1995) I, available at www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_dsm_1995_report.pdf.

163 Ibid.

164 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Art. IX.

165 Moon Agreement, supra note 2, Art. 11, para. 7.

166 Artemis Accords, supra note 48, Section 11; Hague Working Group Building Blocks, supra note 6, at 11.3.

167 UNCLOS, Art. 56, para. 1(b)(i).

168 Ibid., Art. 60, para. 4.

169 Ibid., Art. 147, para. 2I.

170 Ibid., Art. 260.

171 Ibid., Art. 60, para. 5.

172 Ibid., para. 6.

173 Ibid., para. 7.

174 Ibid., Art. 147, para. I(c).

175 Ibid., Art. 260.

176 Ibid., Arts. 56(2), 58(3), 60(3), 79(5), 87(2), 234. See also B. H. Oxman, ‘The Principle of Due Regard’, in ITLOS, The Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to the Rule of Law: 1996-2016 (2018), 108, arguing that due regard is now ‘one of the great organizing principles of the law of the sea’.

177 Artemis Accords, supra note 48, Section 11, para. 3.

178 Ibid., Section 11, para. 7.

179 Hague Working Group Building Blocks, supra note 6, at 11.3.

180 Ibid.

181 Ibid., at 11.4.

182 Ibid., at 7.

183 UNCLOS, Ann. III, Art. 2(1)(c).

184 CRAMRA, Art. 37(2).

185 Ibid., Art. 37(4).

186 UNCLOS, Ann. III, Art. 2(2); CRAMRA, Art. 37(1).

187 UNCLOS, Ann. III, Art. 3; CRAMRA, Arts. 44, 53(1).

188 CRAMRA, Art. 45(5).

189 Ibid., Art. 37(5).

190 M. Elvis et al., ‘Astronomical Prospecting of Asteroid Resources’, (2017) European Planetary Science Congress, Vol. 11, EPSC2017-94-1, 2017.

191 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Art. I.

192 2019 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-eighth session, supra note 60, para. 254; 2018 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-seventh session, supra note 89, para. 241.

193 Lachs, supra note 18, at 43.

194 Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union, Art. 44(2).

195 ITU Radio Regulatory Framework for Space Services, available at www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/snl/Documents/ITU-Space_reg.pdf.

196 Radio Regulations, Art. 11.

197 C. R. Buxton, ‘Property in Outer Space: The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle vs. The First in Time, First in Right, Rule of Property’, (2004) 69 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 689, at 703–4.

198 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Art. XI.

199 Ibid., Art. I.

200 S. Freeland, ‘The Role of “Soft Law” in Public International Law and its Relevance to the International Legal Regulation of Outer Space’, in I. Marboe (ed.), Soft Law in Outer Space: The Function of Non-binding Norms in International Space Law (2012), 9, at 20.

201 2017 Report of the Legal Subcommittee on its fifty-sixth session, supra note 50, para. 229.

202 Ibid., para. 238.

203 Buxton, supra note 197, at 693.

204 Ibid.

205 Moon Agreement, supra note 2, Art. 11, para. 7.

206 Buxton, supra note 197, at 695.

207 Freeland, supra note 24, at 27.

208 COPUOS, Verbatim, supra note 141, at 22.

209 K. V. Cook, ‘The Discovery of lunar Water: An Opportunity to Develop a Workable Moon Treaty’, (1999) 11 Geo. Int’l Envt’l L. Rev 647, at 667.

210 Coffey, supra note 115, at 128, citing the view of 4Frontiers Corporation, an emerging space commerce company focused on the settlement of Mars.

211 UNCLOS, Art. 140.

212 Ibid., Ann. III, Art. 5.

213 Ibid., Ann. III, Art. 13.

214 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the UNCLOS, supra note 75, Ann., Section 5.

215 Ibid., Ann., Section 7.

216 Ibid., Ann., Section 8.

217 CRAMARA, Art. 2(3).

218 Ibid., Arts. 37(7), 39(2), 44(2), 53(2).

219 Ibid., Art. 47(k)(i), (ii).

220 Ibid., Art. 35(7).

221 Madrid Protocol, supra note 121, Art. 7.

222 Draft regulations on exploitation of mineral resources in the Area, Prepared by the Legal and Technical Commission of the Seabed Authority, 22 March 2019, ISBA/25/C/WP.1, Part VII & Part VIII.

223 Revised draft text of an agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, UN Doc. A/CONF.232/2020/3 (2019), Part II.

224 J. Mossop, The Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Rights and Responsibilities (2015), at 61.

225 Artemis Accords, supra note 48, Section 4, Section 8, para. 2.

226 Ibid., Section 8, para. 3.

227 Hague Working Group Building Blocks, supra note 48, at 13.1.

228 Ibid., at 13.2.

229 Outer Space Treaty, supra note 1, Preamble, paras. 4, 5; Arts. I, III, X, XI.

230 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries, UN Doc. A/RES/51/122 (1996), paras. 1, 2.

231 M. S. Saletta and K. Orrman-Rossiter, ‘Can space mining benefit all of humanity?: The resource fund and citizen’s dividend model of Alaska, the “last frontier”’, (2018) 43 Space Policy 1, at 3–4.

232 Rosenfield, supra note 151, at 165–6.