ChrisJohnson_

ChrisJohnson_

49p

10 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0

2 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: In t... · 16 replies · +20 points

No. The reason? "ARTICLE 11. 1. The moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement, in particular in paragraph 5 of this article."

Jeff, why do you continue to humor Mr. O'Brien and allow him to re-hash the same politically & legally unfounded polemic every few months with an article promoting the Moon Agreement with thin and convoluted arguments? It gives the impression that there is actually some debate about the Moon Agreement being a good idea somehow... as though there are two sides of the debate.

2 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Putt... · 0 replies · +6 points

Basically all of what you have written is a subjective interpretation, offered by a single, non-state entity (you). It may, or may not, be what the law actually means. It might mean the opposite of what you write. There is nothing in the text to prove you are correct, or to disprove you, conclusively. However, I see no evidence of treaty interpretation done under the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in your statement.

The indeterminate, inconsistent, and subjective nature of the Moon Agreement is precisely why it is a poorly finalized treaty. Again, we need to move on, and do better.

2 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Putt... · 2 replies · +11 points

Unfortunately, the Moon Agreement is a mess of inconsistencies and vagaries. Article XI.3 reads as follows. What further 'evaluation' does anyone need?

'Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.'

I stand by what I wrote. Politically, the Moon Agreement is haunted. Let it be. We need to move on, and do better.

3 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Please see parts 1 and 2. This important concern is the act of not revealing payloads.

3 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: The ... · 0 replies · -1 points

We propose no such international oversight.

5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: A su... · 0 replies · +2 points

It's certainly an interesting discussion on which norms are generated through the UN or multilateral framework, and which norms are developed through the promulgation of national initiatives, and whether the balance between the two is 'correct'.

It's also true that SWF has significant engagement with COPUOS and other multilateral initiatives. And yes, we always try to keep our comments and remarks constructive :)

5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: A su... · 0 replies · +2 points

Dear Gerard, Thank you for your comment.

5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: A su... · 1 reply · +1 points

Hi there, yes we formulated the article as an update on the process of the LTS guidelines and a discussion on norms for space, rather than a discussion or analysis of the Guidelines' content. For a deeper look into the LTS Guidelines themselves, I would recommend first this factsheet on them http://bit.ly/2u07OVq

And then reading the most recent draft of the guidelines that are publicly available, which is at http://bit.ly/2uYRLMf

(but keeping in mind that that document is just a snapshot of where we are at in the process)
- Chris

5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Is i... · 0 replies · +2 points

* The regime is different in maritime law, as well as in aviation and antarctic law, although they are all domains beyond state territory where state jurisdiction can be exercised in an extraterritorial fashion.

* I don't know the details so don't take my word for it, but I believe there were (for both space objects), multiple states which could be considered the launching state. Further research would be required to determine more.

* Also unfamiliar with the particulars, but I'd refer you to an issue of the Journal of Space Law from 1978 which dealt with the issue in detail. http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/jsl/pdfs/back-iss... The caveat to that is that since then, more details may have come to light, from all sides and parties involved.

* As with any international legal avenues for enforcement & redress, legal options are considered within the context of all political options. This is a deep area of discourse and I'm tempted to mention some authors and texts, but I won't prejudice the development of your own opinions with my views. I will say that different postures are taken depending on whether we are dealing with the enforcement of international economic law (though WTO arbitration, for example) versus other areas of international law such as laws related to international peace and security.

5 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Is i... · 4 replies · +4 points

Great synopsis of the hearing.

While it's true that "Life is full of activities, from brushing one’s teeth to playing a musical instrument, which take place now with neither federal authorization nor federal supervision. Just because those activities take place in outer space does not have to mean that they suddenly require oversight.” It is also equally true that under Articles VI and VII of the Outer Space Treaty, states bear international responsibility for all national activities in outer space, and potential international liability for any physical damages caused by space objects of which they are the launching state. This direct imputation of international responsibility and international liability for nongovernmental activities under space law is unique in international law, and gives a clear and strong impetus and rationale for governments to scrutinize proposed space activities for which they will be responsible for on the international plane to other states party to the various space treaties. If a nongovernmental space activity would implicate a state's international responsibility (by, for example, transgressing that state's international obligations under space law as well as other areas of international law) that activity is worth close and thoughtful consideration.