One of my foremost interests in life is politics, and whenever we’re engaged in astronomy, I can’t help but to view it through that lens. As such, one question has been nagging me – how is ownership and control of certain places defined in space?
One of the foundational pieces of legislation on the matter is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which most of the world’s space faring nations are party to. The most important aspect of this treaty, for our purposes, is that it explicitly states that no government can lay claim to ownership of any “celestial object.” Nor can any military activity take place on these objects. As we have approached the modern day however, many issues have arrived with the fairly simplistic treaty. If one can’t “own” or “control” an object in space, what are they allowed to do? Is mining okay? According to a 2015 US law, ensuring that private companies can keep material resources from celestial objects, yes! Indeed, President Trump said that the US will begin mining the Moon for materials as part of its settlement. China has made similar statements. Materials are allowed to have ownership claimed then. So in this simplistic set of rules, ownership of material is just based on who gets what first. Perhaps this will eventually be the de-facto way of “owning” places on the Moon or elsewhere in – it belongs to whoever gets there and sets up first.
But this is hardly a sustainable policy. It might work at first, when contention for places is low because of the wide array of possible locations and the few competitors, but eventually, legislation beyond the ’67 Treaty will become unavoidable. What happens when two countries or companies, expanding their already established territory, try to set up on the same asteroid or piece of lunar land? Moreover, can companies claim ownership of territory in space, since the treaty only precludes governments from claiming sovereignty? Might this lead to a sort of anarcho-capitalist system in which profit reigns? Elon Musk, after all, is set to be one of the pioneers of Mars’ colonization, and his company is private. The answer, right now, is that no one really knows. The framework set in place by the ’67 treaty is too vague and outdated. As we progress forward, true means of legal arbitration and ownership in space will have to be put forward – or bad things could happen.
