Ever wondered if you can buy a plot on the moon? Nobody told you that thanks to certain loopholes in the legal code, you can get yourself a piece of lunar land? Many celebrities are said to have been drawn into this scheme. They now have ownership of the satellite that even companies or countries have not yet mastered.
Despite the existence of companies that trade the Moon, the reality is that international agreements say that no country owns the Moon. These treaties also establish that the moon exists for the good of all people, which means that no state can claim ownership of the lunar land. But what about private property? It turns out that things are not so simple.
In short, you can buy land on the moon. Some countries are currently planning to build outposts and settlements on a natural satellite of the Earth. The European Space Agency plans to build an "international village" by 2030. NASA has plans for a base on the moon. Roskosmos plans to establish a base on the moon by the 2020s, and the Chinese National Space Agency also wants to meet roughly the same deadline.
Due to all this movement, there has recently been an unhealthy interest in the legal field on the topic of the Moon and other celestial bodies. Let's look at the history of "space law"?
Outer Space Treaty
On January 27, 1967, the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union sat down and developed an agreement on the exploration and use of outer space. Since the USSR and the Americans were embroiled in the space race, there was a fear on the part of each power that the other would be the first to enter orbit or capture the Moon, gain an advantage and use satellite resources in the name of evil.
Promotional video:
Thus, all parties signed the "Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space", or simply an agreement on outer space. This treaty entered into force on October 10, 1967 and formed the basis of international space law. As of September 2015, it has been signed by 104 countries (another 24 countries have signed the treaty, but have not ratified it).
The treaty is monitored by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNHCR). This is a serious document with a bunch of articles, subsections and legal nuances. But the most significant is the clause of Article II of the treaty, which reads:
"Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation either through the declaration of sovereignty, or through use or occupation, or by any other means."
"Loophole" in the contract
Despite the clear statement that outer space is the property of all mankind and can only be used for the common good, this language is specific to national property. It turns out that there is no legal consensus on the presence or absence of a ban on private appropriation.
Article II addresses the issue of national ownership and says nothing about the rights of individuals or bodies to own anything in space. Therefore, some argue that property rights should be recognized on the basis of jurisdiction rather than territorial sovereignty.
True, Article IV states that governments are responsible for the actions of either party. So it is clear that the contract must apply to all individuals, be they public or private.
“The States Parties to the Treaty are internationally responsible for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, regardless of whether such activities are carried out by governmental or non-governmental persons, as well as for ensuring that national activities are carried out in accordance with the provisions laid down in this Agreement. The activities of non-governmental legal entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, must be carried out with the permission and under the constant supervision of the relevant state party to the Treaty."
In other words, any person, organization, or company operating in space is responsible for the government concerned. But since nothing is said about private property, some point to this loophole in the contract that allows them to claim and sell land on the moon. Because of this ambiguity, there have been attempts to supplement the Outer Space Treaty.
Moon Treaty
On December 18, 1979, UN members presented an agreement that was supposed to follow the Outer Space Treaty and close its alleged loopholes. Known as the "Agreement on the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," aka the Treaty on the Moon, or the Agreement on the Moon, this agreement was intended to create the legal basis for the use of the moon and other celestial bodies.
Like the Outer Space Treaty, this agreement established that the Moon should be used for the benefit of all mankind, and not for any particular state. This Treaty banned the testing of weapons, decreed the need for openness of any scientific research and that it should be open to everyone, and that nations, individuals and organizations cannot claim anything.
In practice, this treaty has failed because it was not ratified by any state participating in space exploration or having the ability to launch rockets. Here is the United States, and the largest members of the European Union, and Russia, and China, and Japan, and India. While it explicitly prohibits having national and private property on the moon or using it for non-scientific purposes, this treaty is virtually toothless.
To put it bluntly, there is nothing that explicitly prohibits companies from owning land on the moon. However, anyone who tries to sell land on the moon to others has no way to claim it, which means they are essentially trading in air. Any documentation that says you have land on the moon is invalid, and no country that has signed the Outer Space Treaty or the Moon Treaty recognizes it.
Again, if you can fly to the moon and build a settlement there, you will be quite difficult to stop. But this does not mean that you can put an end to this issue. If many space agencies start building "international villages" and companies start launching tourist excursions, serious legal battles will begin.
ILYA KHEL