The land is divided into countries, for whose territories people have fought for many centuries. And they are still fighting. But what about the moon? Or asteroids? Let's try to figure it out.
Most likely, when talking about who owns the moon, the first thing you imagine is Buzz Aldrin standing next to the US flag on the surface of our satellite - this is probably one of the most famous images of the American flag. Less than a century ago, hoisting the national flag in another part of the world meant declaring the rights of the fatherland to this territory. Did the American flag on the moon mark the foundation of a colony?
The seizure of new national territories was an extremely European habit in relation to non-European parts of the world. In particular, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French and British created colonial empires in their time. However, despite the fact that their attitude was highly European-oriented, the very legal concept of hoisting a flag to establish sovereignty very soon became accepted throughout the world and began to be perceived as an integral part of national law.
Obviously, the astronauts were thinking about more important things than the legal meaning and consequences of planting that flag. Fortunately, this issue was resolved even before the mission began. Since the start of the space race, the United States has known that the sight of the American flag on the moon would raise serious political questions for many people around the world. Any suggestion that the Moon could become, in legal terms, a part of the United States, could cause serious anxiety and international disputes that could seriously harm both the state's space program and its interests in general.
Buzz Aldrin next to the US flag flown on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.
While by 1969 decolonization had virtually eradicated any notion that the non-European parts of the world, even inhabited, were not civilized and therefore justifiably subordinated to European sovereignty, not a single person lived on the moon. In fact, there was no life as such on it.
However, the simple answer to the question of whether Armstrong or Aldrin transformed the Moon, or at least part of it: no. Neither NASA nor the US government intended to make that impression.
Promotional video:
The first treaty on outer space
In fact, the answer to this question was enshrined in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which the United States of America, the Soviet Union, and other countries with space programs joined. Both superpowers agreed that the "colonization" of the Earth was responsible for the incredible human suffering and many armed conflicts of the past centuries. When it came to the legal status of the Moon, they were determined not to repeat the mistake of the old European colonial authorities. At least, this made it possible to avoid another world war for a "piece of land" in outer space. Thus, the Moon has become something of a "commons" legally available to all countries. And this happened two years before the first lunar landing.
Signing of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
So planting the US flag was not a declaration of sovereignty, but rather a tribute to the American taxpayers and engineers who made the mission of Armstrong, Aldrin and Michael Collins possible. The astronauts brought a sign with the words "We come in peace on behalf of all mankind." Do not forget the well-known words of Neil Armstrong: his "small step for a man" was a "giant leap" not for the United States, but "for all mankind." Moreover, both the United States and NASA kept their word and shared lunar rocks and other soil samples from the lunar surface with the world: they handed them over to foreign authorities or provided all scientists with access to them for scientific analysis and study. And although the Cold War was in full swing, this also applied to Soviet scientists.
So that? Can I disperse?
Is there no need for space lawyers now?
Not so fast. Despite the fact that the legal status of the Moon as a "commons", available to all countries with peaceful missions, did not meet with much opposition, the Outer Space Treaty left questions open. Contrary to optimistic forecasts, humanity has not returned to Earth's satellite since 1972, which makes the rights to lunar territory more theoretical.
More precisely, it was so until recently, when several new plans to return to the moon were presented. At least two American companies with significant financial backing - Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries - have begun developing programs to drill asteroids to extract mineral resources. According to the aforementioned Outer Space Treaty, the Moon and other celestial bodies like asteroids belong to the same category. None of this can become the "territory" of any sovereign state.
Concept of one of the asteroid probes being developed by Deep Space Industries.
The most fundamental prohibition of the Outer Space Treaty regarding the acquisition of a new state territory by planting a flag or by any other means says nothing about the commercial exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies. Today it is a subject of heated debate in the international community, on which a generally accepted position has not yet been established. Roughly speaking, this question can be interpreted in two ways.
Do you want to mine minerals on an asteroid?
Countries such as the United States of America and Luxembourg (representing the European Union) agree that the Moon and asteroids are "in the public domain." Consequently, these countries allow their private entrepreneurs to go to these facilities and mine materials from them for the purpose of earning money, as long as they have all the proper licenses and as long as they follow the other rules of the Outer Space Treaty. This is reminiscent of international maritime law, according to which citizens of any state can use the sea to earn money in accordance with the established rules on fishing. Once the fish is in the fishermen's nets, they can freely trade in it. Roughly speaking.
On the other hand, countries such as Russia and - to a lesser extent - Brazil and Belgium argue that the Moon and asteroids belong entirely to humanity. Thus, the potential income from commercial exploitation must be distributed among all earthlings, or at least must be subject to a strict international regime in order to guarantee the benefits to all of humanity.
The debate about this is far from over. At the same time, interest in the moon was revived. At least China, India and Japan have serious plans for it. Agreement on the issue of resources obtained in space must be reached as soon as possible for the benefit of all - be it the first option or the second. The development of such activities without a specific law applicable to all and accepted by all would be the worst option. Even though now we are not talking about colonization, it can do no less harm.
Vladimir Guillen