In the sense of it's resources, that is. Take a look at this ruling as regards the Eros Project. So, what happens now?

The IGA international treaty of Jan. 29, 1998 governs any advancements developed on board the International Space Station. However, there doesn't seem to be anything dealing with the legal issues regarding resources found on celestial bodies, or have I missed something?

Another thing that crossed my mind was the recent talk about space elevators (a la Arthur C. Clarke). It seems to me that whoever owns the first space elevator will control economic access to space.

There seem to be a few questions that really need to be legally dealt with here.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

As to Eros, I think that the general principle of "utis possidetis" applies: prior to claiming ownership of a territory you have to effectively take possession of it.

Edited for grammar

__________________
There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

It will be interesting to see what sort of posession will satisfy those terms though. What do you have to land on a rock to take posession of it? A probe? An astronaut? The 1st AD and Her Majesty's Royal Marines?

What if I discover exploitable resources with a telescope? Can't I claim the right to those resources?

Mind you, I think those people selling property on various celestial bodies are full of crap, but it seems that people are going to need to work these issues out sooner or later.

__________________
Anyone who believes in the warning of the bible (prophecies concerning the end time which is now) shall be benefited from my invention. Because they won't be stupid enough to pass this! -Alex Chiu

It's interesting you should mention this, since this fellow's arguement seems to be: If possession is 9/10's of the law, there's another tenth. Since nobody possesses it, I should own it based on my paperwork, etc. (the other 10th) It's a very ummm... creative chain of reasoning. I especially liked him trying to bill NASA for 'parking fees.'

I think we're still quite a ways from having to really deal with this issue, but personally I feel a good standard for possession would be 'land with sufficient resources to establish a permanent colony.' Of course that's a gross oversimplification, but seems to me to be a good standard for 'possession' and thus ownership.

Perhaps we need something along the lines of the Antarctic treaty for space.

You'd be looking for something like this.
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.htm

Actually, you want people to be able to own property in space. That encourages development. You want to regulate it, but that's a different issue. The Outer Space Treaty is not too wonderful, but at least we didn't end up with the "Moon Treaty":

http://www.greaterearth.org/laws/moon_try.htm

Specifically:

Article II
"Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

The weasel words companies usually use to persuade people to hand over money for worthless plots of "land" on the Moon, Mars, etc is that the treaty refers to governments, not private companies.

Needless to say, when we finally reach the point where people can visit these places, the deeds for such plots will not be worth the paper they are written on. No court will ever find in favour of such an individual.

IIRC most countries that are signatories to the treaty have also enacted national laws preventing private ownership as well. I believe the main exception to this is the US, though as it is at least 12 years since I had a lecture on this topic I could well be very wrong.

Well, Mr. Hope from the LunarEmbassy thinks he owns everything because he claimed it first. I say we toilet-paper his office and call it the First Interplanetary War.

The idea of private ownership of off-earth territory is currently hypothetical. If a private person or business actually gets there and physically claims it instead of a polity, then we'll have more important problems. More to the point, if earth laws make it illegal to own space property, companies and individuals may simply use it without trying to make a legal claim and be subject to earth law.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

I own space.

And I'm going to have to ask you to vacate.

Wasn't there some professor who claimed the sun, and tried to charge Mr. Hope for lighting up the moon?

__________________
Anyone who believes in the warning of the bible (prophecies concerning the end time which is now) shall be benefited from my invention. Because they won't be stupid enough to pass this! -Alex Chiu

I'd agree with what some others have said--if you can exploit it, you should be able to own it. This would include allowing private interests to claim asteroids they send probes to, provided the aim is to claim and exploit the object. I would only make an exception for the four or five largest main belt asteroids, which I think should belong to everyone (sort of like Antarctica).

For the planets, I think it's fair to allow companies to own tracts of the surface, I mean, provided they're not like Belgian Congo-sized. Such property rights are a sure way to pique corporate interest in and spending on space, but I think they should still be balanced with the needs of science and the common good, where applicable.

Property rights only have any meaning if they are enforced.

If no-one is going to do anything when I usurp your claim to the moon by landing on it, then you don't really own it in any useful sense, do you? The above treaty means you can't use the courts of any nation on Earth to file civil claims against me (since it makes all offworld activity out of their juristiction).

A datum: Argentina claims sovereignty over its portion of Antarctica, not recognized by the United Nations, U.S., or most other countries.

__________________
There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Wow with all this talk about who owns what, it would seem that we'll be bringing warfare to space almost as soon as we get there. Way to go.

Space, to me, is like the oceans. Nobody owns anything and if you want to survive you'll have to rely one your fellow space mariners. Ships don't just ingnore another ship's SOS because they happen to belong to another line and neither should that happen in space. Once everybody starts 'owning' certain rocks, other rocks will seem more attarctive and claim jumping will ensue.

Besides, the only way we'll ever get any meaningful return from space is if everybody cooperates. Let's all have a group hug and go get some holes dug.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

At the end of the day, your claim is only as good as the enforcement you have to back it up. If someone else want to claim it and you have no way to defend your claim, then you have hot air.

Incidentally, when those astrophysicists finally detect dark matter, I've call shotgun on claiming. I'll own 99% of all the matter in the universe.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

<<Property rights only have any meaning if they are enforced.

If no-one is going to do anything when I usurp your claim to the moon by landing on it, then you don't really own it in any useful sense, do you? The above treaty means you can't use the courts of any nation on Earth to file civil claims against me (since it makes all offworld activity out of their juristiction).>>

Point taken. I guess that means that all claims should be considered legally binding once made, and enforced no less than they would be on Earth.

Here's something

http://www.coolscifi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2859

__________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifiresearchers/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifiexplorers/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SciFiDreamers/

If you ask me, (and nobody did :roll: ) Crocodile Dundee said it best. "It's like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog who's back they live on."

__________________
It's just one of those damn things of which there are many few. -- Dan Blocker

There is a complex heirachy of measuring the relative worth of a claim. They include what you mentioned above, along with the size of a claim. If you claim a great deal, and someone else claims an acre to live on, then everything else being equal, the smaller claim wins. Being there and performing improvements is a more substantial claim than surveying the territory from a distance. The person with the most substantial claim is considered to be the owner of the land.

By international treaty, nations may not own real estate outside of Eath. The design is to prevent manking from exporting warfare to other worlds. It is thought that if a nation does not own the land, then it does not have a reason to fight to defend it. There is no such restriction though on individuals and corporations. If you can get there, then you may claim your place in the sun.

If you had a link to that I would be very interested. It runs counter to the spirit of some research I did a couple of years ago.

We expect laws to be judged initially from Earth. Eventually this will transfer to the local area once the population grows enough to support it. In a way this is similar to the American West. The differene though is that there is no transfer of title from a government to the individual or corporation.

We are establishing the rules for living in space so we do not to warfare because we misunderstand them. You are right; this is the way to go.

__________________
http://members.elirion.net/~maddad
There are ten kinds of people. Those that understand binary, and those that do not.