ALBERT MEDINA: CLASH OF OUTER-SPACE LEGAL REGIMES: THE PROPOSED U.S. "ASTEROIDS ACT" VS. INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW

Greetings once again fellow fans of outer-space (and Happy Star Wars Day, if you weren't already aware!). 

To start things off, I wanted to provide everyone with a quick update on my application to participate in the upcoming 66th International Astronautical Congress set to take place in Jerusalem, Israel in October of 2015, which was discussed in my previous blogpost. As it so fortunately turns out, the International Astronautical Federation recently notified me that it has accepted and selected my proposed abstract entitled "Extraterrestrial Law and Order" (the full text of which can also be found in my previous blogpost) for an interactive presentation at the 66th International Astronautical Congress (woohoo!). Concerning my particular application for a spot in the International Astronautical Federation's Emerging Space Leaders Grant Program in relation to the 66th International Astronautical Congress, however, notifications are scheduled to be sent out to all Grant applicants, including myself, tomorrow (that said, I will be crossing my fingers in the meantime and am hoping to hear some further good news on the matter!).

Shifting gears now, and as you may recall from two of my other prior blogposts, I had previously touched upon the issue of how the relevant system of ownership rights in the context of international space law might be structured with respect to both the hypothetical construction of the so-called "Luna Ring" and the moon itself, as well as the issue of what system of law, if any, would govern the inhabitants of a permanent, privately-established human colony on Mars in the manner suggested by Mars One's ambitious "Mars One Mission." In this blogpost, we will once again take a look at how the current space-law regime may impact future human activities in outer space, but this time we will briefly delve into a handful of the international space-law obligations that ought to be taken into account with respect to an ongoing attempt by the U.S. Congress to create domestic legislation that seeks to establish property rights over resources found in outer space; specifically, the proposed American-Space-Technology-for-Exploring-Resource-Opportunities-in-Deep-Space Act of 2014 (otherwise known as the "ASTEROIDS Act"). 

The so-called ASTEROIDS Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives back in July of 2014 by Representative Bill Posey of the State of Florida and Representative Derek Kilmer of the State of Washington. The ASTEROIDS Act, if ultimately passed and implemented, would establish that resources obtained from asteroids would actually be deemed to be the property of the company or other entity that had extracted them; it would also provide "freedom from harmful interference" for those particular entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction that will be participating in the mining of asteroids. 

In particular, the ASTEROIDS Act sets out to create property rights in resources extracted from asteroids, stating that “[a]ny resources obtained in outer space from an asteroid are the property of the entity that obtained such resources, which shall be entitled to all property rights thereto, consistent with applicable provisions of Federal law.” Furthermore, the ASTEROIDS Act defines a commercial asteroid resource utilization entity as “a person or company providing exploration or utilization services” that is either organized under U.S. law or subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Moreover, the ASTEROIDS Act creates a “first-in-time” provision for entities over which the U.S. can assert jurisdiction, stating that “any assertion of superior right to execute specific commercial asteroid resource utilization activities in outer space shall prevail if it is found to be first in time, derived from a reasonable basis, and in accordance with all existing international obligations of the United States."

That said, on September 9th, 2014, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Subcommittee on Space held a hearing entitled "Exploring Our Solar System: The ASTEROIDS Act as a Key Step" (a full video of this hearing can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAa-i5I2Jts). The aforementioned hearing addressed a wide variety of space-related topics, during which Joanne Gabrynowicz (Director of the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law and Research Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, as well as the former Editor-In-Chief of the University of Mississippi Journal of Space Law) offered insightful testimony on a handful of the legal complexities and difficulties associated with the crafting of such a piece of legislation as the ASTEROIDS Act in relation to the current international space law regime. As such, the specific text that follows is a detailed summary of the discussion that was facilitated by Joanne Gabrynowicz at the September 9th, 2014 hearing (as originally provided by The Space Review, together with various legal and academic references thereto, at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2604/1):

INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAWS REGARDING OUTER SPACE RESOURCES
Launches to, reentries from and activities carried out in outer space are governed by a series of treaties, the foundational instrument being the "Outer Space Treaty." The provisions of the Outer Space Treaty most relevant to the ASTEROID Act are as follows. First, under Article I, the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries and shall be the province of mankind. Additionally, Article I mandates that outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all states, on the basis of equality, in accordance with international law, and that all states shall have free access to all areas of celestial bodies. Under Article II, outer space is not subject to national appropriation by any means. Article IV renders states internationally responsible for national activities in outer space and mandates the authorization and continual supervision of non-governmental entities engaged in such activities. Article VIII recognizes that states retain jurisdiction and control over space objects that appear on their registry. Duties regarding registration have been further elaborated by the Registration Convention. Finally, Article IX mandates that a state enter into consultation with another State if it believes that its activities in outer space might interfere with the other State's exploration and use of outer space. These laws are considered below to offer some initial thoughts regarding the obligations of the U.S. in formulating a property law regime for outer space resources. 

ARTICLE I: BENEFIT AND INTEREST OF ALL COUNTRIES; PROVINCE OF MANKIND

The mandate that outer space be used for the benefit and interest of all countries and the classification of outer space as the province of mankind raise an issue as to whether spacefaring nations have an obligation to share resources obtained in outer space with other states. The positions of the Soviet Union and the United States during the negotiation and ratification of the Outer Space Treaty were that Article I constitutes a statement of general goals, that it does not create specific obligations, and that it was left to individual states to determine how the benefits of the use of outer space would be shared. These positions are subject to debate, rendering somewhat unclear the obligations arising out of Article I. Contrasting Article I with the "Moon Treaty," however, offers some clarity. Article 11 of the Moon Treaty declares the Moon and other celestial bodies to be the "Common Heritage of Mankind," allowing for exploitation of resources on celestial bodies only under the supervision of an international regulatory authority, similar but not identical to the Law of the Sea Convention regarding deep sea beds. The perceived necessity of incorporating "Common Heritage of Mankind" language in the Moon Treaty calls into question whether Article I of the Outer Space Treaty creates obligations respecting a global commons and lends support to the U.S. position, described above. The U.S. has not signed, ratified, or acceded to the Moon Treaty. Unless provisions of the Moon Treaty evolve into customary norms, the U.S. will not be bound by any of its obligations. Most likely, the "Province of Mankind" language of Article I of the Outer Space Treaty describes outer space resources as "res communis," similar to fish in the high seas, rather than as the "Common Heritage of Mankind," such as minerals in the deep sea beds. The development of property rights legislation for outer space resources would benefit from more clarity in this issue. 

ARTICLE II: THE PROHIBITION ON NATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

Article II renders outer space "not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." Article I expressly endorses the use of outer space, which includes extraterrestrial resources. Article II means that such use can never rise to the level of an appropriation: states (and their nationals) are free to use outer space but such use can never result in a legal claim to territory, as it sometimes did in terrestrial circumstances. Although the adjectival use of "national" plays some role on the meaning of "appropriation," private appropriations are prohibited as well. As discussed by Joanne Gabrynowicz during the ASTEROID Act hearing, a U.S. District Court has already weighed in on this matter, interpreting the Outer Space Treaty as prohibiting private appropriations in outer space. What this means is that private entities cannot own real property in outer space, but it does not mean that private entities cannot extract resources therefrom. Less clear is the circumstance where an asteroid is consumed by such extraction, as this could be perceived as a "de facto" appropriation.

ARTICLE VI: LICENSING OUTER SPACE MINING

Under Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty, states must authorize and continually supervise activities conducted in outer space by non-governmental entities. in the U.S., these duties have been delegated to the Secretary of Transportation, and, in turn, to the F.A.A. Office of Commercial Space Transportation (A.S.T.), which accomplishes such duties by issuing experimental permits and licenses to commercial operators for launch and reentry. Before U.S. industry stakeholders can begin extracting resources in outer space, a similar license and monitoring process must be initiated. Such licenses need not be onerous to industry stakeholders and could serve as a means for establishing a system for "first-in-time" rights to particular asteroids. For instance, a license might be issued on the basis of an illustration of technical and financial wherewithal and could provide a right to mine an asteroid to the exclusion of other U.S. entities for a particular time period. In this manner, the U.S. can meet its obligations arising from Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and industry stakeholders can be assured that no other U.S. entity is permitted to attempt to mine such an asteroid. 

ARTICLE VIII: JURISDICTION OVER OUTER SPACE RESOURCES

Although Article II of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the acquisition of territory in outer space, Article VIII mandates that a state retain jurisdiction and control over objects that appear on its registry. Such jurisdiction is not based upon territorial sovereignty and is sometimes referred to as quasi-territorial jurisdiction. It is not unlike the type of jurisdiction and control exerted by a state over a ship on the high seas or an aircraft in international airspace. Objects over which this jurisdiction extends include the personnel, component parts, and payload aboard a spacecraft. Were materials launched into outer space used to construct a mining facility on an asteroid, such a facility, including personnel and materials aboard the facility, would likewise fall under the jurisdiction of the state of registry. Everything onboard a spacecraft is subject to this quasi-territorial jurisdiction, including resources gathered from an asteroid and taken onboard a space object. Such jurisdiction can include the property laws of the state of registry. This situation is similar to the extension of U.S. intellectual property law to inventions made aboard a U.S. registered space object, thereby providing a precedent for the extension of U.S. property law into outer space notwithstanding a lack of territorial sovereignty. 

ARTICLE IX: SAFETY/EXCLUSION ZONES

Under Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty, states must take measures to avoid the harmful interference with another state's exploration and use of outer space. Such freedom from harmful interference will extend to private actors engaged in mining operations on an asteroid. Because space activities have been recognized as ultra-hazardous, states should be entitled to create exclusive safety zones around mining facilities. A tension exists between the Article IX guarantee of freedom from harmful interference and the Article I guarantee of free access to all areas of celestial bodies. In order to strike a balance between these interests, exclusive zones should be narrowly tailored in size and duration and limited to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out mining operations in a safe manner. By basing the size and duration of a safety zone on a measure of reasonableness, U.S. law can be flexible enough to meet industry needs while adequately honoring the international obligation of free access. The creation of an exclusive zone runs the risk of being a "de facto" appropriation prohibited by Article II. Preserving safety, however, meets States' obligation of international responsibility arising under Article VI and removes the character of an appropriation: the prohibition on other States' access is not based upon an appropriation but upon the safe functioning of the facility given the ultra-hazardous conditions. Precedents for such protective zones exist in the Law of the Sea. By limiting the exclusive zone to that which is reasonably necessary in geographic and temporal scope, the prohibition on national appropriation should be respected. 

CONCLUSIONS
By adopting a property law regime that is narrowly tailored to fit within the general principles and customary international laws recognized in the Outer Space Treaty, the U.S. can avoid the debacle of the Law of the Sea Convention, wherein developed and developing nations disagreed over the meaning of "Common Heritage of Mankind," resulting in a legal paralysis in regards to the deep sea beds. By adhering to the strictures of the Outer Space Treaty, the U.S. can place its domestic legislation beyond reproach, paving a way toward a reasonable and equitable scheme for the development of extraterrestrial resources and giving investors the assurances needed. The ASTEROIDS Act appears to be a useful first step in this direction.

*If you would like to delve further into the legal intricacies of the ASTEROIDS Act as it has been proposed in the US House of Representatives, here is a link to the full text of the Act: https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr5063/BILLS-113hr5063ih.pdf.

ALBERT MEDINA: RETURN FROM MY BLOGGING HIATUS AND A PROPOSED ABSTRACT ON DEEP SPACE COLONIZATION: EXTRATERRESTRIAL LAW AND ORDER

Hello again fellow space enthusiasts and hobbyists! It's been quite some time since my last entry, but I felt like it was just about time to get back in the swing of things after somewhat of a lengthy break from blogging on space law and policy.

Since my last blog post, I have been incredibly busy, having not only become a licensed Florida Attorney working in the South Florida area, a member of the Florida Space Development Council and a Prospective Member of the International Institute of Space Law, but also having attended the historic December 2014 launch of the Orion Space Capsule at Kennedy Space Center, where I was able to witness humanity's very first step towards human deep-space exploration first hand (my personal video of this fantastic experience can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lobnI7vwPMI&feature=youtu.be).

In addition, I recently applied for a spot in the International Astronautical Federation's Emerging Space Leaders Grant Program, a unique program that provides great opportunities for students and young professionals alike with an interest in space to be able to partake in the International Astronautical Federation's and Israel Space Agency's upcoming 66th International Astronautical Congress set to take place in Jerusalem, Israel in October of 2015 (if you're interested, here's a link to the program for this exciting upcoming event: https://iafastro.directory/iac/browse/IAC-15/catalog-technical-programme).

The application process for the Emerging Space Leaders Grant Program required each applicant to submit an abstract for an essay on a space-related topic, which, if the applicant is chosen to participate, will actually be presented at the 66th International Astronautical Congress by the applicant himself or herself. Accordingly, for my first blog post in nearly a year, I have decided to share the text of the abstract that I submitted (which I've entitled "Extraterrestrial Law and Order") with the rest of you, the text of which I've copied and pasted below for your viewing pleasure:

58th IISL COLLOQUIUM ON THE LAW OF OUTER SPACE (E7)

7th Nandasiri Jasentuliyana Keynote Lecture on Space Law and Young Scholars Session (1)

Author: Mr. Albert Medina 

United States, albertvmedina@gmail.com

EXTRATERRESTRIAL LAW AND ORDER

ABSTRACT

"My paper explores the potential legal frameworks and potential legal implications as to future extraterrestrial human settlements and colonies. In observing the historic evolutions of various legal regimes with respect to different European polities and their corresponding colonies during the 'Age of Discovery' and the 'Colonial Era,' the ongoing socioeconomic and sociopolitical effects of globalization, and the rapidly progressing system of international space law in the context of modern-day space exploration and the dawn of the private space sector, the goal of my paper is to draw upon these three broad areas in order to offer a reasonable prediction as to what kinds of legal systems and structures may take root within the first human settlements and colonies in outer space, along with the legal ramifications that would come with their existence and continuing development. In doing so, my paper seeks to show that initially, such extraterrestrial systems of law and governance, irrespective of the locations, national makeups or attributes of their respective colonies, would each likely function through the lens of a uniform, Earth-based international legal regime necessarily entrenched within a single well-established 'globalized' union or federation of highly developed countries, being a prerequisite for the meaningful propagation of mass-scale deep space exploration and colonization; given the extreme isolation and highly limited capacity for long-term self-sustainability that any of these otherworldly outposts would unavoidably possess in relation to the Earth-based communities that they would need to depend on for their short-term growth and survival, the dynamism of their systems of law and governance would remain largely static at the outset out of necessity. That said, it is not until these outer space colonies and settlements reach a certain threshold of size, infrastructural integrity and self-sustainability that we can begin to see independent evolutions and divergences in their respective legal and governmental schemes based on their unique locations, functions and attributes; such a scenario could lead to the development of wholly separate and distinct systems of laws among and between extraterrestrial settlements and, potentially, even grounds for conflict. This paper sheds light on a significant subject of law that will inevitably have to be addressed by humanity as mankind reaches ever deeper into the cosmos with dreams of populating it." 

So there it is ladies and gents! Like the rest of the other applicants, I will not be hearing until April of 2015 as to whether or not I've been chosen for the Emerging Space Leaders Grant Program, so for now it's all a waiting game (and of course a good time to start preparing the essay that I ultimately intend to write on this intriguing topic). In the meantime, feel free to offer any feedback if you like, and remember...keep looking up!

*If you would like to learn more information about the International Astronautical Federation, here is a link to the organization's official website: http://www.iafastro.org/.

ALBERT MEDINA: A PERMANENT MARTIAN HOLIDAY: THE POTENTIAL LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF A FUTURE COLONY ON MARS

So as many of you space enthusiasts out there are most likely (and hopefully) already aware of, there is currently a genuine effort being made on the part of a private, not-for-profit organization based in the Netherlands called Mars One to establish a permanent human settlement on Mars by the mid 2020s. The space-colonization plan in question has been identified by Mars One as the so-called "Mars One Mission," and what Mars One aims to do is to, ideally, land its first four-person crew (in what will be a series of successive four-person missions occurring every two years thereafter) on the surface of Mars by 2025.

At a glance, this bold interplanetary concept understandably sounds farfetched enough. However, one of the more remarkable aspects of the Mars One Mission is that once the spacefaring human settlers have arrived on Mars, they will all live there for the rest of their lives entirely within the confines of an interconnected system of self-sustainable units that will seal them off from the deadly effects of the surrounding Martian atmosphere and landscape. As such, I think it's safe to say that this mission, if carried out, would truly be the mother of all "one-way" trips.

With regard to the motivating factors behind Mars One's undertaking of such a challenging feat of human space exploration, Mars One has declared, in part, its underlying principles as follows: "Human settlement of Mars is the next giant leap for humankind. Exploring the solar system as a united humanity will bring us all closer together. Mars is the stepping stone of the human race on its voyage into the universe. Human settlement on Mars will aid our understanding of the origins of the solar system, the origins of life and our place in the universe. As with the Apollo Moon landings, a human mission to Mars will inspire generations to believe that all things are possible, anything can be achieved." For those of you who may harbor reservations as to the seriousness with which Mars One is pursuing its goals, the worldwide crew selection process for the Mars One Mission already began back in 2013; by the time of its conclusion, around six teams of four individuals will have been carefully selected for training.

As to how the remainder of the Mars One Mission game plan is expected to pan out, here's the remaining "roadmap" in a nutshell: In 2015, crew training begins; in 2018, a Mars lander and a communication satellite are launched to Mars for the purpose of staging a simulated "dry run" mission; in 2020, a Mars rover and another communication satellite are launched to Mars for the sake of preparing a landing site for future human crews; in 2022, six non-human cargo units are launched to, and are landed on, Mars to provide future human crews with habitation-based units in advance; in 2023, the rover (having since landed on Mars) begins robotically constructing the Martian colony (to be completed before any human crews arrive of course); in 2024, the first four-person crew launches off to Mars; in 2025, the first humans land on Mars; in 2026, the second four-person crew launches off to Mars (and so on). A fully-detailed summary explaining the relevant Mars One Mission roadmap in its entirety, starting from the founding of Mars One back in 2011, can be found here: http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap.

Nevertheless, while the overall Mars One Mission plan for permanently colonizing the Red Planet certainly looks pretty good on paper as of right now, an inescapable truth is that absolutely nothing like this has ever been legitimately performed, or has even been meaningfully attempted, in the history of mankind (the relatively-short Apollo Moon missions of the past don't even come close). Consequently, in light of the widespread publicity of the Mars One Mission as it has been proposed, the mission has received a fair amount of widespread criticism that even includes the likes of a recent Fatwa that was actually issued by the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowment in the United Arab Emirates that calls for prohibiting Muslims from joining the mission (if you don't believe me, then please feel free to check out the following article: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/inside.asp?xfile=/data/nationgeneral/2014/February/nationgeneral_February150.xml&section=nationgeneral). For the most part though, the ensuing criticism has mainly focused on the mission's medical, technical and financial feasibility (being the most glaring of issues).

That said, one significant issue that is barely being discussed, and in my opinion ought to be discussed to a much greater degree, in the public sphere concerns the various legal implications that would likely stem from the establishment of a permanent human colony on Mars in the manner suggested by Mars One. Even though the possible manifestation of any such Mars-based legal implications is certainly a long way off, those implications would eventually need to be addressed at some point down the line if the Mars One Mission ultimately does go according to plan.

Now obviously, the completely-untested issue of law as it would hypothetically apply to the Mars One colony, if constructed, immediately gives rise to an almost infinite number of unanswered questions that one could potentially delve into forever. However, in addressing the overall legal issue at hand, and for the sake of time, one significant question in particular that is worth talking about comes to mind: What would be the system of law, if any, by which the inhabitants of the privately-established permanent Martian colony would be governed?

In attempting to answer my proffered question, it first must be noted that none of the relevant international United Nations treaties that collectively comprise the current international space law regime directly addresses the notion of a permanent human settlement existing in space or on a celestial body. Thus, with regard to the question of what system of law should and/or would be in place for a privately-established permanent community existing in outer space such as the planned Mars One colony, the international space law regime as it presently exists can provide us with no direct answer.

However, it may be able to suggest to us an indirect answer. To clarify, Article VI of the widely-adopted Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (whereby a grand total of 102 states are States Parties to it) declares that "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty." Moreover, the Moon Treaty of 1979 (though much less popular and having only been ratified by a mere 15 states) essentially requires, in part, that any and all resource extraction and allocation with respect to celestial bodies is to be conducted by, and in accordance with, an "international regime."

Given the fact that the privately-funded and privately-established Mars One colony in question could arguably be identified as a "non-governmental entity in outer space" as characterized by Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, it would seem to me that the Mars One colony, as well as the numerous activities that would be carried out by its inhabitants in particular, would therefore "require authorization and continuing supervision" on the part of an "appropriate State Party to the Treaty"; to me, this suggests that such a State Party would so authorize and supervise the activities of the Mars One colony through the lens of its own domestic legal regime. Furthermore, with regard to the question of what such an "appropriate State Party" would actually be in relation to the Mars One colony, what we do know is that Mars One, as the private organization responsible for creating, organizing and directing the Mars One Mission, is based in the Netherlands. What we also know, at least for now, is that Mars One is hoping to utilize various US-based, UK-based and France-based suppliers with respect to the designing, programming, launching and landing of the relevant Mars One Mission equipment; these potential major suppliers include the likes of SpaceX, Paragon Space Development Corporation, Thales Alenia Space, Surrey Satellite Technology, Astrobotic Technology and ILC Dover. Moreover, since Mars One is seeking to utilize SpaceX's Falcon Heavy launcher as its notational launcher for the Mars One Mission, most if not all relevant launch missions to Mars would likely take place from within the territory of the US, which is where SpaceX carries out its own launches. Thus, in light of the fact that various private entities from a whole host of different countries would each be, in some way, significantly involved with regard to the Mars One Mission and the resulting Martian colony, it would appear that there would be no clear cut "appropriate State Party" that would ultimately be responsible for solely authorizing and supervising the activities of the Martian community in question.

As to how the Moon Treaty of 1979, despite its lack of international popularity, can possibly shed light on my earlier proffered question, it is undisputed that pursuant to the tenets of the Mars One Mission, human settlers living within the Mars One colony, regardless of whether such a Martian settlement would be considered either a private entity or a national entity, would necessarily have to involve themselves in the "extraction and allocation" of the natural "resources" existing on Mars, which is obviously a "celestial body," for the sake of their survival. For example, a crucial aspect of the Mars One Mission concerns the Martian colonists actually harvesting frozen water from beneath the surface of Mars for sustenance purposes. That said, any such natural resource extraction and allocation carried out by the inhabitants of the Mars One colony would arguably have to be conducted by and in accordance with an appropriate "international regime" as characterized by the Moon Treaty of 1979; in turn, it consequently appears that any such Mars-based natural resource extraction and allocation would also have to be conducted through the lens of that particular "international regime's" relevant system of international law. As to what is meant by an "international regime" in this context, I would venture to guess that the Moon Treaty is most likely referring to those (space-related) international non-state-actor groups, international associations of countries or international systems of conventions that specifically stem from the United Nations in some capacity and that would be sufficiently applicable to the carrying out of natural resource extraction and allocation in outer space (insofar as they would apply to the relevant celestial-body-based entity that is specifically doing so).

Based on the foregoing discussion, therefore, it would seem that both the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 as well as the Moon Treaty of 1979 can collectively offer us, albeit indirectly, with a possible limited answer to the question of how a governing system of law for the Mars One colony, if it is successfully established, might appear in the future. Nevertheless, my brief opinion on the matter is based on a system of international space law that will surely be changing in the years to come as mankind reaches even deeper into the cosmos, so who really knows what the ultimate legal situation with respect to the Mars One colony will actually end up looking like.

Rhetorical questions aside though, it sure would be pretty nice to witness mankind finally set foot on a different planet for the very first time in human history during my own lifetime.

*If you would like to delve deeper into this topic, then here's a great online video that wonderfully outlines the Mars One Mission in much greater detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMyv7qLNe6g. 

ALBERT MEDINA: A POTENTIAL LUNAR MAKEOVER: BUILDING A GIANT SOLAR-PANELED "BELT" ON THE MOON'S SURFACE

It looks like the man in the moon could be getting a radical fashion upgrade in the years to come....in the form of an enormous "belt" consisting of millions of solar panels, that is. Such a colossal structure, one that the Japanese construction and engineering firm Shimuzu is actually proposing to start building by 2035, would ring around the moon's entire equator and, if completed, would even give the moon an appearance eerily similar to that of the "Death Star" from Star Wars. Seriously.

Science fiction references aside, the reason as to why Shimuzu came up with the farfetched idea of building a gigantic lunar belt of solar panels is derived from one of the Japanese firm's central principles, which is that "a shift from economical use of limited resources to the unlimited use of clean energy is the ultimate dream of all mankind." As such, the company firmly believes that "virtually inexhaustible, nonpolluting solar energy is the ultimate source of green energy" that could more or less fulfill all of Earth's energy needs.

To clarify, Shimuzu has released plans to someday cover the moon's equator with a 248-mile wide solar panel belt, one that Shimuzu calls the "Luna Ring." If constructed, the Luna Ring would, in effect, convert the moon into a miniature sun designed to supplement solar energy to a future Earth that will likely be in dire need of energy-based resources. According to Shimuzu, the Luna Ring would beam energy back to Earth and its inhabitants via massive antennae, each having a diameter of 12 whole miles. Shimuzu also states that the Luna Ring would have the ability to generate the gargantuan sum of 13,000 terawatts of energy; to put things in perspective, the United States generated a total of 4,500 terawatts in all of 2011. Shimuzu proposes constructing most of the Luna Ring with robots, as well as using existing lunar resources as much as possible in the building process. For instance, Shimuzu says that water can be produced from reducing lunar soil with hydrogen (imported from Earth of course), and that bricks, glass fibers and other such structural materials can be produced via the use of solar-heat treatments. For those of you who would like to see all of the details of Shimuzu's Luna Ring plans in their entirety, see the following link: http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/theme/dream/lunaring.html. 

Of course, despite Shimuzu's carefully-orchestrated plans for effectively constructing the Luna Ring as well as the Luna Ring's valuable potential for generating such massive amounts of precious energy, there are many predictable problems. Constructing and operating the Luna Ring in the manner Shimuzu proposes would be fantastically expensive, so much so that the energy that would have to be invested would likely never be recovered. Furthermore, it is undeniable that beaming power from space back to Earth in the way that the Luna Ring would do it would be a complex, expensive and mostly untested realm; the levels of risk would be enormous. Other obvious challenges to Shimuzu's proposed project would include maintenance and upkeep, a hostile space environment that would degrade solar panels much more quickly than what is experienced on Earth and the sheer cost of constructing the unavoidably-colossal infrastructure that would be required to transmit the energy in the first place. Bottom line: Shimuzu needs to come up with a more cost-effective plan of action that incorporates future advances in space-related technologies if it ever hopes to see the Luna Ring built one day.

That said, a less obvious issue that the hypothetical construction, and even mere existence, of the Luna Ring would bring about are the corresponding legal implications in the context of international space law; in particular, how the relevant system of ownership rights would actually be structured with respect to both a fully-operational Luna Ring as well as the moon itself.

First off, pursuant to the regime of international space law that is currently in force, not a single sovereign nation on Earth recognizes bare-bones human claims to extraterrestrial real estate; this includes "land" on the moon. Nevertheless, if an individual or entity had enough money to travel to the moon and desired to do so, there would be no aspect of international space law (as it presently exists) that would legally prevent that individual or entity from going to the moon and, say, constructing a lunar solar-paneled belt. That being said, the 1979 Moon Treaty specifically states that no one can own any part of outer space ever......but only 11 states have signed it. 

However, a grand total of 129 nations so far have signed and/or ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states in relevant part that outer space is not subject to national appropriation; at the same time, though, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty says nothing as to a private individual or company with respect to owning part of outer space. As such, it is still currently quite risky for individuals and corporations alike to attempt to claim and/or use extraterrestrial territory due to the fact that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty explicitly says that outer space is the "common heritage of mankind," meaning that outer space (as well as the "celestial bodies" that comprise it) belongs to all of us and only to all of us in a collective, non-individualistic sense. 

As for what national entities can actually "own" in outer space pursuant to current international space law, anything that a national entity launches into outer space and permanently places in outer space is deemed to be owned by that national entity. In particular, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty states in short that the items that national entities launch and permanently place out in outer space (i.e. such as the United States leaving behind its lunar rovers and other equipment on the moon from its various Apollo missions) remain the property of the original owner forever (meaning that the United States' leftover equipment and leftover lunar rovers on the moon remain the property of the United States and will remain as such forever).  

Thus, in the event of the construction and eventual implementation of the Luna Ring (and provided that current international space law regime remains constant), I am of the opinion that Japan (per Shimuzu as a Japan-based firm) would likely maintain national ownership of the Luna Ring provided that all robots and equipment would presumably be sent up into space and placed on the moon per Japan's own national space program. That said, if the transporting of the robots and equipment to the moon would ultimately end up involving various national space programs from different national entities, then this could definitely create a tremendous dilemma as to which national entity or entities, if any, would be deemed to be the true owner(s) of the Luna Ring.  

At the same time however, and once again assuming that the Luna-Ring-based circumstances above come to fruition, I am also of the opinion that no entity, national or private, could legitimately claim ownership of the entire moon itself due to the fact that outer space (including the celestial bodies that comprise it) is considered to be the "common heritage of mankind." Even though the 1967 Outer Space Treaty glaringly fails to discuss how outer space as a "common heritage of mankind" applies to private entities and their respective ownership rights, I do not think that the treaty drafters intended this to be a "loophole" that would indirectly allow private entities to be able to lay claim to certain aspects of outer space while national entities would simultaneously be barred from doing the same. To me, allowing private entities to do so would appear to fly in the face of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty's underlying principal of maintaining outer space as an international "commons" of sorts, one that no human and/or Earth-based entity can be excluded from accessing in any way by any other human and/or any other Earth-based entity. Nevertheless, the various provisions and principles regarding international space law are certainly subject to change, and in the year 2035 and beyond, who really knows what the system of international space law will have possibly evolved into by then.

I suppose that one of the main lessons to be learned from the foregoing discussion on the Luna Ring and outer-space ownership rights is that we as an international community still have not come to a concrete universal understanding of how extraterrestrial real estate (including lunar real estate) works or even ought to work with respect to national and private actors. That said, this absence presents a great opportunity for us space law enthusiasts to be a part of the solution for resolving this unsettled issue of international space law in the years to come.

Regardless, I for one think it would be pretty awesome for us to have the "Death Star" as our moon someday.

*If you would like to delve deeper in to this topic, then here are two great online videos that wonderfully outline Shimuzu's plans for the Luna Ring in much greater detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUL_rDeKIeU / http://www.weather.com/video/they-want-to-put-what-on-the-moon-41862. 

ALBERT MEDINA: THE ELEPHANT IN EARTH'S ORBIT: OUR INTERNATIONAL SPACE DEBRIS CRISIS

Many of you may not be aware of this tremendous space-related issue, but here it is in a nutshell: There are now well over 21,000 pieces of man-made space debris (ie satellites/leftover rocket boosters/etc.) traveling tens of thousands of miles per hour in Earth's orbit. As more and more space debris inevitably crash into one another, or explode due to leftover fuel, current levels of space debris will exponentially increase over the next century or so. In fact, we've already passed a threshold such that even if nobody on Earth launched anything else into space for the rest of eternity, the current level of space debris would still dramatically increase over time.

So, if we don't actively start mitigating and/or reducing this exponentially-increasing number soon, then in one hundred or so years it may be next to impossible for mankind to safely leave Earth's atmosphere to explore the cosmos. To prevent this, the world basically has to implement a plan soon whereby large levels of both past and future space debris need to be consistently reentering the Earth's atmosphere and burning up as time goes on. This, of course, is obviously no easy task.

Fortunately for us though, there have already been plenty of plausible ideas and possible solutions floating around the international realm concerning effective "rendezvous and proximity operations" (RPO) and "on-orbit satellite servicing" (OOS) activities. To clarify, these RPO/OOS-based ideas and possible solutions are geared towards both "mitigation" (making sure all future space debris is designed to cause themselves to reenter Earth's atmosphere) and "reduction" (mankind actively causing old space debris to reenter Earth's atmosphere). Examples of such plausible methods can be found in the following two Youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGfU2u1__OI / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoow-t7qu7k.

Nevertheless, given this enormous predicament and the sheer magnitude of technology and resources necessary to even put a dent in it, there is simply no way that one space-faring state can address it on its own. That said, it is therefore imperative that the international community of states band together to come up with a long-term solution of space-debris mitigation and reduction; however, herein lies the problem.....a legal one at that.

As recently stated by the Secure World Foundation/Space Generation Advisory Council: "The current international space law framework is not even in a position to effectively deal with issue of space debris creation and mitigation. Moreover, space debris are not even mentioned in Article IX of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty), entered in force in 1967, which provides for protection of the space environment. The lack of definition makes it impossible to recognize which objects can be removed. However, even if we were able to make such a distinction, removal would have been complicated due to international regulations that apply to space objects. Art III of the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention), ratified in 1972, establishes that, '[i]n the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of one launching State or to persons or property on board such a space object by a space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.' Further analysis of the Liability Convention also helps to understand that there is no legal provision, which imposes any clear obligation upon the states to prevent space debris creation or to undertake mitigation measures."

If that wasn't enough to dampen your spirits, the Secure World Foundation/Space Generation Advisory Council also go on to clarify, based on current international space law, that: "[i]f during active debris removal (ADR) attempts any damage is caused to a third party, the launching state of the company carrying out the ADR will be held liable and will be required to pay a compensation to claimant state. This reimbursement is a condition of a license issued to private companies. ADR is risky because of the crowded environment and lack of space situational awareness as well as traffic management capabilities, therefore [the use of such a condition in these licenses] is highly discouraging. The present international space law conventions and instruments fail in creating a legal regime for ADR, and even the relatively new Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines fail in clearly providing for a legal regime, which would impose responsibility upon the states to undertake responsibility for the creation of space debris."

That said, here's the bottom line: Mankind absolutely needs to do something about the ever-increasing levels of space debris orbiting the Earth, but there is no international legal framework that can either meaningfully enforce, allow for or even encourage active debris removal on a global basis.

In spite of this, and on a slightly more positive note, there presently exist other international legal frameworks (such as the Law of the Sea) that could likely serve as a foundation/model from which to build up a new international space law regime. Nevertheless, this still doesn't change the main underlying problem: We still don't have such an international space-law framework set up, and it looks like we're a long way away from achieving that.

Thus, at least from a legal standpoint, I share the same opinion as that of the Secure World Foundation/Space Generation Advisory Council as to what has to specifically be done in the very near future. For one, the international community needs to agree on a shared legal definition of what "space debris" actually is. This has to be done for the sake of enabling space faring states and parties to proceed with the rapid uniform development of practices and technologies needed to conduct ADR. In addition, the international community needs to form a pro-active international legal regime geared towards envisaging a public private partnership method of responsibility sharing. This needs to be done for the purpose of reducing the current "chilling effect" that present international space law has with regard to ADR-based liability.

Lofty goals aside, the legal issues discussed above (and other equally-significant technical, economic and political hurdles) need to be effectively resolved before the international community can even begin to tackle our space debris crisis. If we as a global community fail to start this mission soon, however, then we could all be looking at an unsustainable orbital space environment in the years to come.

With that in mind, I emphatically believe that it's high time for us space law enthusiasts out there to really start stepping things up.

*If you would like to delve deeper into this topic, then here are two fantastic articles (both presented at the 64th International Astronautical Congress in Bejing, China by the Secure World Foundation/Space Generation Advisory Council in September 2013) that intricately outline the space-debris dilemma in its entirety, as well as the corresponding international legal implications, in much more detail: http://swfound.org/media/119601/IAC-13-E3.4.7-Paper.pdf / http://swfound.org/media/119724/IAC-13,A6,8,1,x18123_TC.pdf.