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§ion=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.
