Who Owns The Final Frontier?
Should Ownership In Space Be Permitted?
Can a person own the Moon? What about the Sun or any other celestial bodies? Well, in the 1980s, a Californian named Dennis Hope wrote a letter to the UN that the Moon was his, stating that he intended to subdivide and sell parts of the Moon. He reasoned that the 1967 Outerspace treaty never covered individual ownership. To this day, the UN has yet to respond to him. He has since sold over 611 million acres of land on the Moon for $19.95/acre to many, including three of the past US Presidents (George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan). Despite the certificates of purchase that Hope provides, the sale of this land holds no legal ground (Koebler).
The UN believes that no sovereign claims should be made in space; it should be free for all to explore. However, the same question will continue to emerge as we advance further into the final frontier: can people own property in space?
The need to look to space as a solution to our limited resources and as an economic opportunity is natural. Space offers tremendous potential opportunities and is truly an unexplored frontier. As the population on Earth grows, natural resources are depleting, and new, innovative solutions must be considered. In addition, people are looking for new economic opportunities in areas that have yet to be tapped. Space offers the opportunity to help address these issues because it is both rich in resources and offers significant economic potential in the long term. The challenge, however, is going to be establishing rights and laws that are both fair to the common good as well as defining who can take advantage of the opportunities these resources provide. Much like property ownership rights on Earth, the right to limited private ownership in space should be allowed.
The Laws in Place Today
Ownership rights in space is not a new topic. While many legal questions need to be answered, there are laws that have already been applied to actions in space. It first began with the discussion of air rights. The 1944 International Air Conference in Chicago stated,
“The contracting States recognize that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory… A nation’s sovereignty extends only as high above the surface of its territory as it can exercise ‘effective control’” — (Ownership of Space is Questioned).
This idea of ‘effective control’ is a recurring theme in ownership. You may own land, but do you have complete control of it? Such scenarios will be prevalent in the future of space. A country may own a plot of Mars, but if they cannot effectively control, fund, or defend it, you can be sure that another will come in to claim the prize.
Later, this concept expanded to space and the planets, moons, and other objects within it. The 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty was the first to set substantial limits on the actions that could be carried out in space.
- The first guideline establishes that “space is free for all nations to explore, and sovereign claims cannot be made. Space activities must be for the benefit of all nations and humans.”
- The next banned the militarization of space: “Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are not allowed in Earth’s orbit, on celestial bodies or in other outer-space locations” (Howell).
- The final guideline was that individual nations are responsible for any damage their space objects cause.
Following this treaty was the 1979 Moon Agreement, entitled Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, which was adopted by the UN. It restates the idea of space being set aside from conflict — a peaceful frontier — and establishes regulation of commercial uses of space. It declares ‘the moon and its natural resources’ as ‘the common heritage of mankind’, and states that the surface or subsurface is restricted from ownership of any state, organization, or person. However, only 14 nations have signed the Moon Agreement. The ‘space capable’ nations — the US, Russia, China, and India — have not.
“A main reason? The attitude is ‘we don’t want to share’”
— (Grossman).
Ownership always correlates to underlying selfishness that every human being has. When it comes to ownership of resources and objects in space, the capital reward is literally out of this world. Astrophysicist Neil De Grasse Tyson stated in an interview that the first person to mine an asteroid would become the first trillionaire.
There was one loophole, however, as mentioned previously with Dennis Hope. The treaty said no country could own the Moon, but nothing about individuals. While the UN seeks to protect common use, countries have already looked to claim an economic stake in space for their benefit. The US House of Representatives passed legislation known as the SPACE Act of 2015 (The US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act), which recognizes and promotes the rights of US companies to engage in the exploration and extraction of space resources from asteroids and other celestial bodies — basically allowing US citizens to exploit asteroids and other space resources (Basulto). Furthermore, just this past week (April 6), President Trump signed an executive order to support Moon mining and tap asteroid resources making the SPACE Act more official and stressing the fact that the United States does not view space as a “global commons” (Wall).
Countries and private companies have also been using space for some time. This includes initiatives for science and research purposes, as well as commercial ones. For example, there are shared research initiatives like country-specific missions that utilize the international space station and explore planets to conduct research (i.e., Mars Rover, Hubble telescope), as well as commercial ventures like telecom satellites and suborbital travel programs. These examples, which show how space can and will be increasingly utilized for a variety of purposes, show why more specific laws need to be established now. So, should we allow privatization or not? Let’s look at the pros and cons.
The Downsides
1. Space Trash
Currently, in our orbit, we have a growing amount of ‘space trash’ or parts of past rockets and satellites that are no longer functional (or were destroyed). This space debris is very expensive and difficult to remove from orbit. With the number of private space companies growing, it will be vital to regulating the creation and disposal of space trash. Even the smallest bits and pieces of a satellite can be lethal and become threats to the International Space Station, spaceships, and neighboring satellites due to orbiting speeds of 17,500 mph.
Back in 2013, a Russian Satellite was hit by debris from a Chinese anti-satellite test. Instances like these will increase in frequency with more and more material being sent into orbit.
Governments need to consider who is liable for cleaning up space debris. If we continue to allow private companies to launch material into orbit, the most logical approach is to make the owners responsible for cleaning up or those at fault for creating the debris (e.g., anti-satellite missile). There needs to be some regulation by the United Nations or other entities to outline rights and responsibilities.
2. The Limitation of Essential Resources
Another concern with privatization in space is that companies could own and therefore limit resources that should be shared or essential for human survival. For example, no one should own the Sun and charge for its solar energy. Nevertheless, would this be a possibility with private ownership of celestial bodies? Could private space companies own and sell essential resources found in space (e.g., minerals, materials, medicine)? Some companies could make these unethical decisions, but would probably face significant backlash. Many potential scenarios need to be taken into consideration.
3. Militarization
Another issue to address is the growing militarization of space. Ownership of strategic satellites or points in space could lead to a “long history of military aggression, exploitation, dominance, and overkill” (Park).
This downside of company or national ownership is inevitable. The final frontier is known as the “ultimate high ground,” and countries will not hesitate to acquire a piece. It could provide nations with the ability to launch missiles across the planet and destroy all sources of communication.
The Upsides
Despite these considerations, the privatization of space has the potential to open up many possibilities and fix material problems we have on Earth.
1. Speed — Government-funded Ops vs. Private Companies
On Earth, government-funded operations are usually slower and more constrained, whereas private companies are usually faster and more innovative in their pursuit of profit.
Just look at the recent advancements made by SpaceX as compared to NASA. With substantial capital and resources to advance much faster, SpaceX just developed the first reusable rocket: Falcon 9 and is looking to colonize Mars; NASA is just struggling with a seemingly annual budget cut.
2. New Industries — and Income
While many of these emerging companies may push some boundaries, ultimately, this is what we need to make discoveries. One company, named Planetary Resources, was looking for ways to extract raw materials from non-Earth sources through asteroid mining, which could add trillions of dollars to the global GDP.
Private company Moon Express is even dubbing space as a “third economy” and the Moon as the “eighth continent” (Basulto).
3. New Resources
Space has resources we do not even know of yet. There may be materials and elements that can unlock incredible innovations that solve significant challenges on Earth.
What Could Be Done
In the end, considering space as the “eighth continent” or new frontier is all we need to do: take existing laws from Earth and apply it to outer space. Whether it be from property rights on land or similar laws in the ocean, something needs to be legislated now. Allowing countries, organizations, and private companies the opportunity to explore without causing harm to the human race is essential. So taking this into account, permitting private ownership may be more beneficial than national or global ownership.
Global ownership could ultimately lead to disputes between nation-states. As an example, countries would scramble for plots of space to control or mine, and designated mining spots for each country would need to be established. Allowing companies from all countries to explore, based on global regulations, could reduce conflicts between nations.
Another argument for private ownership, whether by a company or nation, is the “Tragedy of the Commons.” This is when a shared-resource system is overly exploited due to individual users acting independently according to their self-interest and depleting the resource through collective action. An example of this on Earth is overfishing. Since oceans are shared, none of the countries or fishers will want to put in resources or stop fishing when other countries or fishers continue fishing and making money. The same situation could occur in space. If the United Nations owns one asteroid or the Moon, everyone will mine whatever they could without any consideration for others.
It all comes down to permitting limited private ownership or leases. Much like shared geographies and resources on Earth, space should be treated similarly. The rights around oceans are good models for us to follow. For example, the ocean is common use, but islands or land masses within it can be owned, including 20 miles of water/coast around their perimeter.
We can apply a similar principle to planets, moons, and other space objects (aka asteroids). Planets (or certain ones) might be protected and treated more like federal lands — available to all to visit but not to exploit commercially. Parts of planets could be used for specific operations while others are off-limits. For instance, we may allow the mining of certain craters on the Moon while protecting the site where Neil Armstrong first landed (similar to a National Park).
Like the global shipping lanes around Earth’s oceans, space can support common ownership in some areas but private ownership in others. A fun example is how the galaxies in Star Wars included hyperspace lanes that all could use. Also, to counter the concern over private ownership of essential resources, private companies should be allowed to purchase only non-essential space resources for commercial use. Private ownership in space and new activities such as mining could grow the economy substantially and support important research activities in the future.
How Notable Philosopher John Locke Aligns With This View
This sense of limited private ownership has been agreed upon by even one of the finest philosophers: John Locke. While Plato would take sides with the UN and urge for everything to be shared, what Locke takes into account is the human’s ineptitude with holding back selfishness. In his work “Two Treatises of Government” (1689), Locke argues that humans have a natural right to acquire private property and can gain this property through mixing the labor of their body and the work of their hands with a resource. Locke supports this view through the explanation of limitations on this right to property: the Waste Proviso and Enough-And-As-Good Proviso, where an individual must take without wasting and leave behind sufficient resources for others. He shared these beliefs in order to convince us that we have a right to earn property through our work but to not take more than our fair share in order to maintain balance in our society.
The reason Locke aligns so well with this view on property rights in space is due to his middle of the road perspective. While philosophers like Plato favored collective ownership and Nozick favored total control, Locke found a balance between the two and properly limited laws of ownership.
While some may argue that a few countries are unable to explore, my counter to this is that while this is true, they will be able to trade with space-capable nations and benefit from their investments in space.
Jumping back to the fishing analogy for a second,
“It’s a bit like the law of the high seas, which are not under the control of an individual country, but completely open to duly licensed law-abiding fishing operations from any country’s citizens and companies. Then, once the fish is in their nets, it is legally theirs to sell” (Dunk).
This concept relates to Locke’s point of view that if you work for it, it is yours, and the same philosophy will play out in space.
Property rights and ownership laws in space will continue to harbor many what-ifs, especially as we advance further into this final frontier. As we create these laws, there are many things to consider.
One is connecting back to this sense of selfishness we have as human beings and as nations. While we may now say that space and celestial bodies are international and shared, the second someone places a flag down, the push for a new form of space imperialism will emerge along with a drive to capitalize on the new frontier.
The same goes for the militarization of space. While keeping this frontier in a demilitarized state is favorable, it is inevitable to become militarized. Several countries, including the United States, are currently working on militarizing space, and the second one does, it will create a new race. In fact, in “1983 US president Ronald Reagan outlined a plan for a Strategic Defence Initiative, popularly known as ‘star wars,’ that included a network of space-based lasers to shoot down incoming Soviet missiles” (Doward). So, we have to ask ourselves: when do states have the right to utilize self-defense in space? What if countries begin to attack the source of communications like satellites? Is this action permissible then?
Many view ownership in space as a far off consideration. Yet this reality may not be that far into the future as many believe. We have the technology today for further exploration of the Moon and, at some point, Mars. The economics are very difficult, but it will become progressively cheaper as technology advances. Determining the right legal and ownership structures will take much time and debate in a global forum. Therefore, it is important to start the process now, so global legislation is in front of technology and economics, not behind. The scientific, economic, and potentially life-saving opportunities space will provide has to be carefully researched, planned, and agreed upon.
Thanks for reading! I hope you enjoyed the article!
- Connect with me on LinkedIn and feel free to shoot me any questions or inquiries.
- Follow me on Twitter and Medium
- jackbodell.com
Many fascinating articles to come, so stay tuned!
Works Cited
Ali, Yasmin. “Who Owns Outer Space?” BBC News, BBC, 25 Sept. 2015,
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34324443.
Basulto, Dominic. “How Property Rights in Outer Space May Lead to a Scramble to Exploit the Moon’s
Resources.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 18 Nov. 2015,
Doward, Jamie. “The New Rulebook for Real-Life Star Wars.”
The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 May 2017,
www.theguardian.com/science/2017/may/20/star-wars-first-rules-manual-military-in-space-laws.
Dunk, Frans von der. “Who Owns the Moon? A Space Lawyer Answers.”
Scientific American, Scientific American, 20 July 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-owns-the-moon-a-space-lawyer-answers/.
Grossman, Karl. “DISGRACE INTO SPACE.” The Ecologist, vol. 31, no. 2, 2001, p. 34.
Gale Academic OneFile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A71634855/AONE?u=nysl_me_swboces&sid=AONE&xid
5790a96. Accessed 10 Mar. 2020.
Howell, Elizabeth. “Who Owns the Moon?: Space Law & Outer Space Treaties.” Space.com, Space,
27 Oct. 2017, www.space.com/33440-space-law.html.
Koebler, Jason. “Meet the Man Who Owns the Moon.” U.S. News & World Report,
U.S. News & World Report, 25 Mar. 2013, www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/25/meet-the-man-who-owns-the-moon.
Locke, John. 1632–1704. Two Treatises of Government. London :G. Routledge and sons, 1887. pp.115–26.
Morris, Alison. “Intergalactic property law: A new regime for a new age.”
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, vol. 19, no. 4, 2017, p. 1085+.
Gale Academic OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A503295346/AONE?u=nysl_me_swboces&sid=AONE&xid=55b4c3da. Accessed 16 Mar. 2020.
“Ownership of Space is Questioned.” The Hartford Courant (1923–1994), Aug 13, 1955, pp. 1–6c.
ProQuest,
http://208.34.222.239/bin/rdas.dll/RDAS_SVR=/docview/563293484?accountid=3470.
Park, W.B. “Political Cartoon Regarding the Militarization of Space. .” Space For Commerce,
6 June 2008, space4commerce.blogspot.com/2008/06/krep-head.html.
Wall, Mike. “Trump Signs Executive Order to Support Moon Mining, Tap Asteroid Resources.”
Space.com, Space, 6 Apr. 2020, www.space.com/trump-moon-mining-space-resources-executive-order.html.
Wheeler, Joanne. “Managing Space: International Space Law and Prospective Reforms.”
Harvard International Review 33.4 (2012): 60–6. ProQuest. Web. 10 Mar. 2020.
White, Wayne N. “Real property rights in outer space.”
Proceedings, 40th Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space. Vol. 370. 1998.
