(11) Article 14 para. 1 of the Moon Treaty subjects States Parties to a liability for national activities on the Moon. Outlook for Large Space Projects Involving the Moon The scope and extent of projects discussed from time to time in this journal and other venues make it obvious that the normative framework of the Moon Treaty, as described above, is not sufficient to govern such undertakings. An institutional structure is required to cope with the administration and control of such large scale activities as SPS and LPS. The existing rules of the Moon Treaty have been adequate for the exploration phase of lunar activities. But the time has become ripe to establish the “international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon.” According to Article 18 of the Moon Treaty, the creation of the international regime can be considered at any conference convened to review the treaty. Such a conference will automatically be included in the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly ten years after the Treaty entered into force, that is in 1994. The conference can also be convened at any earlier time, if requested by one third of the States Parties. Lacking political consent to create the international regime governing the exploitation of the moon’s natural resources, the question arises as to whether the current state of the Outer Space and Moon Treaties and of international law means that a moratorium on such exploitation necessarily exists. Many developing States might advocate maximal application of the “common heritage of mankind” principle and would suggest such a moratorium, the Moon Treaty itself and its travaux preparatoires do not give any legal evidence for the existence of this moratorium. The most direct evidence results from a prior controversy surrounding United Nations General Assembly resolution 2574 D of December 15, 1969, which recommended a moratorium on exploitation of the resources of the sea-bed and ocean floor. Because of this, the United States delegates twice alleged that there was no moratorium on space resource exploitation during the drafting of the Moon Treaty without any other delegation challenging this assertion. Even in the absence of a legally binding moratorium, it may be politically wise to consider and then to perform any large scale lunar activities with a trustee’s conscience. Such an attitude of trusteeship, together with self restraint regarding unilateral actions, might come close to what is meant by the “common heritage of mankind.” REFERENCES [1] Report of the NASA Lunar Energy Enterprise Case Study Task Force, July 1989, pages 1-171.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==