Uruguay) are signatories and none of these are spacefaring nations. This United Nations document was prepared over an 8 year period by the Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space, but there apparently was no consensus on its wording and passage within COPUOS itself. Obviously, the majority of countries find the agreement deficient, because of inadequate working and vagueness of concepts, especially because of its antidevelopment tone regarding space resources. Specifically, its provisions discourage private enterprise and investment aloft - there is no incentive for industry, for example, to undertake research and devlopment of lunar resources and energy. Although the "treaty" does retain the space realm as humanity's common heritage, it also anticipates setting up an international regime to govern resource exploitation. Attomey/author, Dr. Nathan Goldman's analysis of the U. S. position on the matter is this - nations are permitted to use, not own space; its resources can be claimed, mined, extracted, but the site may not be owned by a country, organization or an individual for that matter. There is, then, no private property rights in outer space, a position comparable to undersea resources in the law of the sea agreement. The late Admiral Hyman Rickover of the U. S. Navy decried the practice of extending Admiralty Law to outer space because he believed that law was inadequate on the oceans and would be no better in space. Yet, precedents set by the law of the sea frequently are applied to space law. Thus, the vague concept of a human province has now matured into a legal posture that constrains offworld development and private investment. The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea defines the Common Heritage of Mankind as a "term of art" for international law - that is, it is a term charged with meaning and legal significance, not apparent on its face . If the same thinking were extended to "astrolaw" - law applied in space, then apparently five anti-development sanctions would automatically apply when the interest of C.H.O.M. is recited. In that application these would include: 1. Neither the area nor its contents can be appropriated by anyone. 2. All nations must have an active sharing in the management of the area and its contents. 3. All benefits reaped from natural resources must be shared by, and actually distributed to, all such nations. 4. The area and its contents must be dedicated to peaceful purposes exclusively. 5. The area and its contents must be preserved for future generations of mankind [4], Seemingly, these restrictive sanctions do not include the alleged purpose for open space, that is the absolute right of free passage. It is also unfortunate that any enforcement of these sanctions on the high frontier, (except the dedication to peaceful purposes), would eliminate or at least curtail commercial development aloft. Such a municipal ordinance in any American town that was so totally anti-development would be unconstitutional on its face. To apply that kind of sea law to space would be intolerable.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==