New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

and the specific reference to Resolution 1884 (XVIII) calling on the prohibition of placing nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies. 326 Deconflicting space by preventing it from becoming another battlefield and the belief that outer space was for all humankind to be used and explored peacefully was the main concern for the drafters. It would be fair to say that commercial interests were not the focus of those debates as that by its very nature is not for the public at large. Further evidence that the treaty’s purpose is that the treaty itself is housed in the U.N Office for Disarmament Affairs Treaties Database. 327 Although, I would be remiss if I didn’t add that the French delegation did vocalize the possibility of extracting minerals as a use of outer space if that was ever to become possible. 328 How fortuitous of them. b) The Ordinary Meaning of National Appropriation The current sticking point I will be focusing on in regard to vocabulary revolves around the terms, national appropriation in Article 2 of the OST. Black’s Law dictionary defines ‘national’ when used as an adjective, which is the usage here, as “of or relating to a nation” 329 and an ‘appropriation’ as “the exercise of control over property; a taking of possession.” 330 By these definitions it would appear that a national appropriation must involve some kind of property owned or possessed by a nation. Gorove, who is considered a pioneer in space law, comes to this very conclusion in his analysis of Article 2 when he said that “the treaty in its present form appears to contain no prohibition regarding individual appropriation or acquisition by a private association or an international organization.” 331 Additionally, there is some recent US case law that further buttresses the point that a national appropriation can only occur when the US Congress has authority over the purchase of or financial control of said property. 332 Lee, in his article on the Article 2 regarding sovereignty and private actors, found that the official Chinese text of the OST was very specific in limiting the prohibition of appropriation against states only and that since it was an official text it should be used for interpretative purposes in that an appropriation only prohibits states. 333 The ordinary meaning of national appropriation must include the government directly taking the property or in this case the resources. With that in mind, let’s move to the subsequent practice of the states parties that in my opinion adds clarity to the provision rather than violate it. 326 U.N. Doc. A/RES/1884(XVIII). 327 U.N Office for Disarmament Affairs Treaties Database, < https://treaties.unoda.org/treaties> accessed 4 November 2023. 328 U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/SR.63. 329 Black’s Law Dictionary 1050 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed., West, 2004). 330 Ibid., p. 110. 331 Gorove S, ‘Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty’ (1969) 37 Fordham L. Rev. 349. 332 Collins et. al. v The United States of America, 2005 WL 946896 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 2005). 333 Lee RJ, ‘Article II of the Outer Space Treaty: Prohibition of State Sovereignty, Private Property Rights, or Both’ (2004) 11 Austl. INT’L L.J. 128, p. 130.

87