54 / 350
JAN ONDŘEJ
CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ
Moon, possibly to other celestial bodies, have their importance because there are some
efforts of private persons to raise such property claims.
17
However, governments have
generally ignored claims of celestial ownership. Pop’s conclusion on how to deal with
these false deeds and wills? They do not need to be dealt with – they were never valid,
and they have no support in law. They are curiosities, nothing more. Nevertheless, their
presence is telling of the need for a definitive space context for property law, as such
claims have only been able to be advanced due to the lack thereof.
18
As to the
interpretation
of Article II of the Space Treaty, the position
19
of Belgium,
Australia and Brazil of 4 August 1966 in the legal sub-committee of COPUOS
20
shows
that the prohibition of appropriation should include the prohibition of exercising
private property rights. This conclusion can also be drawn from the formulation of
Article II, where the words
“or by any other means” is understood to mean the expression
of the idea that the prohibition of appropriation should be applied not only towards the
states but towards everybody, i.e. anybody.
The appropriation
is also
prohibited on the
basis of civil law
. Gál
21
states that nobody, before or after the concluding of the Space
Treaty, brought forward a different opinion.
The extension of the prohibition of appropriation of space to include private
persons can be deduced also from the
systematic interpretation
of the Space Treaty. In
this relation the mention of “national activities” in Article. VI of the Treaty can also
be interpreted to include private commercial activities.
22
State parties bear, according
to Article VI of the Space Treaty, “international responsibility for national activities
in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities
are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for
assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions
set forth in the present Treaty. 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”. In case
17
See Ondřej, J.
Právní režimy mezinárodních prostorů
[The Law of International Spaces]. Plzeň :
Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš Čeněk, 2004, Chapter II.
18
See Pop, V., Who Owns the Moon? Extraterrestrial Aspects of Land and Mineral Resources Ownership.
Berlin: Springer 2009. Review by Kalantzis, C. in
Journal of Space Law
, 2011, Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 406.
19
SeeBockstiegel,K.H.Kramer,D.M,Polley,I.PatentProtectionfortheOperationofTelecommunication
Satelite Systeme in Outer Space?
Zeitschrift fur Luft und Weltraumrecht
, 1998, No. 2, p. 167.
20
COPUOS – The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space was established in 1958. It was
formally established by United Nations Resolution 1472 (XIV).The mission of COPUOS is “to
review the scope of international cooperation in peaceful uses of outer space, to devise programmes
in this field to be undertaken under United Nations auspices, to encourage continued research and
the dissemination of information on outer space matters, and to study legal problems arising from the
exploration of outer space.”
The Committee has two subcommittees, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and the Legal
Subcommittee.
21
See Gál, G., Acquisition of Property in the Legal regime of Celestial Bodies, the 39th Colloquium on
the Law of Outer Space, China, 1996, p. 47.
22
See Bockstiegel, K. H. Kramer, D. M, Polley, I. Patent Protection for the Operation of Telecommunication
Satellite Systeme in Outer Space?
Zeitschrift fur Luft und Weltraumrecht
, 1998, No. 2, p. 167.