65 / 350
SOVEREIGNTY AND OWNERSHIP IN RELATION TO OUTER SPACE …
the Space Treaty are, in this respect, contained in Articles I, II and VIII, and they are
the general basis of the legislation from the point of prohibition of appropriation and
the possibility of claiming rights in outer space. Article VI can also be viewed as the
basis for the activities of private individuals and private legal bodies in outer space.
On the other hand, too general legislation can lead to legal uncertainty. Some
concerns of the private sector while investing in outer space cannot be avoided..
However, it would be a mistake to refuse that agreement which is the most frequently
criticized treaty relating to outer space – the Agreement Governing the Activities
of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1979. This Agreement is
a particular concrete formulation of the Space Treaty and is general enough and
allows for the creation of a future regime for the exploitation of natural resources
on the Moon according to the needs of states, particularly technologically advanced
states. That there is no reason for concern is shown by the changes in Article XI of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, which relates to the
regime of the seabed beyond the national jurisdiction of the states by Agreement of
1994. The Moon Agreement of 1979 even grants a better position to those states
that contributed to Moon exploration. The Agreement directly pre-supposes the
preferential position of these states when distributing the profit from the moon. It
can be presumed that these states would provide an advantageous position for their
physical and legal persons. In relation to this it can be stated that, for example, the
president of the USA signed a document in 2006 about the National space policy of
the USA.
62
According to this document the USA rejects any claims to sovereignty by
any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any
limitations on the fundamental right of the USA to operate in and acquire data from
space.
63
According to this document, the USA will oppose the development of new
legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of
space.
64
It is, therefore, evident that the acceptance of new international legislation in
relation to outer space will be quite difficult in the future. The procedure, suggested,
for example, by Listner
65
would be dangerous. According to him, the legislation
should proceed by way of adaptation of national space policy and legal regulation,
so that they could be the basis for the change of the conception of the international
space law which could lead even to the redundancy of the Space Treaty or a new
definition of the doctrine
res communis
.
62
See Robinson, G. The U.S. National Space Policy : Pushing the Limits of Space Treaties?
Zeitschrift fur
Luft – und Weltraumrecht
. 2007, No.1, p. 45
et seq
.
63
ibid
, p. 50.
64
ibid
, p. 50.
65
See Listner, M. J. It’s time to rethink international space law. The Space Review, 2005, 31 May in: www.
thespacereview.com/article/381/1 1. November 2007.