CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

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.