Talk:Common heritage of humanity

Untitled

Major international law concept involving multiple international Conventions and Declarations, with implications for resource use and sustainabilityNimbusWeb (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed to say this article may need clenup but no guidance was given as to what issues are being raised.200.66.91.130 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the pictures on this article are tenuously (at best) related to the topic. As far as I can tell, the rainbow, the butterfly nebula, and the English countryside are all included just because they're pretty pictures. They don't add information, and in my opinion, make the article seem preachy and un-encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.34.79 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think all the pictures are adding to the text. Please read the article and all the different areas the concept applies to under international law. The common heritage concept is in the UN outer space treaty and governs what can happen there-pic of international space station is clearly relevant to that. The common heritage concept is in the UN Law of the sea treaty-so pic of the world's oceans is clearly relevant to that. The concept is in the UNSECO World Heritage Convention- so picture of destroyed world heritage is relevant to that. The concept relates to how we should leave the world for future generation-so pic of the Lake District presents one ideal of how all humanity might live. I agree rainbow picture doesn't add much else and have deleted. I think other pic of deep space is relevant to how this principle will govern what we do in deep space.NimbusWeb (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The lede pic 'Earthrise' represented a symbolic moment when many people on earth started to view themselves as part of a single humanity on earth-so clearly relevant to the topic. The 'little earth' panorama also captures the fragile nature of the planet that the concept directly addresses.NimbusWeb (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"International Space Station. A United Nations Treaty declares Outer Space to be the common heritage of mankind" - The text is pointless and does nothing to link the picture to the article. More appropriate would be some text regarding the fact that it's the only inhabited structure in space, and how the management and ownership and decision making works.

"The NGC 6302 nebula. Militarization of Outer Space would be contrary to common heritage of humanity principles" - The picture doesn't relate to the text below it in any way, shape, or form. And the picture does not have any relevance in the article. It's just a pretty picture. 184.166.10.61 (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on international law, but is it really correct to say that the concept of common heritage of all mankind originates with the UN outer space treaty? According to this source: [1] the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict already speaks about a "cultural heritage of all mankind."

Moon Treaty Reference in caption

I am removing the sentence "Article 11 of the Moon Treaty declares the Moon and its natural resources the common heritage of mankind." from the caption of the earthrise photo near the top of this article.

My reasoning is that the Moon Treaty is a failed treaty that has not been signed by any nation that has actually sent sent payloads to the moon. The current caption implies incorrectly that the treaty is in force. Savlonn (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethics/Ecocentrism

Are there any arguments against the principle of common heritage which go along the lines that the principle is favours mankind - i.e. that, however "neutral" it strives to be, it does not take into account that what is good for *humanity* might be bad for potential non-human life discovered elsewhere - I'm thinking in particular of stuff like ethics of terraforming.

(Question continues here, since I'm shifting topic.) BigSteve (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Status of the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations

What is the status of the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations?

I see that it was proclaimed on November 12, 1997, but what is the effect of that proclamation? Does this have to be ratified or otherwise accepted by member states? What countries have adopted this and what countries are still pending?

Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove references to Space Law?

The moon treaty refers to celestial bodies as common heritage, but is a failed treaty. The other treaties settle on a (more vague, and probably less strong) 'province of all mankind'. Would it not be better to make a new page on province of mankind to prevent confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BatistPaklons (talk • contribs) 07:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Outer Space Treaty provides that "The exploration and use of outer space... is the province of all mankind". Each one of us has the right to explore and utilize the resources of outer space.

The Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit the private ownership of outer space resources but the Moon Treaty's "common heritage of mankind" provision does prohibit private ownership. That prohibition is exactly why spacefaring nations did not become parties to the Moon Treaty, and that is why the Moon Treaty is a failed treaty.

It is totally inappropriate for the article to assert that the Outer Space Treaty prohibits private ownership and that it contains a "common heritage of mankind" provision. I am going to remove the inappropriate reference to the Outer Space Treaty. MQMagoo (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Political science

What is not included in the global wealth or common heritage of humanity? 117.234.126.71 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)