Talk:Moon Treaty

Untitled

The diagram shows the USA as Signed & Ratified but this doesn't match with the "Ratified" section

Attn template

The article doesn't say what the Moon Treaty IS -- which is a bare minimum even for a stub. The links to Outer Space Treaty and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea don't substitute, and in any case they still aren't enough to figure out what the MT is. Thx, "alyosha" (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Extent of coverage by the treaty

What is the conventional understanding of what this treaty is/was intended to cover? All bodies that are captive and remain within the gravitational influence of our sun? That would include all eight other planets, Kuiper Belt Objects, satellites, the asteroids and comets. It would then not include objects even as close as Proxima Centauri if such are discovered that close. Or does the treaty envision covering the newly-discovered exo-planets that are even hundreds of light years away?

In other words, does the treaty only cover celestial objects that it can be reasonably foreseen will be reached by manned spacecraft, with return journeys, and with the ability of radio communications? Objects as far away as Proxima Centauri and further do not fall into this category as it requires theoretical FTL, and communications, if possible (requiring immense power), would take decades.

GBC 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the treaty text " The provisions of this Agreement relating to the moon shall also apply to other celestial bodies within the solar system" so only in the solar system. When the solar system "ends" I don't know but I'm sure there's a technical definition somewhere.--David Youngberg 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Map

In the article, Lebanon is mentioned as having ratified the treaty, but this fact isn't reflected in the map. Could someone correct it? Eklipse (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Only 3 states (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) still missing on the map Aldwoni (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

India does

If I understand it correctly,
the treaty is only signed by France, Guatemala, India and Romania.
And ratified by Australia, Belgium, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan,
Peru, Kazakhstan, Austria, Chile, Morocco, The Netherlands,
The Philippines and Uruguay

So, India should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.

See this databes
Tristan Laurillard (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Author

Who wrote this treaty? I didn't see any information about which entity crafted it, or the history of the treaty, for that matter. 75.45.244.204 (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. In particular, the article doesn't explain why no space-faring nation ratified it, a rather important point. Bomazi (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Outer Space Treaty does not ban mining, and that subject does not even belong here

First, this article is about the the Moon Treaty, not the Outer Space Treaty. Let's not confuse the issue by saying what the OST covers in the article. Leave that for the article on the OST (which has also been altered in a non-neutral manner.)

Second, the recently changed description is not neutral. Some commentators have said the OST places no restrictions on commercial use of space, including mining and other resource exploitation. It simply prohibits nations from claiming territory and (by implication) enforcing any private claims to real estate. That's different from saying you can't bring back the rocks and sell them. Any mention of this issue should discuss both sides of the discussion. Or we can just say that a controversy exists. Fcrary (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The Moon Treaty is a follow up of the Outer Space Treaty. The controversy exists on both treaties, and I do not promote either side of the controversy. The Outer Space Treaty says nothing about mining so any interpretation against/pro is POV, so yes, there is a controversy. Next, unlike the OST, the Moon Treaty does seem to have a clause allowing exploitation IF done by an international regime, which has not yet been presented to the UN for amendment. I have been deleting extreme claims, I am fixing the POV to reflect the current international status. What do you assess that is non-neutral? Rowan Forest (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't see calling the Moon Treaty an extension of the Outer Space Treaty. It was not ratified by a significant number of nations and virtually all the signatories have no spaceflight capability. At best, it's a failed attempt to extend the OST. But the real problem is why so few nations ratified the Moon Treaty. It was heavily lobbied against because of the provisions on mining or commercial resource utilization in general. Those provisions were regarded (correctly or not) as an attempt by nations with no spaceflight capability to exert control over those who might be in a position to make money in space. As far as the current international status goes, the Moon Treaty has essentially no legal status. Treaties only apply to the nations which ratify them, and that doesn't include very many with spaceflight capabilities of any sort. Implying that nations like Russia or Luxembourg or the United States are in any way bound by the Moon Treaty is incorrect. Making such a statement amounts to supporting one side in the debate over interpreting the Outer Space Treaty. That's what I consider non-neutral. Fcrary (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

May I ask why [redacted] you keep deleting the references to this controversy? Did you bother to read them or you just want to censor the fact that the current Moon Treaty is ambiguous on the issue of commercial mining for profit? Rowan Forest (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought I left in the references. What I intended to delete was the text stating as a fact, experts say mining violated the OST and some sort of vague "customary international law". That's not neutral unless you also say other experts completely disagree. And include references to those people's views. Saying some people think X (with multiple references) but that there is controversy is not unbiased. To be balanced both sides should be given equal weight. Fcrary (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary: My apologies for the expression. I consider you the top Spaceflight Project editor, very knowledgeable, polite and fair. I never saw you edit-war or resort to BS, so I was very surprised. I am not much for copy-paste nor pushing anybody's POV; I read several sources and summarize the idea or concept, then I strive to present it in the context it was written. In this case I definitely missed adding the qualifier "scholars state that..." so that was a good catch from your part, and I appreciate your redaction into neutral terms. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "extension" of the OST, but in a "follow-up" of the OST and in the article I added a reference. As such, both treaties have to be mentioned for context. The "use" of outer space was originally meant as launching spacecraft, using any desired orbit, and the freedom of exploration. The omission of commercial mining can certainly be interpreted as either banned or permitted, but there was a reason for that: Although the OST states clearly that nobody can claim territory or space, the mining of natural resources (a type of appropriation) was left out of the OST (essentially a non-armament treaty and freedom of access) so that it could be then specifically addressed by a series of conferences to produce a framework for that. A step-wise approach. I understand that the Moon Treaty is not an extension nor an amendment of the OST, but a procedural follow-up and it is reportedly the best international framework produced so far. That is no small potatoes. Whether ratified by many or a few, it was signed, it remains viable, the UN reports annual updates on it, and negotiations on the expected specific laws to be amended have been ongoing (reportedly, for decades). Other frameworks may exist, but among some non-neutral claims, I also deleted that the International Institute of Space Law -a civil society- has the final say.

"As far as the current international status goes, the Moon Treaty has essentially no legal status." - I agree. And equally significant, as far as international status goes, the American 'Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015' has essentially no legal status over other countries (e.g. "finder's keepers"). With the new technologies available, the planet Earth is getting small, and a functional international agreement "seems to be needed" and it is actively sought, but the private industries (in several countries apparently) evidently need a prompt and clear resolution to secure their R&D investment. In that context, what I am trying to achieve in this —and related articles— is to tone down the claims of one side over the other regarding mining for profit and present them as an ongoing controversy (this is a work in progress and you are more than welcome to help). I also want to highlight that although the Moon Treaty has essentially no legal status (as you correctly stated) it remains the only international treaty signed (although not significantly ratified) with the framework wide open to fill in the specific laws for commercial mining. I also want to avoid the implication that the US 'Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015' is a valid international law, as it has been contested. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Review

I guess what I'm still not comfortable with is the use of "international community". Technically, any international treaty only applies to the countries which are a party to it. That means the "community" in question is just 18 countries. And, since 17 of them can't launch anything into space, that's hardly a spacefaring "community". To me, at least, "international community" implies all, or at least a large majority, of nations. Some of the wording about being a framework for further regulation, rather than being specific regulations itself, also doesn't come across correctly to me. It seems to imply that, if specific regulations are agreed to, then they would be binding for the all nations. In practice, they'd only apply to the 18 nations in question and any others which subsequently ratified the Moon Treaty.

Since this is going on in parallel with edits to the Outer Space Treaty article, I'm just put my related comments here. On the subject of extraterrestrial resources, OST article seems to imply that anything not specifically permitted by international law is prohibited. Or that a number of cited sources believe this, with a brief comment that there is some controversy. I don't think that's the case. One of the cited references uses fishing in international waters as allowed resource exploitation in unclaimed territory. But then it shoots the idea down on the next slide, by noting that fishing in international waters is subject to a large number of rules and regulations. While true, that's circular: Those rules and regulations are a direct result of specific treaties. Without the treaties, or with vague ones, those rules and regulations would not exist. A better example might be dumping trash off a ship. That was completely legal under international law until the London Convention of 1972. By analogy, the only widely ratified, international treaty on extraterrestrial activities is the OST, and it's extremely vague on the subject of resource exploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs)

Thank you for taking the time to perform a thoughtful and objective review. This is one of the reasons I think you are one of the top contributors to the Spaceflight Project and I appreciate it immensely. I have no formal training in law, so I am reading high-quality sources —not to argue— but to achieve better clarity in Wikipedia at explaining the nature of the controversy. Mining the Moon is around the corner (and apparently Mars by SpaceX) so I am interested in the legal dynamics and status of the exploitation of natural resources. I see three points in your fair assessment above:

1) The precise use of the term "international community"

I agree in that a treaty applies only to the participants or State Parties, and not to the complete "international community". I will review that this term is used in the correct context in this article.

2) "[…] framework for further regulation, rather than being specific regulations itself, also doesn't come across correctly to me."'

Actually, 'a framework' is definitely correct. I checked it multiple times from multiple sources in the specialized literature. The Moon Treaty repeats or reaffirms the common property of outer space as agreed in the OST and introduces two new proposals for the purpose of orderly mining, which is its main purpose or raison d'être:

• a) the concept of "Common heritage of mankind" for equitable sharing of natural resources in outer space, as well as protecting the large-scale environment of the Moon and planets, but there was no consensus as to how to apply it to outer space (objections were presented on sharing this with nations that have simply not invested in spaceflight, exploration and on the related technologies).
• b) an "international regime" (e.g. specific laws) was proposed to help establish the specific laws for an orderly exploitation of natural resources. The Article 11.5 states that the exploitation of the natural shall be governed by an international regime that would establish the appropriate procedures. Said laws or regime are not yet listed in the Moon Treaty because it was a proposal for the international community to create them. That is why this treaty is called a "framework" in the specialized literature. The Moon Treaty was a specific push or stage for their detailed creation. Further research, shows that when explaining the Moon Treaty, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) uses the term "framework of laws", [1] so lets use that term instead. I also edited that line to read: "Another expert highlights the viability of the treaty to develop a legal framework of detailed laws."

3) OST article seems to imply that anything not specifically permitted by international law is prohibited. […] I don't think that's the case.

I have concentrated in the Moon Treaty and Lunar resources articles, and I still have to study and edit the OST article. While I have not read it, I agree with you. That interpretation or implication should be presented as part of the controversy, not as a fact. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: I added to the OST article the short version of: "Thus, the first article providing the freedom of use is balanced by the second article outlawing the ownership or appropriation of any celestial body. It therefore remains under contention whether the extraction of resources falls within the prohibitive language of appropriation or whether the use encompasses the commercial use and exploitation." Source: [2] It is also worth noting this statement from the same source: "Article VI serves as a juridical link to bind non-state actors within the scope of the treaty." Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Needs update" tag no longer necessary?

The first sentence of the second paragraph includes an in-line "Needs update" tag, with the explanation that the date near the tag has passed - but there is no date near the tag. Since the tag was put there in September 2020, can I just remove it? --JDspeeder1 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll take it out, but I'll also rewrite the whole sentence. India has signed the Moon Treaty and they have plan for human spaceflight. Fcrary (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)