Dec 18, 16 / Cap 17, 00 20:31 UTC

Current Space Law : The Outer Space Treaty  

Who owns Outer Space ? As Yasmin Ali wrote for BBC ,

“Neil Armstrong famously planted a US flag on the Moon in 1969. This gesture may have implied territorial ownership, but was purely symbolic because of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

129 countries, including China, Russia, the UK and the US, have committed to this treaty, which is overseen by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.

It sets out important principles, such as the concept that space should be considered the province of all mankind, that outer space is free for the exploration and use by all states, and that the Moon and other celestial bodies cannot be claimed by a sovereign nation state. Additionally, the Moon and celestial bodies are to be used purely for peaceful purposes, and weapons will not be placed in orbit or in space.

"This is frequently referred to as the outer space constitution," says Dr Jill Stuart, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and Editor of the journal Space Policy. She spoke to BBC News at the British Science Festival in Bradford.

The very existence of a Space Nation is aiming to change the current state of Space Law, in order to allow sovereignty and "democratization of space". How could the Constitution of Asgardia make the international law evolve accordingly ?

Dec 20, 16 / Cap 19, 00 20:04 UTC

Even though I'm not familiar with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, this MIGHT be a great basis for the Asgardia Constitution. This would also absolve Asgardia of any tricky legal situation. However this would only be a basis

Dec 20, 16 / Cap 19, 00 22:20 UTC

link to UN Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies New York, 19 December 1966

Asgardia's concern will be with Article II "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

The treaty can be amended, but only by a State Party to the Treaty. Asgardia would first have to become a State and then become party to the treaty. This seems unlikely, so the value of the Treaty to Asgardia is mostly as a reference for basing a set of goals or a constitution on.

  Last edited by:  Christina Cole (Asgardian, Global Admin)  on Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 03:38 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times
Reason: Edited to add hyperlink. Just do <link>.

Dec 20, 16 / Cap 19, 00 22:53 UTC

I think it is important to highlight a very current topic at the moment to highlight the interpretation of International law – the South China Sea. This is a perfect example of International Law at work and how it can be dismissed by an existing Sovereign state – despite ‘legally’ being told that they are breaking International Law.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty and other UNOOSA rulings, just like UNCLOS (Law of the Sea), are at best guidelines for the effectively ideal methods to manage space. The OST let’s face it was created to control and restrict the needless militarisation of space, at a time rampant with militarisation. But as recent topics declare, realistically a sovereign state can disregard the law if it chooses anyway, based on its interpretation of the other international or even national laws. Therefore in terms of enforcement it can be a very difficult issue. It should not be farfetched to consider that 50-100 years from now topics like the South China Sea could pop up in space, since it is bountiful in resources and opportunity. In theory Asgardia could do away with its belief in ‘international law’ and focus on the development of more appropriate ‘Space law’ for the Asgardian nation to follow.

A great idea was put forward by a scientist who proposed that, for example, whoever went to Mars first for the purpose of colonization should be allowed to claim the planet under their own governance; and not be influenced by sovereign states on earth. Where this also in principle is a fantastic idea, any colony in the near future will rely heavily on Earth for its survival and this could therefore influence the community in the long term. Again, knowing our existing society is it really hard to imagine that an independent colony sitting on a rare resource would remain impartial to Earthly states OR Private Companies (which can support a Sovereign State) who it looks to for its survival.

To use the OST or other UNOOSA rulings as a foundation for Asgardian society would be a grave injustice to the principle behind the society. It is just too messy. Asgardia has the opportunity to start fresh and free from the boundaries and outdated thinking of an earth-bound society. As the first space nation, it should be the duty of Asgardia to create the foundation of Space Law which can be considered exemplary by Earth-Bound Sovereign states; without expectation that they themselves should honour it. But in this process, Asgardians should remain clear minded and not pollute this opportunity purely by 'cheer-picking' favoured laws from country A, and country B. Obviously this task would be immense in scale and difficulty – but there may be law writers in our very community today who know where to start?

Even if it begins with "100 Principles of life that an Asgardian should follow" - that would be better than Evolving flawed laws of Earth-bound states?

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 00:25 UTC

Space law certainly needs updated. I can see how attempting to claim an entire celestial body like the moon or Mars should be outlawed, but not an individual station in space. The station itself is not all of space or any piece of it on a map. It is not as though one owns all of Earth orbit, just the physical platform that is the station itself. So why the prevision that bars any kind of sovereignty in space? If each nation with the means wants a station, they would have equal right to build one. The law should be changed to allow for the sovereignty of a specific platforn orbitng. It simply makes no sense as it is now and only hinders development.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 03:36 UTC

@Blsstidham I imagine the original principle behind the ruling was to limit the space race to a civil, technological race - and not draw in arms and militarization to support territorial claims of the moon, and other orbital bodies in the future. Regardless though, it is only a matter of time until (as my previous example) International Law is overridden, and a state attempts to claim exclusive access to an orbital body (if only a crater). It will probably start with "Gentlemanly" agreements of "you dig there, i'll dig here" and progress into unannounced territorial acceptance.

In regards to claiming Outer space - well who would bother? It is infinite and would be almost impossible to openly control space in general. However, direct supply-routes and areas of space surrounding a celestial object could be potential flash points for states that claim control.

Regarding platforms/objects in Space: Objects can be claimed by a single nation under the laws of space, Tiangong 1 & 2 for example. These were/are exclusively Chinese platforms. In fact China and Russia have separate programs to launch space stations in the early 2020's. For the west, our space programs have become heavily commercialized thanks to the efforts of companies like SpaceX. Other objects such as satellites etc. are also the property of their respective builders/owners, and where applicable International Laws (from Earth) apply to space to prevent other parties from accepting or claiming objects claimed by another state.

Perhaps in future it could work very much like an Airports international terminal. A Chinese space craft is the territory of China, and say a British crew from a British Spacecraft would like to dock and visit the Chinese vessel; the crew would be subject to the same process as a tourist going through an airport! [Don't forget your passport]

Asgardia therefore would need to be accepted on Earth as nation, and then fund its own space station (in theory) to exist as a space based nation. Or convert Astronauts and potential Mars explorers to Asgardian Citizens, who could then being to claim territory in the name of Asgardia [Evil Grin]. No weapons in space.... you can't stop us.haha

  Last edited by:  Oliver Berry (Asgardian)  on Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 03:54 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: corrections

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 03:51 UTC

What if that nation has laws in direct contrvention of Asgardia's? Would it not better serve earth based nations to have some sort of basic conditions of operating in space? One that details minimum operating and distribution requirements. And perhaps maximum mining rights etc. One of Asgardia's original premises was to ensure fair distribution of resources gained from space to nations that have no space presence. Those minimum and maximum requirements would then supersede any sovereign laws per station. On anything that these Asgardia's laws are silent, sovereign laws remain.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 04:03 UTC

@Helensmit Would said nations do the same for Asgardia (to serve our conditions if they conflicted with ours)?

In theory all current Sovereign states who have existing space programs adhere to the UNOOS & OST rulings (as well as several other conventions), and if where a law is not specifically mentioned, International Law would apply to that scenario. This would include International Laws surrounding resources.

I would imagine based on current principles if a nation has specific laws that are in direct conflict with Asgardia's laws - then life would carry on as normal (Diplomatic meetings and discussions, International Court appeals etc.) ..... until the two parties either come to fair decision, or directly confront each other over the issue.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 15:23 UTC

Very interesting points all around here. I have many questions !

First of all, I hold no degree nor do I have any experience with legal matters. I am merely a keen observer of geopolitcs and history, so please, feel free to correct any and all mistake and/or inaccuracy you may see.

I firmly believe the one thing Asgardia, as a sovereign nation, should watch out for in its establishing years is the exportation of terrestrial conflicts and interests in outer space. The global effort now underway to exploit resources on the Moon, on Mars and in the asteroid belt, which implicates all major powers on Earth, is absolutely bound to create some tension regarding colonization. Space exploration, despite being mostly presented as an international collaboration (which, don't get me wrong, it can truly be sometimes), remains a deeply national endeavor for the big nations in the field. This is even more the case today, with the American private sector sustaining the US federal program, and with Russia now in the process of reacquiring its own national space capabilities (brand new spaceport at Vostochny, new Federation capsule, a Progress replacement is on its way too, as is a new heavy launcher for the Moon missions...), reaching a level of division not seen since the early days of the Cold War.

As an international federation of people, with (as of yet) no recognized status, where will we stand when Russia, China and the USA (not to mention private entities) all have independent mining operations, and presumably permanent habitats to operate/guard them ? When transportation is owned by private companies like Virgin or SpaceX ? Isn't the OST simply gonna have to be changed, or purely ignored for that mattter ? I wonder, for instance, what will happen to the UNOOS when the Sierra Nevada deal comes through and they start operating the Dream Chaser vehicle on behalf of the UN. The promises made at IAC last September seem so far-fetched and unrealistic, if only from an economical standpoint... I also wonder whether the incoming, aggravated division between NATO and SCO countries will have an impact on UN policies worldly in the coming years, and decades.

In this context I fear the unavoidable attempts at instrumentalization that Asgardia will have to face from one or several of this players. Is there a plan to guarantee independence ? Where does Dr. Ashurbeyli stand on this, both as a Russian national and as our founder ? I hope he adresses these things, sooner rather than later.

  Last edited by:  Valentin Angrand (Asgardian)  on Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 15:24 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 20:56 UTC

Güncel Uzay Hukuku: Outer Space Antlaşması ¶

Gönderen: Oriane Kaesmann ( asgardian , Küresel Yönetici ) 18 Aralık 2016, 08:31

Uzay kimler var? Yasmin Ali'nin BBC'ye yazdığı gibi,

"Neil Armstrong, 1969'da Ay'da ünlü bir ABD bayrağı dikti. Bu hareket, toprak sahipliği anlamına gelmiş olabilir; ancak 1967 Dış Mekan Anlaşması nedeniyle tamamen semboliktir.

Birleşmiş Milletler Dış Mekan İşleri Bürosu tarafından denetlenen bu antlaşmayı, Çin, Rusya, İngiltere ve ABD de dahil 129 ülke gerçekleştirmeyi taahhüt ettiler.

An American lawyer Dennis Hope, in 1980 the United Nations outer space Treaty recognizing a gap in the law, bear on their own registration. There's even missing application Space United Nations Treaty. I wonder how accurate the legal agreement is applied in space...

  Last edited by:  mustafa soysal (Asgardian)  on Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 20:58 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: edit ;)

Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 18:55 UTC

The Outer Space treaty is currently outdated.

Dec 31, 16 / Cap 30, 00 18:35 UTC

What if a nation ignored the outer space treaty? What can the UN do to it? What if it isnt a member of the UN?

What if we built a station at L4 and it slowly spread. Now a lot of old and new stuff floats at L4 and belongs to others. What if we removed a non functioning satellite to make room or we scavenged the parts.

What happens then if say China demands we return the non functioning satellite or it will fire a missile at us? There are soooo many loop holes and gaps in the space treaty as to make it almost worthless.

I believe that until we have a permanent , manned presence in space at a geo sync orbit what is the use in belonging to the UN? Once we have a place we HAVE a nation. A nation in our minds isnt worth the time to contemplate.

We need to use the space law as it is written now and modify it for our purpose. Establish a colony and then go to the UN. Once in we propose our version of the treaty.

Jan 9, 17 / Aqu 09, 01 13:40 UTC

Spatiul este poluat de resturile navelor, satelitilor si a altor obiecte , care plutesc in deriva si pun in pericol navigatia cosmica. Dreptul spatiului cosmic trebuie sa prevada obligatii de recuperare a deseurilor , pentru statele care au programe de navigare, explorare si exploatare in aceasta zona. Capacitarea unui grup de specialisti pentru proiectarea si constructia unei nave care sa recupereze toate deseurile intraplanetare,sa le transporte pe pamant in vederea sortarii materialelor refolosibile.Personal pot sa ma ocup de sortarea acestor componente , prin infiintarea unui centru intr-o zona din Romania.

The space is polluted by debris ships, satellites and other objects floating adrift and threatening cosmic navigation. Right outer space should provide waste recycling obligations for states that have programs for navigation, exploration and exploitation in the area. Empowering a group of experts for design and construction of a ship to recover all waste intraplanetare, to carry earth to sort materials refolosibile.Personal can I do for sorting these components, by setting up a center in an area in Romania

This post has been translated using Google Translate ( Please keep this in mind that this forum uses English as a base language at this moment, however you are able to use your native language in the Regional ( forum that applies to you.
- Jason Rainbow 09 January 2017 @ 1:45 AM

  Last edited by:  Jason Rainbow (Global Admin, Global Mod, Asgardian)  on Jan 9, 17 / Aqu 09, 01 13:48 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: Added English Translation

Jan 18, 17 / Aqu 18, 01 02:43 UTC

I think the solution could be much simpler than any of of have considered. Ok here goes...... If Asgardia is granted nation status by UN then any territory we have may be able to be considered "sovereign". Like an embassy or military base in a foreign land. So in order for this idea to work we may need to place at least one human in space for a period of time. I don't think the UN will recognize something in space as "sovereign territory" unless there is a physical human being on board. It would just be a satellite that belongs to a "nation"

Jan 20, 17 / Aqu 20, 01 09:47 UTC

First i have to say the apollo 11 , armstrong did not land to the moon as he also committed . As there were no footsteps entered moon at the time . I think we can claim our space "asguardia space territory" to Earth orbits due we are "united " fact. However , in order to expand we must first launch space stations and defence force , building base and defences in and on moon, official claims it ,( the whole) . as if there has more than 50 personals (all combined) , that we can announce . second, "we " did landed on the moon finally , Apollo 21/20 . And secretly established a base (US/NASA/Alien race possible the greys) on the moon. This project also related to P-horizons. Were not announce to public as it never did. Its a secret operation. Also at that time were found an alien lifeform , humanoid , but a bit different . And believe were taken back to NASA. Possible of Alien cities in and on the moon right now due that discovery. Third, We should develop Our relations treaty with other races , if we have our "first contact" . I am apologised that The files of proven apollo perhaps being deleted . But It was once declassified 11, and leaked 20/21. And I read them before. (for more information about , pls contact me personally. 4, Announce that free energy exist and ready to use ! Announce that everyone can build the spacecrafts which protected by space law. (I had information as well as physic proofed. 5 Space Treaty must be careful as we were never alone ! Please noted here has information may be caused "problems" due possible sensitive information.