Re: Space law
Henry Spencer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.technology.erps |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Alex Fraser wrote:
> People own property because states recognise deeds, no state no
> ownership (other than firepower allows).
More precisely: states are the level at which "as firepower allows" is
considered legally legitimate as a way of settling such questions.
> I think international maritime law might be a good start for space law.
It probably would be; it lacks some of the grosser stupidities found in
current space law. (Yes, there is current space law.)
> Perhaps we should not decide who owns it, but rather how you behave when
> traveling through it.
"Right of innocent passage" is a separate issue from ownership. When you
start *mining* it, the issue really is ownership, not transit rights.
> The oceans beyond national limits are a commons
> and people have worked this out legally for years.
Careful here: ocean-floor mining is a trouble spot, afflicted by many of
the same legal problems that could trouble commercial exploitation of
space resources, and hence not much pursued. That's not a good ideal to
aim for.
Moreover, just where "national limits" are has been expanding steadily,
especially where valuable resources are involved or pollution is an issue.
> ...do you need property to make a profit?
You can't sell something you don't own.
Henry Spencer
[email protected]