4 thoughts on “More On Space Property Rights”

  1. The key phrase is not in the OST but Jim’s interpretation of the OST…

    …states are required to ensure that their nationals conduct their activities in conformity with the provisions of the OST

    Which has two problems. First, since the OST has zero to say about private claims it is quite a stretch to say because it does prohibit national claims it also prohibits private claims. Second, exceptionalism is central.

    We are not subjects of our government. We are citizens and that important distinction is often lost in the debate. As long as no government makes a claim, and it’s citizens are not on that claim, the govt. have no jurisdiction. This is why states retrieve people to their own jurisdiction before putting them on trial.

    Either we have liberty or we don’t. I am not the property of my govt. If I have access to unclaimed property I can claim and defend that claim regardless of what any country or treaty says. I’m not bound by it. This is the presumption of liberty. My govt. may use force to make me conform but that’s a different issue.

    Can I defend that claim considering treaties in which some signatory parties want implicitly (definitely not explicitly which is why we have a loophole) to prevent private property? Given the right circumstances, of course.

    One piece of the right circumstance would be a willingness of great nations to recognize the legality of claims. It’s not required, but it would go a long way in defense of such claims.

  3. Folks also seem to forget a number of nations have never signed any of the space treaties – flags of convenience anyone 🙂

Comments are closed.