Re: (No Subject)

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

We must be ever mindful of our predecessors, the pioneers and heroes who have
preceded us, and their sacrifice, so that we might have the chance for more
abundant life.

The space program has brought us, and will bring us incalculable benefit.
This
very message is being transmitted through part of its journey, relayed by
satellite.

In time the human race will colonize and terraform Mars, and beyond is the
universe.

Rest in peace, brave astronauts.

============================

SHARING THE HARVEST OF THE SKIES: OUTER SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION AND THIRD
WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Kim Alaine Rathman



This paper will investigate the new ethical challenges to international law
and policy-making that the commercialization of outer space activities present
to the nations of the world. More specifically, this paper will be examining
(1) some of the benefits and problems that space commercialization is creating
for both national and international political and economic institutions, (2)
the growing controversy between First and Third World nations concerning the
regulation of space activities and the allocation of space resources, and (3)
whether current principles, policies and procedures of international space law
are adequate to meet the new challenges that space commercialization presents.


Little attention has been paid, from an ethical perspective, to the possible
influence that the commercialization of space will have on U.S. foreign and
economic relations with other nations, particularly in light of the developing
nations' movements toward a new international economic order and their
affirmation of the "Common Heritage of Mankind" principle in relation to space
resources. In addition, when discussion is focused on the ethical issues
involved in this debate, it is largely as a by-product of the legal arguments
between the two schools of thought that dominate this body of literature: the
natural law school championed by Andrew Haley and the positivist school led by
Myres McDougal.


The conflicting methodologies of these two schools characterize the debate
between First and Third World countries as to whether there is a need to
establish the rights and responsibilities of nations and private entities for
space commercialization before extensive development of outer space resources
has taken place. Within this literature, the debate is focused on the legal
status and policy implications concerning the stipulations of the Moon Treaty
as they relate to: (1) the geosynchronous orbit; (2) the legal status and
commercialization of remote sensing data and mining rights on celestial
bodies; and (3) the structure and function of the international outer space
resources regulatory regime mandated by the United nations Moon Treaty.


In both the primary and secondary literature concerning space
commercialization, there is discussion of the importance of telecommunications
for the global economy via international monetary and data flow systems, as
well as the virtually invisible, societal dependence these new satellite
systems are creating as they take over one vital service after another. It is
this growing dependence on new space technologies that is particularly
alarming for Third World countries whose economies have neither the capital
nor the industrial infrastructure to support their own satellite systems. This
leaves Third World countries vulnerable to First World economic and political
power, and raises questions about the developing countries' ability to
maintain any semblance of political and economic sovereignty or cultural
integrity. As Jürgen Häusler and Georg Simonis point out, Third World
countries' failure to adjust to new space technologies will continue the cycle
of underdevelopment and political and economic subservience (Häusler and
Simonis 1985). Considering these problems further, Marvin Soroos notes that
the growing legal, political and economic challenges generated for the global
community by new space technologies cannot be solved by the usual policy
approaches based purely on technical or engineering models of economics
(Soroos 1987, 111).


Yet, in all the above studies mentioned, if ethics is considered at all, it is
only as a cursory by-product of the discussion and does not play an active
role in the solution. None of these works have analyzed the above problems
with an ethical perspective as the primary lens for critical interpretation
and adjudication. But much of the debate between First and Third World nations
is rooted in different cultural understandings of morality, making the
application of ethical methodology and moral understandings of participation
and the common good absolutely essential to finding viable solutions to this
international debate. In particular, the use of ethics to broaden
understandings of the common good and the need for participation by all
nations will contribute to a more integrated perspective on outer space as a
human domain where cooperation and appropriate resource development can be
interconnected and intimately related to parallel developments here on earth.


When discussing the legal problems of space commercialization, First World
nations agree with the stipulations of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that the
moon and other celestial bodies cannot be expropriated exclusively by any one
nation. However, space and its resources should, in accordance with free
market forces, be open to all nations who wish to develop those resources.
Developed countries, such as the U.S., therefore, have pushed for an
interpretation of both the Outer Space and Moon Treaties that would allow a
proposed international authority to grant, on a non-discriminatory basis,
"qualified" nations and private entities the right to "exploit" and maintain
ownership control of those space resources they are capable of developing.
These nations argue that any other interpretation of an international space
agency's regulatory authority would be a disincentive to space exploration and
development, making the exploitation of space resources and subsequent
technological innovations unprofitable for commercial investment (Dula 1979,
16-17). Their arguments on the legal status of space would resemble those of
the "Positivist School" of space law which advocates that the current laws of
air or sea cannot be translated to an area of exploration that is still
virtually unknown. Consequently, space law must evolve gradually as the facts
and needs dictate. The legal status of space most congruent with their
arguments would be that of res nullius, i.e., space that belonged to no one
(McDougall 1985).


Addressing the issue of allocating space resources, Third World nations have
presented to the U.N. General Assembly the "Common Heritage of Mankind"
principle, affirming that the natural resources of space are held in common by
all nations and should be distributed equitably for the benefit of all
humankind, as also stated in the "Common Benefit" principle of the 1967 Outer
Space Treaty. Following these principles, Third World nations question whether
the allocation of benefits and wealth from a commonly held resource such as
space should be determined solely on the basis of a nation's technological
capability to exploit that resource. They call not only for an international
regulatory structure that would "rationally manage" and "equitably share" the
benefits of space resources, but also for the international sharing of
appropriate technologies related to their development (United Nations 1979).
Their arguments resemble most closely the "Natural Law School" of space law,
which argues that law is based on the fundamental principles of morality found
in the human community and derived from understandings of the nature of
humankind. It is, therefore, important to plan for the future uses of space
and its resources in order to insure not only an equitable distribution but
also to prevent conflicts among nations as have occurred during earlier eras
of exploration. This group would argue for one of three possibilities for the
legal status of space: (1) res communis omnium, that is, space as a common
heritage for humankind to be regulated and garnered by all nations; (2) res
extra commercium, that is, space as a common heritage governed by an
international organization such as the United Nations; or (3) res communis
humanitatis, that is, space as a common heritage that is not owned by any
nation but from which all nations may garner benefits (McDougall 1985, 7 and
Cocca 1973, 174).


Why are the issues of the legal status of space, its resources, and space
technology transfers so important? For developed countries such as the U.S.,
the need to maintain technological leadership is inseparable from national
security, making the sharing of technology an untenable demand. They see the
commercialization of space as (1) forming the creative frontier of
technological research and development; (2) developing those "economies of
scale" essential to a country's economic growth on the global level; (3)
enhancing industrial and educational capabilities, thus advancing a country's
standing on the "learning curve" internationally; (4) enabling nations to
acquire "hard currency" on the global market; and (5) promoting national pride
and international prestige (Reynolds and Merges 1989, 230).


Third World countries also see the economic importance of space industries.
They therefore argue for the implementation of the common heritage principle
and an international regulatory agency to (1) enable developing countries to
reach economic and political parity with the developed countries, and (2) help
establish a new, more stable, international economic order based on
cooperation for the mutual benefit of all nations (Reynolds and Merges, 96).


full piece at:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v3_n4/rathman.html