header-logo header-logo

12 July 2024 / Athelstane Aamodt
Issue: 8079 / Categories: Features , Technology , International , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Shoot for the moon: space mining & exploitation

181382
Athelstane Aamodt on the earthly laws of celestial bodies

The fact the Chinese have landed yet another probe on the moon (Chang’e 6), and the fact many nations are now habitually doing this (Japan, India, Russia (usually without any success), and, of course, the US), inevitably prompts the question: who or what decides what happens on the moon?

At the moment the answer to that question is simple: no-one. Although the US was the first country to plant its flag on the moon on 21 July 1969 (which by now would be bleached pure white thanks to the unrelenting, unfiltered sunlight shining down on it), the moon remains the property of no country—at least at the moment.

The Outer Space Treaty, which dates from 1967, forms the basis of international space law and has been ratified by 115 countries. The treaty was largely the product of the advent of Sputnik and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The provisions of the treaty are that no nuclear weapons are to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll