header-logo header-logo

Shoot for the moon: space mining & exploitation

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll