Space Exploration And International Law Research Assignment (Case Study Sample)

SPACE EXPLORATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Case Study Analysis
Name of Institution
Name of Student
Grade Course
Date
Issue
In depth study of the case presented clearly brings about the understanding of what the issue at hand is. According to the presented case, two countries United States of Darthia (Darthia) and the Republic of Kenobia are contesting over the rights to occupy the moon and run developments. While one of the countries – the latter is a young developing nation eager to test its scientific technologies in the outer space, the other country is a long standing developed nation with a long history of space exploration. The foregoing notwithstanding, both countries by virtue of been signatories to a number of treaties and conventions regarding international space and exploration have the legal right and capacity to explore space.
The case study moves further to inform that the Commonwealth Republic of Kenobia and the United States of Darthia have partnered together in many regional and international mutually beneficial ventures. In addition to the foregoing, owing to the fact that Kenobia established a national space agency eight years ago openly declaring its interests in space exploration especially pertinent to the development of low-cost launching technologies; the two countries embarked into a joint agreement of moon exploration and mapping called MOM (Mapping of the Moon) program based on a memorandum of understanding between the two countries. The case study records that the two states denied any other countries access to data from the project citing the fact that the project was financially intensive and only the two countries had participated. After this seemingly congenial project, the two countries signed a multilateral agreement named ‘The Understanding Regarding Mining on the Moon’. This treaty is very important according to my interpretation of the case as it acknowledges and recognizes either country’s mining and exploration rights on the moon.
Despite the above treaties and understandings been in place, Darthia after surveying an area 300km2 discovered a mineral and declared its intention to exclusively mine the highly valuable mineral by erecting a laser fence around the area. On the other hand, Kenobia, interested in determining the nature of the newly discovered mineral while conducting limited mining, bypassed the erected fence and corollary forestalled Darthia’s mining activities in the area. In a rejoinder as the case explains, Darthia electrically jammed low-cost launching rovers stationed in a different area on the moon by Kenobia as income generating amusement technologies therefore totally jamming the operations of the moon based amusement park by Kenobia.
Rule
The issue at hand is determining based on available law what is required of partner states as far as liability is concerned in the outer space. According to Article I (a) of the Outer Space Treaty, the exploration of the moon, outer space and other celestial bodies shall be carried out in the best interest of all countries since the space is the common province for all mankind. Article I (a)s position for the use of outer space is justified by further research that pinpoints UNs position that legally, space is the province of all Mankind. The term province of all Mankind in reference to outer space is a principle embedded in the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies also known as the Outer Space Treaty. Concurrent research evidence purports that by terming the outer space as the ‘province of all Mankind’ the Outer Space Treaty enforces that all human beings have equal rights to the outer space and that it is the responsibility of all nations and states that have interest in space exploration to respect this position and the rights of other space explorers/users. In addition, Article III of the Outer Space Treaty suggests that the basic guideline for the activities of states in the outer space is general international customary law in the customary interest of maintaining international security and peace and fostering international cooperation and understanding. Further research concedes that mutual state responsibility is the pivotal tenet of international customary law as far as space exploration is concerned.[Christol, C. Q., The Modern International Law for Outer Space. 1984.] [Rutgers, L. J. The Common Heritage of Mankind and the Final Frontier: A Revaluation of Values Constituting the International Legal Regime for Outer Space Activities. 1995] [Gennady, M. D. The Concept of ‘The Common Heritage of Mankind’ in International Law. 1988.] [UN Treaties. Outer Space Treaty. 2002.] [Malanczuk, P. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. 7th Edition. 2015.]
Apart from the above stated, Article VII, of the Outer Space Treaty, establishes that,
“Each state that launches or procures the launching of an object into the outer space, the moon and other celestial bodies included, is internationally liable to other state party for damages to persons or property within its jurisdiction on land, air, sea and the outer space – the moon and other celestial bodies included.[U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. 2018]
These sentiments are further underpinned by consistent research evidence that denotes that, since the outer space and the atmosphere are seemingly connected, it is the mutual responsibility of all member states signatories to any and all major space exploration treaties to ensure that they act responsibly understanding that they are liable under international customary law to protect the atmosphere and the outer space.[Birnie, P. W. & Boyle, A. E. International Law and the Environment. Oxford University Press. 1994.]
Application
With the above understanding, the application of the rule based on a clear understanding of the case at hand would be to find Darthia liable for violation of general international customary law on...