Podcasts about Outer Space Treaty

On 10th October, 1967 a treaty went into force that has gone on to become the backbone for all international space law – a United Nations-approved agreement known as the The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, but better known today as the Outer Space Treaty. It's a relatively succinct document of just 17 articles, some as short as a single sentence, but it represented a lot of fundamentally very challenging cooperation at the time. Not least because it came about when the Cold War was in full swing, and both the United States and the Soviet Union wanted to prevent the expansion of the nuclear arms race into space.  In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly explain why the principles of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 turned out to be a good fit for rules on what can and can't be done in outer space; revisit everyone's favourite topic of property law in the 13th century; and discuss whether Elon Musk will, according to the law, own other planets if he lands on them. Further Reading: • ‘Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies' (US Department of State, 2009): https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm  • ‘How an international treaty signed 50 years ago became the backbone for space law' (The Verge, 2017): https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14398492/outer-space-treaty-50-anniversary-exploration-guidelines  • ‘Who Owns The Moon?' (Vsauce, 2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks8WH3xUo_E  This episode first aired in 2023 Love the show? Support us!  Join 

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Fabio Tronchetti : Rethinking "Common Heritage of Mankind" in the 21st Century: a Pathway towards Enabling Lunar Activities for the Benefit of AllPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Katia Coutant, Alban Guyomarc'h & Yann Robert : General Discussion, introduced and chaired by Young ResearchersPanel 4: General Conclusions and DiscussionColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Yannick Radi : General Conclusions Panel 4: General Conclusions and DiscussionColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Stéphanie Ruphy : CommentPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Jonathan B. Wiener : Space as Province, Property, and Planetary Protection: Risk and the Rise of the InterplanetaryPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Margaret Moore : Exploration and Exploitation: Territorial Rights in Outer SpacePanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Michela Massimi : Lunar Grabbing. On Scientific Commoning in Outer Space (and Oceanic Seabed too)Panel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Niki Aloupi : CommentPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026Colloque - The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy: Property in Outer Space: Context, Stakes and PossibilitiesColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Michael Byers : Que le jeu commence ! Commercial Space Mining and the Politics of Treaty InterpretationPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Philippe Achilleas : International Space Law Facing the Commercial Exploitation of Celestial Body ResourcesPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Isabelle Sourbès-Verger: CommentCommentPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Alex Mills: Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Lukas Rass-Masson: Property in Outer Space and Competition between Legal Orders from a Private Law PerspectiveProperty in Outer Space and Competition between Legal Orders from a Private Law PerspectivePanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Katrina M. Wyman: Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Anna Stilz: Sovereignty and Property in Celestial ResourcesSovereignty and Property in Celestial ResourcesPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Stephan Hobe: Sovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space LawSovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space LawPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Alessandro Morbidelli: Outer Space Exploration and Use: What Resources Out There?Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Summary for The Space Show presents Dean Cheng Friday, 9-19-25Summary by Zoom, edited.AN IMPORTANT NOTE: The Space Show website, www.thespaceshow.com, is undergoing a denial of service attack. Our hosting company and website manager are working to stop it but I suspect it might continue for a few more days until it can be controlled through various means we are using. In the meantime, you do have sporadic access so keep trying. Otherwise, it is important to note that all our information, our archived programs such as this one, newsletter and information on guests can be found on our Substack page, doctorspace.substack.com. In addition, are posting the Zoom videos to most of our Zoom program on this Substack page along with the audio version of the show. As for podcasting, that will be delayed because it needs for our program mp3 to be posted to The Space Show website. If I am unable to access the site due to the ongoing attack, it means I am unable to upload to our podcast server. We do have podcasting engaged on our Substack page so you might check that out and subscribe as an alternative way to get the programs via podcasting Thank you.We began this Space Show program with our guest, Dean Cheng, with a discussion about U.S.-China space relations and the Wolf Amendment's restrictions on NASA interactions with China, followed by an exploration of space exploration priorities and strategic considerations regarding lunar and Martian missions. The conversation then shifted to examining China's approach to space exploration and its historical context, including cultural motivations and diplomatic strategies, while also discussing the potential implications of directed energy weapons in space. The conversation ended with technical discussions about the Space Show's live caller participation system and its limitations, along with a brief discussion about tax-deductible donations. Detail follows. Space Show participants included John Hunt, Dr. Charles Lurio, Marshall Martin, Michael Listner, Atty, and Dr. Ajay Kothari.David and Dean discussed the Wolf Amendment and its implications for U.S.-China relations in space. Dean clarified that while Congress is not prohibited from talking to the Chinese, NASA, OSTP, and the National Space Council are restricted. They also briefly touched on the contrast between U.S. engagement with China in areas like business and education versus space policy. The conversation ended with David mentioning recent shows featuring security experts and potential future discussions on China-related topics. In addition, Dean outlined the Wolf amendment's specifics and his position on maintaining it plus he did explain why he holds the position he has on this item.Our Space Show group discussed perspectives on space exploration priorities, with David mentioning a debate between focusing on the moon versus Mars among his listeners. Dean shared his view that both the moon and Mars are strategically important for competition with China, particularly regarding cislunar space governance and the potential for China to be first to bring back Mars samples. The conversation highlighted differing opinions on space exploration approaches, including concerns about the Artemis program and alternative methods using SpaceX's Starship technology.Per the Wolf Amendment, Dean went on to discuss the challenges and risks of engaging with Chinese companies in the space and technology sectors, particularly regarding national security concerns and data protection. Dean explained that while private industry and government have different equities and vulnerabilities, the Wolf Amendment restricts certain government interactions with China, though its potential repeal is uncertain. They debated whether commercial competition with China should take precedence over national security concerns, with Dean arguing that China's state-controlled economy and access to sensitive information present significant risks that should not be underestimated.Dean explained why getting to the moon before China is important, highlighting concerns about U.S. capabilities and China's plans for a sustained lunar presence. He noted that China's competitive approach, including their "dual circulation" strategy, could give them an edge in space. Dean acknowledged that the U.S. has fallen behind its 2024 moon landing commitment and expressed concerns about our ability to sustain a lunar program at $4 billion per launch. Michael discussed how China approaches space strategy differently from the West, comparing it to a "game of go" rather than chess, and suggested that China's actions in the South China Sea could be a model for their space activities.Dean talked about the importance of understanding different negotiation styles, particularly comparing business and diplomatic approaches, and emphasized that China's actions are driven by a desire to restore its historical greatness rather than just financial gain. Dr. Kothari highlighted the cultural and civilizational pride underlying China and India's ambitious space programs, noting how these initiatives resonate with historical and divine identifications for their people. The discussion touched on how leaders like Xi Jinping tie national ambitions to reviving past glory, with China's space program being a key component of this broader vision.Our guest brought up the historical evolution of space exploration, comparing it to three distinct eras: Space 1.0 during the Cold War, Space 2.0 from the end of the Cold War to the early 2000s, and current Space 3.0 with China's increased involvement. He emphasized that China's approach to space engagement differs from cooperation, noting their strategic relationships and the absence of American involvement in the Chinese space station. Dean also highlighted the importance of understanding the historical context of space diplomacy and the role of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in Chinese space initiatives.Dean continued to discuss the potential implications of the Trump administration's Golden Dome concept, emphasizing that while it presents interesting opportunities with advances in directed energy and other technologies, it also raises strategic stability concerns similar to those in the 1960s and 70s. He noted that the significant reduction in cost to orbit and increased launch cadence could impact feasibility and affect China's strategic calculations. Ajay raised questions about the legality and effectiveness of deploying directed energy weapons in space, to which Dean clarified that, under the Outer Space Treaty, nuclear weapons are prohibited, but other forms of directed energy weapons are legal.Our continued discussion focused on cultural and civilizational perspectives in space exploration, with Charles and Ajay highlighting how China's space ambitions are tied to its historical narrative of "century of humiliation" and India's interest in mythological stories. Dean shared historical perspectives on Manifest Destiny, noting how other countries viewed the United States' expansion in the 19th century, particularly the concerns in European capitals about America's battle-hardened military. The conversation concluded with a discussion about how different countries' historical expansions were viewed, with Dean pointing out that while Manifest Destiny had a specific term, other countries' expansions were similarly motivated by available technology and historical context.Moving on, we focused on cultural and historical perspectives on space exploration, particularly comparing Chinese and Indian approaches. Dean explained how Chinese science fiction like "The Three-Body Problem" presents different approaches to alien contact than Western narratives, reflecting China's historical experiences and cultural context. The conversation also explored China's long-term planning capabilities through its 5-year plans and Project 921, which has provided stability for the Chinese Human Space Flight Program over decades. Ajay shared a unique perspective on India's historical relationship with the West, noting that while India has civilizational pride dating back to before 1000 AD, the country's more recent history of damage came from Islamic invasions rather than Western influence, making India more open to cooperation with the United States.Dean discussed China's competitive approach to commercial space development, highlighting their deployment of multiple PEO constellations and the strategic implications for military surveillance. He explained that China views the West, particularly the US and its entrepreneurs, as a threat, and noted that China's private sector aerospace investment began in 2014-2015 in response to Western commercial companies like SpaceX. The discussion also covered China's lunar program, which aims to establish an International Lunar Research Station, and potential human missions to Mars, with Dean suggesting that if China were first to put humans on Mars, it could significantly enhance CCP legitimacy. Charles and Ajay contributed insights about America's historical challenges with space program funding and China's development of thorium nuclear power technology.We did a bit of Space Show business at the end of the program. I discussed the current format and challenges with the Space Show's live caller participation system. I explained that while listeners can still call in via Zoom phone lines, most prefer to participate through email rather than phone calls, leading to limited live audience engagement during Zoom shows. The group discussed technical limitations preventing the integration of the toll-free line with Zoom due to audio quality concerns, and David emphasized that while he encourages caller participation, he won't compromise audio quality to accommodate it. The discussion also touched on the need to continue to donate to The Space Show which is a nonprofit 501C3. See the PayPal button on the right side of our home page or in the Substack program summaries in the sponsor and upcoming program section.Thank you.Dr. SpaceSpecial thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4435: ZOOM Dr. Ajay Kothari | Tuesday 23 Sep 2025 1230PM PTGuests: Dr. Ajay KothariAjay shows us his art exhibit via Zoom live from the Fairfax GalleryBroadcast 4436 Hotel Mars with Ben Roberts | Wednesday 24 Sep 2025 930AM PTGuests: John Batchelor, Dr. David Livingston, Ben RobertsHotel Mars discusses microgravity medicine with Ben RobertsBroadcast 4437 Zoom: OPEN LINES DISCUSSION | Sunday 28 Sep 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. David LivingstonZOOM Open Lines Discussion. Listen/participate w/Zoom phone numbers to be published on our blog for this program Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe

Billions of years ago, Mars may have looked less like the barren red desert we know today and more like Earth—with a blue sky, flowing rivers, and even seas. What happened to turn a once-habitable world into the frozen, lifeless planet we see now?On this episode of Big Brains, University of Chicago geophysical scientist Edwin Kite takes us on a journey through Mars' hidden past. From evidence of a lost carbon cycle to theories about ancient climate swings, Kite's research is rewriting the story of the Red Planet. But it's not just about the past—his work is also at the forefront of a provocative question: could humanity one day terraform Mars and make it a living world again? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Meeting assets for Dallas HM record are ready! 9-3-25Hi David LivingstonOur Hote Mars discussion covered plans for Cis-lunar space activities, including upcoming missions and the development of transportation infrastructure needed for commercial operations. Our guest, Dallas Bienhoff, presented concepts for establishing permanent human presence on the moon and Mars, outlining necessary infrastructure systems and technology requirements. The conversation concluded with a discussion of energy supply challenges on the moon and the potential implementation of nuclear power stations.Our conversation also focused on Cis-lunar space, the region between Earth and the Moon, including Lagrange points and lunar orbit. Dallas explained that while there's currently limited activity in this area, 30-40 missions are planned for the near future, including both robotic and human missions as part of NASA's Artemis program. He noted that transportation nodes and propellant depots will be needed for commercial missions, with SpaceX and Blue Origin planning reusable systems for this purpose. The conversation also touched on the potential for space tourism and military considerations in Cis-lunar space, with Dallas emphasizing that while the Space Force is interested in monitoring the area, the Outer Space Treaty prevents any country from claiming ownership of space locations.Dallas, a space systems architect for OffWorld.ai, discussed plans for establishing a permanent human presence on the moon and Mars with an unlimited budget as a result of John's question. He outlined the need for infrastructure systems on the moon, including habitats, roads, power sources, and in-situ resource utilization to create building materials and water. Dallas addressed the technology readiness levels of various space vehicles and the challenges of energy supply on the moon, suggesting that nuclear power would be necessary. He estimated that a nuclear power station on the moon could be operational in 5 to 7 years, though NASA aims for a shorter timeline. As for nuclear on the moon, he said it was essential and explained why that was so.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4429: ZOOM Doug Loverro | Friday 12 Sep 2025 930AM PTGuests: Douglas LoverroZOOM: Doug discusses return to the Moon policy per his recent Space News Op Ed dated 9-2-25 titled "We led NASA's human exploration program. Here's what Artemis needs next." co-authored by Doug Cooke and Dan DumbacherBroadcast 4430 ZOOM Dr. Gerta Keller | Sunday 14 Sep 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. Gerta kellerzoom Dr. Keller discusses her book, "The Last Extinction: The Real Science Behind The Death of the Dinosaurs"Stream Guys https://player.streamguys.com/thespaceshow/sgplayer3/player.php#FastServ https://ic2646c302.fastserv.com/stream Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe

Guest: Dr. Bhavya Lal – Former NASA Chief Technologist, MIT-trained nuclear engineer, and architect of U.S. space nuclear policy.The Cosmic Scoop: Nuclear power's bad Earthly reputation hides its potential as a lifeline beyond our planet. Space is already radioactive—and if we want to stay and build on the Moon, Mars, or Europa, nuclear offers “power abundance” solar can't match. Dr. Lal explains why, covering tech, safety, law, history, and why the next space era may finally embrace it.Quotable Insights:“Solar lets you visit. Nuclear lets you stay and build.”“Without nuclear, we design for scarcity. With nuclear, we design for capability.”“Adding nuclear in space is like pouring water in a hurricane—it barely registers.”“We are entering an era of abundance.”Cosmic Timeline: [00:00:00] Nuclear perception problem [00:04:00] NASA's lunar reactor plan [00:06:40] Moon nights & Mars dust storms [00:08:10] Power abundance [00:11:20] Why it hasn't happened yet [00:16:50] Nuclear tech & propulsion [00:21:30] Voyager's RTGs [00:23:00] Solar limits [00:25:00] Soviet space reactors [00:28:00] Current development [00:32:00] Space vs. Earth reactors [00:36:00] Legal frameworks [00:38:00] Launch safety [00:42:00] Reputation & safety evolution [00:46:00] Why nuclear is inevitable [00:48:30] Europa's ice drills [00:50:40] The Great Filter [00:56:00] Project Orion [01:00:00] Music: ABBA – “Dancing Queen” [01:01:00] Inspiration: “Think of abundance”Links to Explore:NASA Fission Surface Power Project Space Policy Directive-6 (U.S.)Outer Space Treaty (1967)The Europa Report (film)Spread the Cosmic Love! If this conversation shifted your perspective on nuclear—or challenged what you thought you knew—share it with a friend, colleague, or fellow stargazer. Let's talk about the technologies that will power our next giant leap.Send us a textYou can find us on Spotify and Apple Podcast!Please visit us at SpaceWatch.Global, subscribe to our newsletters. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter!

The United Nations has mediated conflicts since its founding in 1945. That domain of involvement extended into space in 1967 with the Outer Space Treaty. Today, their role is increasingly active with more and more nations entering space and the private sector getting into the game. The US's space-related branches, UNOOSA (the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs) and COPUOUS (UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space), are busy. Many years ago, the National Space Society gained permanent UN observer status, which is much less passive than the name sounds. The organization has addressed the committees on more than one occasion and is working to influence the policy for space flight positively. Dr. Rick Jenet has been instrumental in these efforts and joins us in explaining the landscape of newspace, international space efforts, and the organization's future initiatives.Headline Space Shuttle Discovery Controversy: Rod and Isaac discuss the proposed $85 million move of the Space Shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian to Houston, plan that faces obstacles from the Smithsonian, which holds the rights to the shuttle. Main Topic: UNOOSA & Dr. Rick Jenet The National Space Society's UN Observer Status: Dr. Jenet explains that the NSS gained permanent observer status at the UN in 2001. The NSS uses this privilege to inform delegates by providing research and presentations. UNOOSA and COPUOS Explained: Dr. Jenet clarifies that UNOOSA organizes the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). While UNOOSA maintains a registry of space objects, COPUOS is the body of 104 member states that develops legal frameworks. Outer Space Treaty of 1967: Dr. Jenet talks about the Outer Space Treaty, a global treaty dating back to the Cold War era that governs how state actors behave in space. He that the treaty's language on property ownership is being re-examined due to the rise of commercial space activities. Space Traffic Management and Orbital Debris: Dr. Jenet highlights that discussions on space traffic management and orbital debris are in their early stages. These discussions focus on basic tenets like coordination and information sharing. Lunar Activities and Resource Utilization: The development of policies for lunar exploration and resource extraction is also an area of new activity. UNOOSA's "Action Team for Lunar Activities Consultation," with co-chairs from Romania and Pakistan, coordinates the future of humanity's return to the moon by aligning different national initiatives. The "Regulation Sandbox" Concept: Dr. Jenet discusses the "regulation sandbox" concept, where existing regulations for an area with commercial potential, for example a lunar ice deposit, are set aside for a limited time to allow a new set of rules to be tested. This concept could be applied more boradly to space launch or ISRU. Why the Public Should Care: Dr. Jenet emphasizes that the public should care about these efforts because these high-level discussions will lead to international laws governing the behavior of all actors in space, including private companies and entrepreneurs. Early awareness of these frameworks will be less painful for startups later on. These show notes have been truncated due to length. For the full show notes, visit https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space/episodes/171 Host: Rod Pyle Co-Host: Isaac Arthur Guest: Fredrick (Rick) Jenet

The United Nations has mediated conflicts since its founding in 1945. That domain of involvement extended into space in 1967 with the Outer Space Treaty. Today, their role is increasingly active with more and more nations entering space and the private sector getting into the game. The US's space-related branches, UNOOSA (the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs) and COPUOUS (UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space), are busy. Many years ago, the National Space Society gained permanent UN observer status, which is much less passive than the name sounds. The organization has addressed the committees on more than one occasion and is working to influence the policy for space flight positively. Dr. Rick Jenet has been instrumental in these efforts and joins us in explaining the landscape of newspace, international space efforts, and the organization's future initiatives.Headline Space Shuttle Discovery Controversy: Rod and Isaac discuss the proposed $85 million move of the Space Shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian to Houston, plan that faces obstacles from the Smithsonian, which holds the rights to the shuttle. Main Topic: UNOOSA & Dr. Rick Jenet The National Space Society's UN Observer Status: Dr. Jenet explains that the NSS gained permanent observer status at the UN in 2001. The NSS uses this privilege to inform delegates by providing research and presentations. UNOOSA and COPUOS Explained: Dr. Jenet clarifies that UNOOSA organizes the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). While UNOOSA maintains a registry of space objects, COPUOS is the body of 104 member states that develops legal frameworks. Outer Space Treaty of 1967: Dr. Jenet talks about the Outer Space Treaty, a global treaty dating back to the Cold War era that governs how state actors behave in space. He that the treaty's language on property ownership is being re-examined due to the rise of commercial space activities. Space Traffic Management and Orbital Debris: Dr. Jenet highlights that discussions on space traffic management and orbital debris are in their early stages. These discussions focus on basic tenets like coordination and information sharing. Lunar Activities and Resource Utilization: The development of policies for lunar exploration and resource extraction is also an area of new activity. UNOOSA's "Action Team for Lunar Activities Consultation," with co-chairs from Romania and Pakistan, coordinates the future of humanity's return to the moon by aligning different national initiatives. The "Regulation Sandbox" Concept: Dr. Jenet discusses the "regulation sandbox" concept, where existing regulations for an area with commercial potential, for example a lunar ice deposit, are set aside for a limited time to allow a new set of rules to be tested. This concept could be applied more boradly to space launch or ISRU. Why the Public Should Care: Dr. Jenet emphasizes that the public should care about these efforts because these high-level discussions will lead to international laws governing the behavior of all actors in space, including private companies and entrepreneurs. Early awareness of these frameworks will be less painful for startups later on. These show notes have been truncated due to length. For the full show notes, visit https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space/episodes/171 Host: Rod Pyle Co-Host: Isaac Arthur Guest: Fredrick (Rick) Jenet

The United Nations has mediated conflicts since its founding in 1945. That domain of involvement extended into space in 1967 with the Outer Space Treaty. Today, their role is increasingly active with more and more nations entering space and the private sector getting into the game. The US's space-related branches, UNOOSA (the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs) and COPUOUS (UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space), are busy. Many years ago, the National Space Society gained permanent UN observer status, which is much less passive than the name sounds. The organization has addressed the committees on more than one occasion and is working to influence the policy for space flight positively. Dr. Rick Jenet has been instrumental in these efforts and joins us in explaining the landscape of newspace, international space efforts, and the organization's future initiatives.Headline Space Shuttle Discovery Controversy: Rod and Isaac discuss the proposed $85 million move of the Space Shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian to Houston, plan that faces obstacles from the Smithsonian, which holds the rights to the shuttle. Main Topic: UNOOSA & Dr. Rick Jenet The National Space Society's UN Observer Status: Dr. Jenet explains that the NSS gained permanent observer status at the UN in 2001. The NSS uses this privilege to inform delegates by providing research and presentations. UNOOSA and COPUOS Explained: Dr. Jenet clarifies that UNOOSA organizes the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). While UNOOSA maintains a registry of space objects, COPUOS is the body of 104 member states that develops legal frameworks. Outer Space Treaty of 1967: Dr. Jenet talks about the Outer Space Treaty, a global treaty dating back to the Cold War era that governs how state actors behave in space. He that the treaty's language on property ownership is being re-examined due to the rise of commercial space activities. Space Traffic Management and Orbital Debris: Dr. Jenet highlights that discussions on space traffic management and orbital debris are in their early stages. These discussions focus on basic tenets like coordination and information sharing. Lunar Activities and Resource Utilization: The development of policies for lunar exploration and resource extraction is also an area of new activity. UNOOSA's "Action Team for Lunar Activities Consultation," with co-chairs from Romania and Pakistan, coordinates the future of humanity's return to the moon by aligning different national initiatives. The "Regulation Sandbox" Concept: Dr. Jenet discusses the "regulation sandbox" concept, where existing regulations for an area with commercial potential, for example a lunar ice deposit, are set aside for a limited time to allow a new set of rules to be tested. This concept could be applied more boradly to space launch or ISRU. Why the Public Should Care: Dr. Jenet emphasizes that the public should care about these efforts because these high-level discussions will lead to international laws governing the behavior of all actors in space, including private companies and entrepreneurs. Early awareness of these frameworks will be less painful for startups later on. These show notes have been truncated due to length. For the full show notes, visit https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space/episodes/171 Host: Rod Pyle Co-Host: Isaac Arthur Guest: Fredrick (Rick) Jenet

Outer space is starting to get crowded. Private companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin are launching rockets regularly, thousands of satellites now orbit Earth, and celebrities like Katy Perry are signing up for space tourism. There's talk of more missions to the Moon, and Elon Musk is even hoping for human landings on Mars, within the next decade. But while space tech is racing ahead, the laws that govern it are lagging behind. In fact, there's only one major international law, the Outer Space Treaty - but that was made ages ago in 1967. In this episode we hear from three people studying space law; Andre Kwok, a recent graduate at the Australian National University, and Judith Jahnke from Sweden and Martina Elia Vitoloni from Argentina, both at McGill University in Canada. And BBC journalist Freya Scott-Turner explains what laws we already have and why it's been difficult to agree on more. Archive material provided by British Pathé.Instagram: @bbcwhatintheworld Email: whatintheworld@bbc.co.uk WhatsApp: +44 330 12 33 22 6 Presenter: Hannah Gelbart Producers: Freya Scott-Turner and Julia Ross-Roy Editor: Verity Wilde

This Day in Legal History: Apollo 11On July 24, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission concluded when astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins safely splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, returning from the first successful lunar landing. While the event was widely celebrated as a scientific and political triumph, it also raised an unexpectedly terrestrial legal issue: customs law. Upon returning to Earth, the astronauts were required to fill out a standard U.S. Customs declaration form. The departure point was listed as “Moon,” and the flight number: “Apollo 11.” Among the items declared were “moon rock and moon dust samples,” brought back from the lunar surface.Despite their unprecedented journey, the crew still had to comply with Department of Agriculture and Customs rules designed to monitor and control potentially hazardous biological materials. In the “Declaration of Health” section of the form, they noted that the presence of any condition that could spread disease was “To be determined.” This moment captured how U.S. law, even in its most routine forms, extended to the edge of human experience.The astronauts' re-entry into the U.S. technically triggered the same legal processes that greet travelers arriving from abroad. This event also underscored the broader legal challenge of adapting existing statutes to cover entirely new domains like space travel. Though humorous in hindsight, the customs declaration reflected a serious concern: whether extraterrestrial material might carry unknown biological risks.The completed form, now a historical artifact, reminds us that legal frameworks often evolve reactively. In 1969, space law was largely uncharted territory. Today, those early steps form part of the foundation for international agreements like the Outer Space Treaty and modern debates over resource rights beyond Earth.The U.S. Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump the authority to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reversing a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked the dismissals. The CPSC was established by Congress in 1972 as an independent agency to protect the public from hazardous products, and its members were traditionally shielded from at-will removal by the president. The justices, in a brief unsigned order, suggested that Trump was likely to prevail in arguing that the Constitution gives him broad authority to remove executive officials, even from agencies Congress meant to be independent.This move followed a June ruling by District Judge Matthew Maddox, who sided with the ousted commissioners, citing a 1935 Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) that upheld removal protections for independent agency officials. The Supreme Court's majority, with all three liberal justices dissenting, appeared to undermine that precedent. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned that using the Court's emergency docket to erode agency independence risked shifting constitutional power toward the presidency.The fired commissioners, whose terms extended through 2025 to 2028, had sued Trump, arguing their removal lacked legal justification. Their attorney, Nicolas Sansone, criticized the Court's decision as harmful to public safety oversight. The Justice Department, however, contended that limiting the president's removal power was unconstitutional.This decision echoes a similar ruling in May allowing Trump to remove members of other federal boards, reinforcing a pattern of the Court endorsing expanded executive control over federal agencies.US Supreme Court lets Trump remove consumer product safety commissioners | ReutersSupreme Court Lets Trump Oust Top Consumer-Safety Officials - BloombergU.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdrew a June 30 opinion in a securities fraud case against CorMedix Inc. after attorneys pointed out significant factual and legal errors. Lawyers flagged that the opinion included invented quotes, misattributed statements, and references to non-existent or misidentified cases. Among the problems was a supposed quote from Dang v. Amarin Corp. about “classic evidence of scienter,” which does not appear in the actual case, as well as misquoted content from a case involving Intelligroup and a fabricated citation to a Verizon case in the Southern District of New York.The withdrawn opinion had denied CorMedix's motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging the company misled investors about its FDA approval efforts for the drug DefenCath. CorMedix's counsel, Andrew Lichtman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, raised concerns but clarified he wasn't seeking reconsideration, only correction of the record. The same opinion had been cited as persuasive authority in a separate but similar shareholder lawsuit against Outlook Therapeutics Inc., before being discredited due to its inaccuracies.The incident drew attention not just for the mistakes themselves, but because judicial errors of this nature are rare—especially when resembling the kind of AI-generated errors that have recently led to lawyer sanctions. There is no indication AI was involved in drafting Judge Neals' opinion, but the situation reflects heightened scrutiny of legal drafting in an era where reliance on technology is increasing.Judge Withdraws Pharma Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up QuotesColumbia University has agreed to pay over $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the Trump administration, resolving federal investigations and securing the reinstatement of most of its previously suspended federal funding. The dispute stemmed from Columbia's handling of pro-Palestinian campus protests and alleged antisemitism, which led the administration in March to freeze $400 million in grants. In addition to the main settlement, Columbia will pay $21 million to resolve claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.The agreement includes several conditions: Columbia must discipline students involved in severe campus disruptions, reform its Faculty Senate, review its international admissions process, and overhaul its Middle Eastern studies programs to promote “viewpoint diversity.” The university is also required to eliminate race-based considerations in hiring and admissions and to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.Columbia has agreed to appoint two new administrators: one to oversee compliance with the settlement and another to address antisemitism. The university has also severed ties with the pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest and adopted a new definition of antisemitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism—moves that have sparked backlash among students and faculty.Rights advocates have voiced alarm over academic freedom and due process, especially amid reports of deportation attempts against foreign pro-Palestinian students. Critics say the government is equating legitimate political protest with antisemitism, while ignoring rising Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias.Columbia University to pay over $200 million to resolve Trump probes | ReutersFrench President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, alleging she spread false and harmful claims about Brigitte's gender identity. The suit centers on Owens' podcast series Becoming Brigitte, which claims Brigitte was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux—actually the name of her older brother—and accuses the couple of incest and identity fraud. The Macrons argue these assertions amount to a global smear campaign intended to boost Owens' profile and cause personal harm.Owens responded by labeling the lawsuit a politically motivated PR move and maintained it is an attack on her First Amendment rights. Her spokesperson framed the suit as a foreign government's attempt to silence an American journalist. The Macrons, however, stated that they had made multiple requests for a retraction, all of which Owens ignored.Defamation lawsuits by sitting world leaders are rare, and as public figures, the Macrons must meet the high legal bar of proving “actual malice”—that Owens knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The complaint also notes the rumors originated in 2021 and were amplified by other high-profile commentators like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. A similar French court case involving Brigitte ended in a temporary victory, but was later overturned on appeal and is now pending before France's highest court.French president Macron sues right-wing podcaster over claim France's first lady was born male | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Can somebody really enforce any space treaties and do they make any sense? What's a better future, colonies on Mars or on giant rotating spaceships? What's India's space program been up to lately? And in Q&A+, would I take a one-way ticket to Mars?

Artemis Akkorderne er en international rumaftale fra 2020, som Danmark underskrev i november 2024. Nogle betragter det som en efterfølger til Outer Space Treaty fra 1967, andre er mere skeptiske, og ser på det som et amerikansk og kommercielt drejet projekt. Selve Akkorderne er et relativt overskueligt dokument. På bare syv sider beskriver aftalen i 13 dele målet med aftalen (at sikre en fredelig og fordragelig brug af rummet) og en række lidt mere konkrete aspekter af hvordan det så skal foregå. Det handler blandt andet om at man skal dele information og viden med andre lande, om at man vil fremme brugen af standardiserede komponenter og softwaresystemer, og at man vil komme andre rumfarende nationer til undsætning, hvis for eksempel en astronaut skulle komme ud for et uheld under en mission og har brug for hjælp. Og så handler det ikke mindst om hvordan man må udnytte ressourcer i rummet, fx Helium-3 på Månen eller metaller på asteroider, eller hvad man nu kan drømme om. Akkorderne er en politisk aftale mellem USA og de andre lande, men er ikke – ligesom FN-traktaten – et juridisk bindende multilateralt dokument. For at høre mere om Artemis Akkorderne og hvilken rolle de spiller i det internationale rumsamfund har vi denne gang haft besøg i studiet af Danny Johansen, der har en Ph.D i international rumjura. I de korte nyheder taler vi blandt andet om Trump-administrationens Golden Dome-projekt og om at Mælkevejen og Andromeda-galaksen måske alligevel ikke brager ind i hinanden om 5 milliarder år... Lyt med

Hello Interactors,I was in Santa Barbara recently having dinner on a friend's deck when a rocket's contrail streaked the sky. “Another one from Vandenberg,” he said. “Wait a couple minutes — you'll hear it.” And we did. “They've gotten really annoying,” he added. He's not wrong. In early 2024, SpaceX launched seven times more tonnage into space than the rest of the world combined, much of it from Vandenberg Space Force Base (renamed from Air Force Base in 2021). They've already been approved to fly 12,000 Starlink satellites, with filings for 30,000 more.This isn't just future space junk — it's infrastructure. And it's not just in orbit. What Musk is doing in the sky is tied to what he's building on the ground. Not in Vandenberg, where regulation still exists, but in Starbase, Texas, where the law doesn't resist — it assists. There, Musk is testing how much sovereignty one man can claim under the banner of “innovation” — and how little we'll do to stop him.TOWNS TO THRUST AND THRONEMusk isn't just defying gravity — he's defying law. In South Texas, a place called Starbase has taken shape along the Gulf Coast, hugging the edge of SpaceX's rocket launch site. What looks like a town is really something else: a launchpad not just for spacecraft, but for a new form of privatized sovereignty.VIDEO: Time compresses at the edge of Starbase: a slow-built frontier where launch infrastructure rises faster than oversight. Source: Google EarthThis isn't unprecedented. The United States has a long lineage of company towns — places where corporations controlled land, housing, labor, and local government. Pullman, Illinois is the most famous. But while labor historians and economic geographers have documented their economic and social impact, few have examined them as legal structures of power.That's the gap legal scholar Brian Highsmith identifies in Governing the Company Town. That omission matters — because these places aren't just undemocratic. They often function as quasi-sovereign legal shells, designed to serve capital, not people.Incorporation is the trick. In Texas, any area with at least 201 residents can petition to become a general-law municipality. That's exactly what Musk has done. In a recent vote (212 to 6) residents approved the creation of an official town — Starbase. Most of those residents are SpaceX employees living on company-owned land…with a Tesla in the driveway. The result is a legally recognized town, politically constructed. SpaceX controls the housing, the workforce, and now, the electorate. Even the mayor is a SpaceX affiliate. With zoning powers and taxing authority, Musk now holds tools usually reserved for public governments — and he's using them to build for rockets, not residents…unless they're employees.VIDEO: Starbase expands frame by frame, not just as a company town, but as a legal experiment — where land, labor, and law are reassembled to serve orbit over ordinance. Source: Google EarthQuinn Slobodian, a historian of neoliberalism and global capitalism, shows how powerful companies and individuals increasingly use legal tools to redesign borders and jurisdictions to their advantage. In his book, Cracked Up Capitalism, he shows how jurisdiction becomes the secret weapon of the capitalist state around the world. I wrote about a techno-optimist fantasy state on the island of Roatán, part of the Bay Islands in Honduras a couple years ago. It isn't new. Disney used the same playbook in 1967 with Florida's Reedy Creek District — deeding slivers of land to employees to meet incorporation rules, then governing without real opposition. Highsmith draws a straight line to Musk: both use municipal law not to serve the public, but to avoid it. In Texas, beach access is often blocked near Starbase — even when rockets aren't launching. A proposed bill would make ignoring an evacuation order a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by jail.Even if Starbase never fully resembles a traditional town, that's beside the point. What Musk is really revealing isn't some urban design oasis but how municipal frameworks can still be weaponized for private control. Through zoning laws, incorporation statutes, and infrastructure deals, corporations can shape legal entities that resemble cities but function more like logistical regimes.And yet, this tactic draws little sustained scrutiny. As Highsmith reminds us, legal scholarship has largely ignored how municipal tools are deployed to consolidate corporate power. That silence matters — because what looks like a sleepy launch site in Texas may be something much larger: a new form of rule disguised as infrastructure.ABOVE THE LAW, BELOW THE LANDElon Musk isn't just shaping towns — he's engineering systems. His tunnels, satellites, and rockets stretch across and beyond traditional borders. These aren't just feats of engineering. They're tools of control designed to bypass civic oversight and relocate governance into private hands. He doesn't need to overthrow the state to escape regulation. He simply builds around it…and in the case of Texas, with it.Architect and theorist Keller Easterling, whose work examines how infrastructure quietly shapes political life, argues that these systems are not just supports for power — they are power. Infrastructure itself is a kind of operating system for shaping the city, states, countries…and now space.Starlink, SpaceX's satellite constellation, provides internet access to users around the world. In Ukraine, it became a vital communications network after Russian attacks on local infrastructure. Musk enabled access — then later restricted it. He made decisions with real geopolitical consequences. No president. No Congress. Just a private executive shaping war from orbit.And it's not just Ukraine. Starlink is now active in dozens of countries, often without formal agreements from national regulators. It bypasses local telecom laws, surveillance rules, and data protections. For authoritarian regimes, that makes it dangerous. But for democracies, it raises a deeper question: who governs the sky?Right now, the answer is: no one. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 assumes that nation-states, not corporations, are the primary actors in orbit. But Starlink functions in a legal grey zone, using low Earth orbit as a loophole in international law…aided and abetted by the U.S. defense department.VIDEO: Thousands of Starlink satellites, visualized in low Earth orbit, encircle the planet like a privatized exosphere—reshaping global communication while raising questions of governance, visibility, and control. Source: StarlinkThe result is a telecom empire without borders. Musk commands a growing share of orbital infrastructure but answers to no global regulator. The International Telecommunication Union can coordinate satellite spectrum, but it can't enforce ethical or geopolitical standards. Musk alone decides whether Starlink aids governments, rebels, or armies. As Quinn Slobodian might put it, this is exception-making on a planetary scale.Now let's go underground. The Boring Company digs high-speed tunnels beneath cities like Las Vegas, sidestepping standard planning processes. These projects often exclude transit agencies and ignore public engagement. They're built for select users, not the public at large. Local governments, eager for tech-driven investment, offer permits and partnerships — even if it means circumventing democratic procedures.Taken together — Starlink above, Boring Company below, Tesla charging networks on the ground — Musk's empire moves through multiple layers of infrastructure, each reshaping civic life without formal accountability. His systems carry people, data, and energy — but not through the public channels meant to regulate them. They're not overseen by voters. They're not authorized by democratic mandate. Yet they profoundly shape how people move, communicate, and live.Geographer Deborah Cowen, whose research focuses on the global logistics industry, argues that infrastructure like ports, fiber-optic cables, and pipelines have become tools of geopolitical strategy. Logistics as a form of war by other means. Brian Highsmith argues this is a form of “functional fragmentation” — breaking governance into layers and loopholes that allow corporations to sidestep collective control. These aren't mere workarounds. They signal a deeper shift in how power is organized — not just across space, but through it.This kind of sovereignty is easy to miss because it doesn't always resemble government. But when a private actor controls transit systems, communication networks, and even military connectivity — across borders, beneath cities, and in orbit — we're not just dealing with infrastructure. We're dealing with rule.And, just like with company towns, the legal scholarship is struggling to catch up. These layered, mobile, and non-territorial regimes challenge our categories of law and space alike. What these fantastical projects inspire is often awe. But what they should require is law.AMNESIA AIDS THE AMBITIOUSElon Musk may dazzle with dreams full-blown, but the roots of his power are not his own. The United States has a long tradition of private actors ruling like governments — with public blessing. These aren't outliers. They're part of a national pattern, deeply embedded in our legal geography: public authority outsourced to private ambition.The details vary, but the logic repeats. Whether it's early colonial charters, speculative land empires, company towns, or special districts carved for tech campuses, American history is full of projects where law becomes a scaffold for private sovereignty. Rather than recount every episode, let's just say from John Winthrop to George Washington to Walt Disney to Elon Musk, America has always made room for men who rule through charters, not elections.Yet despite the frequency of these arrangements, the scholarship has been oddly selective.According to Highsmith, legal academia has largely ignored the institutional architecture that makes company towns possible in the first place: incorporation laws, zoning frameworks, municipal codes, and districting rules. These aren't neutral bureaucratic instruments. They're jurisdictional design tools, capable of reshaping sovereignty at the micro-scale. And when used strategically, they can be wielded by corporations to create functional states-within-a-state — governing without elections, taxing without consent, and shaping public life through private vision.From a critical geography perspective, the problem is just as stark. Scholars have long studied the uneven production of space — how capital reshapes landscapes to serve accumulation. But here, space isn't just produced — it's governed. And it's governed through techniques of legal enclosure, where a patch of land becomes a jurisdictional exception, and a logistics hub or tech campus becomes a mini-regime.Starbase, Snailbrook, Reedy Creek, and even Google's Sidewalk Labs are not just spatial projects — they're sovereign experiments in spatial governance, where control is layered through contracts, tax breaks, and municipal proxies.But these arrangements don't arise in a vacuum. Cities often aren't choosing between public and private control — they're choosing between austerity and access to cash. In the United States, local governments are revenue-starved by design. Most lack control over income taxes or resource royalties, and depend heavily on sales taxes, property taxes, and development fees. This creates a perverse incentive: to treat corporations not as entities to regulate, but as lifelines to recruit and appease.Desperate for jobs and investment, cities offer zoning concessions, infrastructure deals, and tax abatements, even when they come with little democratic oversight or long-term guarantees. Corporate actors understand this imbalance — and exploit it. The result is a form of urban hostage-taking, where governance is bartered piecemeal in exchange for the promise of economic survival.A more democratized fiscal structure — one that empowers cities through equitable revenue-sharing, progressive taxation, or greater control over land value capture — might reduce this dependency. It would make it possible for municipalities to plan with their citizens instead of negotiating against them. It would weaken the grip of corporate actors who leverage scarcity into sovereignty. But until then, as long as cities are backed into a fiscal corner, we shouldn't be surprised when they sell off their power — one plot or parking lot at a time.Highsmith argues that these structures demand scrutiny — not just for their economic impact, but for their democratic consequences. These aren't just quirks of local law. They are the fault lines of American federalism — where localism becomes a loophole, and fragmentation becomes a formula for private rule.And yet, these systems persist with minimal legal friction and even less public awareness. Because they don't always look like sovereignty. Sometimes they look like a housing deal. A fast-tracked zoning change. A development district with deferred taxes. A campus with private shuttles and subsidized utilities. They don't announce themselves as secessions — but they function that way.We've been trained to see these projects as innovation, not governance. As entrepreneurship, not policy. But when a company owns the homes, builds the roads, controls the data, and sets the rules, it's not just offering services — it's exercising control. As political theorist Wendy Brown has argued, neoliberalism reshapes civic life around the image of the entrepreneur, replacing democratic participation with market performance.That shift plays out everywhere: universities run like corporations, cities managed like startups. Musk isn't the exception — he's the clearest expression of a culture that mistakes private ambition for public good. Musk once tweeted, “If you must know, I am a utopian anarchist of the kind best described by Iain Banks.” In a New York Times article, Jill Lepore quoted Banks as saying his science fiction books were about “'hippy commies with hyper-weapons and a deep distrust of both Marketolatry and Greedism.' He also expressed astonishment that anyone could read his books as promoting free-market libertarianism, asking, ‘Which bit of not having private property and the absence of money in the Culture novels have these people missed?'”The issue isn't just that we've allowed these takeovers — it's that we've ignored the tools enabling them: incorporation, annexation, zoning, and special districts. As Brian Highsmith notes, this quiet shift in power might not have surprised one of our constitution authors, James Madison, but it would have troubled him. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned not of monarchs, but of factions — small, organized interests capturing government for their own ends. His solution was restraint through scaling oppositional voices. “The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed...and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”— James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (1787)Today, the structure meant to restrain factions has become their playbook. These actors don't run for office — they arrive with charters, contracts, and capital. They govern not in the name of the people, but of “efficiency” and “innovation.” And they don't need to control a nation when a zoning board will do.Unchecked, we risk mistaking corporate control for civic order — and repeating a pattern we've barely begun to name.We were told, sold, and promised a universe of shared governance — political, spatial, even orbital. But Madison didn't trust promises. He trusted structure. He feared what happens when small governments fall to powerful interests — when law becomes a lever for private gain. That fear now lives in legal districts, rocket towns, and infrastructure built to rule. Thousands of satellites orbit the Earth, not launched by publics, but by one man with tools once reserved for states. What was once called infrastructure now governs. What was once geography now obeys.Our maps may still show roads and rails and pipes and ports — but not the fictions beneath them, or the factions they support.References:Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution. Zone Books.Cowen, D. (2014). The deadly life of logistics: Mapping violence in global trade. University of Minnesota Press.Easterling, K. (2014). Extrastatecraft: The power of infrastructure space. Verso Books.Highsmith, B. (2022). Governing the company town: How employers use local government to seize political power. Yale Law Journal.Madison, J. (1787). Federalist No. 10. In A. Hamilton, J. Madison, & J. Jay, The Federalist Papers. Bantam Books (2003 edition).Slobodian, Q. (2023). Crack-Up Capitalism: Market radicals and the dream of a world without democracy. Metropolitan Books. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

More than 15,000 satellites are currently in orbit around our planet, with this number growing every year. For UBC's Dr. Aaron Boley, this raises some red flags about the problem of space junk. An expert in the field of space sustainability, Boley chats with Carol and Jeevan about the practical risks we face from space junk as well as the politics of space. He also dispels the myths justifying the practice of abandoning rocket components and other objects in space — and considers all that we might lose if we continue down our current path. LINKSContact CarolContact JeevanFrom Here ForwardACBoley | UBC Physics & AstronomyAaron BoleyAaron Boley - Co-Director | LinkedInOuter Space Institute (00:00) - Introduction (02:13) - What Is Space Junk? (03:43) - Risks of Space Debris on Earth (08:09) - Society's Dependence on Satellite Technology (14:30) - Cultural and Ethical Impacts of Space Use (16:37) - The Legal Framework Governing Outer Space (20:35) - Attribution and Liability for Space Debris (21:38) - Humanity's Repeating Mistake (26:35) - The Military Roots and Dangers of Space Activity (28:23) - Outer Space Institute: Working Towards Solutions (32:05) - How the Public Can Get Involved (34:57) - Conclusion

It's been a bad few months (and years and decades) for the global commons. Chinese trawlers have repeatedly knocked out internet cables in international waters. Outer space is being militarized by Russia and others, threatening the demilitarized posture adopted by the Outer Space Treaty. Chinese hackers are using cyber weapons to infiltrate the U.S. Treasury through the Salt Typhoon hacks, while Antarctica is being explored by multiple militaries in contravention of the peace proposed in the the Antarctic Treaty. Then there's the decline of the information commons, where paywalls increasingly move critical news and data out of reach of citizens. In short, the global commons is losing primacy. Friend of the podcast Scott Bade highlighted this theme for geopolitical strategy firm Eurasia Group's annual Top Risks report, and we decided to follow up with our own Riskgaming conversation. So Danny Crichton and Laurence Pevsner teamed up to talk through the global commons and what's endangering it. We discuss the privatization and securitization of the commons, how post-World War II institutions are buckling under new pressures from rising powers, why technology is both helping and hurting, and finally, what America can do as a nation to stay open under threat. Produced by ⁠⁠Chris Gates⁠⁠ Music by ⁠⁠George Ko

Some people call him the Space Lawyer, some call him an entrepreneur... in today's episode, Kevin and Laura dive into the laws of the cosmos with Christopher Hearsey, an accomplished space executive, lawyer, and entrepreneur with nearly two decades of leadership in the space industry. With expertise spanning space law, mission management, and strategy, Chris provides unique insights into the challenges and opportunities in the growing space economy. We kick off by answering a fundamental question: what does a space lawyer do? Chris explains the origins of space law, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and how these foundational principles apply to today's technological advancements like reusable rockets and private moon missions. He details key topics such as Moore's Law in space, the role of space in telecommunications technology, and the regulatory complexities of landing commercial habitats on the moon. Chris explains how space governance works, who gets to send missions to space, own property, and govern activities in space. We also cover space piracy, interplanetary lawsuits, and the cultural significance of space exploration. Chris also shares his thoughts on ethical considerations in space exploration, the challenges of colonizing Mars, and what it will take for commercial moon flights to become a reality. Plus, we get his take on important pop culture questions like Mulder or Scully? and hear about Kevin's "all-expenses-paid" space travel deal—with a twist. Tune in for a mix of deep space insights, practical advice for aspiring space entrepreneurs, and a little humor as we explore humanity's legal path to the stars.Christopher Hearsey is an experienced space executive, space lawyer, and entrepreneur with almost two decades of leadership in the space industry. Since 2018, Chris has been the Founder and CEO of OSA Consulting, a strategic advisory and management consulting firm specializing in supporting early-stage tech and space startups. Through OSA Consulting, he has guided emerging companies in navigating challenges and achieving growth in competitive markets, working to send people and things to space. Previously, Chris served as Chief Strategy Officer at Rogue Space Systems, where he drove strategic initiatives and expanded the company's influence in the space sector leading efforts to launch the company's first satellite Barry-1 in 2023. As CEO of Exolaunch US, he established and managed the North American operations of the German-based launch reservation and mission management provider, overseeing business development, customer relations, and market expansion. His earlier roles include Corporate Counsel and Director of DC Operations & Legislative Affairs at Bigelow Aerospace, where he helped deploy the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) to the International Space Station in 2015.Chris holds a bachelor's degree in Mathematical Physics and Economics and advanced degrees in law and space studies, including a Juris Doctor in Air and Space Law (Honors). He is also Cofounder, Chairman, and Treasurer of the Space Court Foundation, a multinational nonprofit dedicated to the promotion of space law education and the rule of law offering global internship and research opportunities. Chris lives with his family in Maryland where he ran for office in Maryland's 6th Congressional District in 2018.

Astronomy Daily - The Podcast: S03E236Welcome to Astronomy Daily, your trusted source for the latest in space and astronomy news. I'm your host, Anna, and today we have a captivating lineup of stories that span from technological breakthroughs on Earth to ancient cosmic mysteries.Highlights:- New Zealand's Starlink Milestone: Discover how New Zealand is making history as the first country to offer nationwide direct-to-smartphone messaging through SpaceX's Starlink satellite network, revolutionizing connectivity for remote areas.- The Legal Landscape of Space Mining: Delve into the evolving legal framework surrounding space mining, as NASA's Psyche mission highlights the potential of asteroid resources and international agreements shape the future of space resource extraction.- SpaceX's Starship Advances: Get the latest updates on SpaceX's Starship program, as the FAA approves its seventh flight with innovative modifications, paving the way for future suborbital missions and orbital ambitions.- Dormant Black Hole Discovery: Explore the intriguing discovery of a dormant supermassive black hole in the early universe, challenging our understanding of cosmic evolution and the growth of these colossal entities.- Revisiting the Moon's Age: Uncover new research suggesting our Moon might be over 100 million years older than previously thought, offering fresh insights into its formation and early history.For more cosmic updates, visit our website at astronomydaily.io. Sign up for our free Daily newsletter to stay informed on all things space. Join our community on social media by searching for #AstroDailyPod on Facebook, X, YouTube, YouTubeMusic, Tumblr, and TikTok. Share your thoughts and connect with fellow space enthusiasts.Thank you for tuning in. This is Anna signing off. Until next time, keep looking up and stay curious about the wonders of our universe.00:00 - Astronomy Daily brings you the latest fascinating developments in space and astronomy00:51 - New Zealand becomes first country to offer nationwide direct to smartphone messaging through SpaceX03:03 - Legal framework governing space mining is becoming increasingly important05:34 - The FAA has approved SpaceX's seventh flight of their starship vehicle07:35 - Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope have spotted an unusual sleeping giant09:44 - New research suggests our lunar neighbor could be 100 million years older than previously estimated11:38 - Anna: Thank you for listening to Astronomy Daily podcast✍️ Episode ReferencesSpaceX[https://www.spacex.com](https://www.spacex.com)Starlink[https://www.starlink.com](https://www.starlink.com)One NZ[https://www.one.nz](https://www.one.nz)T-Mobile[https://www.t-mobile.com](https://www.t-mobile.com)KDDI[https://www.kddi.com](https://www.kddi.com)Rogers[https://www.rogers.com](https://www.rogers.com)NASA[https://www.nasa.gov](https://www.nasa.gov)James Webb Space Telescope[https://www.jwst.nasa.gov](https://www.jwst.nasa.gov)Artemis Accords[https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html](https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html)Outer Space Treaty[https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html](https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/astronomy-daily-the-podcast--5648921/support.

How space superpowers came together to create the Outer Space Treaty? Why governments are responsible for private companies' actions in space? What are the challenges facing space law today? - Продолжение разговора с Данканом Блейком, экспертом космического права и законов ведения войны. Узнайте, как космические сверхдержавы заключили Договор о космосе, почему страны отвечают за действия частных компаний в космосе и какие вызовы стоят перед космическим правом сегодня.

The Moon is considered part of humanity's shared heritage and is not owned by any one country, corporation, or individual. This principle is established by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, a cornerstone of space law signed by over 110 countries, including all major spacefaring nations.Key provisions of the treaty include:No Sovereignty: Nations cannot claim sovereignty over the Moon or any celestial body. This means no country can declare the Moon as its territory.Peaceful Purposes: The Moon must only be used for peaceful purposes, prohibiting military bases or weapons of mass destruction.Benefit for All: Space exploration, including activities on the Moon, should benefit all humanity.The Moon Agreement of 1979 attempted to expand on these ideas by suggesting that the Moon and its resources are the "common heritage of mankind" and that resource extraction should be regulated internationally. However, the agreement has been ratified by only a few countries, and none of the major spacefaring nations (like the U.S., Russia, or China) are parties to it.In practice, there's growing ambiguity about how lunar resources will be governed. Recent initiatives like the Artemis Accords (led by NASA) and China's plans for a lunar research station highlight the need for updated frameworks to manage activities such as mining, which could complicate the "public space" concept.So, while the Moon is legally a "public space" under current treaties, the specifics of resource ownership and governance are still evolving. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The importance of space safety spans the lifetime of an entire effort – from design and launch to operations and demise.  The International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety (IAASS) brings together experts from across the world to explore technical and governance solutions to better maintain and sustain space activities on Earth, in orbit, and beyond. In this episode Colleen Stover of the Center for Space Policy and Strategy goes on-location to the 13th annual IAASS conference “Building a Safe, Secure, and Sustainable Space” held in Prague, Czech Republic. Stover interviews some key participants about some of these.  Topics are: Increased launch and risk in the US with Maj. Gen. Sean Choquette, US Air Force Chief of Safety Applying the Outer Space Treaty to operational norms with Professor Andrea Harrington, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Quebec Technical challenges of lunar rescue with Tommaso Sgobba, Executive Director, IAASS Streamlining commercial launch and reentry in Australia with Justin Hill, Director Flight Safety, Australian Space Agency.   Available by video or podcast. The Space Policy Show is produced by The Aerospace Corporation's Center for Space Policy and Strategy. It is a virtual series covering a broad set of topics that span across the space enterprise. CSPS brings together experts from within Aerospace, the government, academia, business, nonprofits, and the national labs. The show and their podcasts are an opportunity to learn about and to stay engaged with the larger space policy community. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch all episodes!

This Day in Legal History: Outer Space Treaty Enters Into ForceOn October 10, 1967, the Outer Space Treaty, formally known as the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," entered into force. This landmark agreement established a framework for the peaceful use and exploration of outer space, making it a key pillar of international space law. It was signed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, and has since been ratified by over 100 nations.The treaty explicitly prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on the Moon, or on any other celestial body. It also bans military activities and the establishment of military bases in space. One of its central tenets is that space is to be used for the benefit of all humankind, with no country allowed to claim sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body.This treaty was negotiated during the height of the Cold War, reflecting both superpowers' mutual interest in preventing the militarization of space. By laying the groundwork for cooperation and peaceful exploration, it paved the way for future international agreements on space activities, including those addressing environmental concerns and the use of space resources. The Outer Space Treaty remains a cornerstone of space law today, as space exploration continues to evolve and expand.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a $47 million copyright infringement award against Grande Communications Networks LLC, an internet service provider (ISP), on Wednesday. Music publishers, including UMG Recordings and Warner Bros. Records, initially won the award after Grande was found liable for contributing to users' piracy of over 1,400 songs. However, the appeals court ruled that damages should not be awarded for each individual song, but rather for each album, sending the case back to the Texas district court for a new trial on damages. The court affirmed that Grande had failed to prevent repeated piracy by not terminating infringing subscribers, but found that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of statutory damages. This decision aligns with other rulings, such as one involving ISP Cox Communications, where liability for music piracy was affirmed, but damages were reconsidered.Appeals Court Undoes $47 Million Music Piracy Award Against ISPGSK has agreed to settle around 80,000 lawsuits, paying up to $2.2 billion over claims that the discontinued heartburn drug Zantac caused cancer. This settlement covers about 93% of the cases pending in U.S. state courts. The drugmaker maintains that there is no consistent evidence linking Zantac's active ingredient, ranitidine, to cancer but decided to settle to avoid prolonged litigation. Additionally, GSK will pay $70 million to settle a related whistleblower case. Zantac, once a blockbuster drug, faced scrutiny after the FDA in 2020 found that ranitidine could break down into a carcinogen, NDMA. Other pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Sanofi have also reached settlements, but Boehringer Ingelheim continues to face trials. In a recent Delaware ruling, plaintiffs were allowed to present expert testimony linking Zantac to cancer, while a Florida federal court had dismissed around 50,000 cases due to unreliable evidence. GSK agrees to settle about 80,000 Zantac lawsuits for up to $2.2 bln | ReutersFTX investors have voluntarily dropped their class action lawsuit against Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent U.S. law firm. The investors had accused the firm of aiding FTX's multibillion-dollar fraud and benefiting as FTX's lead bankruptcy counsel. However, lead attorney Adam Moskowitz stated that after reviewing reports by FTX bankruptcy examiner Robert Cleary, there was no valid claim against the law firm. Cleary's reports found no evidence that Sullivan & Cromwell was complicit in FTX's collapse or that it ignored warning signs while representing former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. Sullivan & Cromwell welcomed the withdrawal of what it called "meritless claims." The lawsuit had alleged that the firm had unique insight into FTX's lack of internal controls and questionable practices. Meanwhile, FTX's bankruptcy plan, approved this week, will allow the company to repay customers using $16.5 billion in recovered assets. Plaintiffs' attorneys also reached a separate agreement with the FTX bankruptcy estate regarding customer claims. FTX investors drop lawsuit against law firm Sullivan & Cromwell | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

John is joined by Mark J. Sundahl, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University College of Law and the Director of the Global Space Law Center. They discuss the evolving law governing activities in outer space. Prof. Sundahl explains that space law originated from concerns during the Cold War when Sputnik, the first Soviet satellite, flew over the U.S., raising fears that nations could potentially place nuclear weapons in space, hovering over and ready to drop on other nations. This led to the creation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, establishing fundamental principles such as "free use of outer space," the prohibition of nuclear weapons and claims of sovereignty on celestial bodies, and the ability of private companies to operate in space under the authorization and supervision of their countries' governments. Prof. Sundahl also explains the international treaties on the rescue of astronauts, liability for space activities and for registration of objects sent to space. They then discuss how liability for damages caused by space objects is becoming increasingly pressing due to the rapidly increasing congestion of satellites and the aging of equipment that has been in orbit for decades. One example Prof. Sundahl discusses is a recent case where a falling piece of an American company's capsule being operated by NASA damaged a house in Florida. He explains that, normally, international treaties impose strict liability on states for surface damage, but incidents within a country are governed by domestic law. He also explains that for damages that occur in orbit, liability issues become complex due to the lack of established norms. Prof. Sundahl then observes that although the United States heavily regulates private companies' activities in space, new challenges have arisen, such as resource extraction on celestial bodies. He explains that although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits sovereignty over the Moon, the U.S. allows companies to own resources extracted from the Moon, a stance that is not universally accepted. Professor Sundahl also describes the legal uncertainty surrounding suborbital and orbital space tourism. He explains that currently, suborbital flights require minimal safety disclosures, and orbital tourism lacks regulation entirely, raising concerns as private companies expand their operations. Finally, Prof. Sundahl explains the growing threat of militarization in space and that, with countries developing military capabilities and the U.S. establishing a Space Force, there is a real risk of conflicts extending beyond Earth.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by the United States and most other nations, now appears to be under fire. The conflict could take many different and largely silent forms, ranging from jamming a GPS satellite to temporarily blinding a sensor with a laser or relying on a cyberattack to disrupt services. Space was meant to be used for peaceful purposes but now it seems that the gloves are off. On tonight's show, Clyde Lewis talks with secret space program researcher and author, Mike Bara about STRATOSFEAR - THE SECRET SPACE WAR.Originally Broadcast On 4/16/19 

In this episode, we're joined by Michelle Hanlon, the Executive Director of the Air and Space Law Program at the University of Mississippi and co-founder of For All Moonkind, to discuss the burgeoning field of space law. Michelle offers a unique glimpse into the legal landscape governing our cosmic ambitions.  Learn about the challenges and implications of the current space treaties, the absence of immigration laws for space, and what this means for the future of space travel and asteroid mining. Michelle delves into the stringent Planetary Protection Protocols outlined in the Outer Space Treaty and their role in preventing contamination of celestial bodies. We also touch on the concept of space heritage, drawing parallels to Earth's conservation efforts, and examine the insufficient protection of lunar landmarks under current international law. With government support helping startups thrive, Michelle predicts a normalized human presence on the moon by 2050 and discusses the broad spectrum of opportunities in the space economy. From specialized spacesuits to agriculture solutions, the possibilities are endless. We also explore how everyday skills on Earth, like cooking and teaching, have valuable applications in space.  In this episode, you'll hear about: The complexities and implications of current space treaties and the absence of immigration laws for space The stringent Planetary Protection Protocols and their role in preventing contamination of celestial bodies Legal challenges of innovations like bacteria that convert metal into soil on Mars The concept of space heritage and the insufficient protection of lunar landmarks under current international law Predictions for the future of the space industry, including a normalized human presence on the moon by 2050 How everyday skills on Earth have valuable applications in space Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: Website: forallmoonkind.org Social Links:  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michelle-l-d-hanlon/ X: @hanlonesq  Instagram: @spacelawyerhanlon Facebook: Michelle Slawecki Hanlon Alcorn Immigration Law: Subscribe to the monthly Alcorn newsletter Sophie Alcorn Podcast: Episode 171: Navigating Space Governance, Peace, and Inclusive Leadership Episode 173: In Orbit with Alice Carruth: Insights on Space Exploration, Communication, and Innovation Episode 176: Foreign Workers & Export Controls in the Space Industry: Insights from Jack Shelton Immigration Options for Talent, Investors, and Founders Immigration Law for Tech Startups eBook Alcorn Academy course for best practices for securing the O-1A visa, EB-1A green card, or the EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) green card—the top options for startup founders. Use promotion code EAB20 for 20% off the enrollment fee.

It's well known that we signed the Outer Space Treaty in 1967 with other countries but did we sign treaties with extraterrestrials in the 1940s and 50s? Were our newly-built intelligence agencies used to hide the reality of alien life? It appears that a cosmic sword of Damocles hangs above us and that it could drop at any time. On tonight's show, Clyde Lewis talks about DAMOCLES - PER ASPERA AD ASTRAOriginally Broadcast On 8/20/19

In this episode of This Week in Space, Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik discuss the latest updates on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, the potential for aurora sightings due to increased solar activity, and China's ambitious lunar exploration program with returning guest Mike Wall, Spaceflight Editor at Space.com. The conversation focuses on China's upcoming Chang'e 6 mission, its capabilities, and the implications of China's growing presence on the Moon. The hosts also touch upon the nationalistic aspects of the new space race between the United States and China. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner update: The spacecraft is ready for launch on June 1st, despite recent issues with parachutes, wiring, and helium leaks. Venus Exploration: Japan's Akatsuki probe, currently the only active mission at Venus, has lost contact with JAXA. However, NASA, ESA, and private companies like Rocket Lab are planning future missions to explore the planet. SpaceX Dragon capsule debris found in North Carolina: A piece of the trunk, about the size of a small coffee table, was discovered on a hiking trail. Increased solar activity may lead to Aurora sightings: A giant sunspot has returned, and its intense activity could trigger powerful Aurora displays. Main Topic - China's Lunar Ambitions and the New Space Race: Chang'e 6 Mission: China is set to launch the Chang'e 6 mission to the far side of the moon's southern polar region, with the goal of returning samples. The mission is part of China's ambitious lunar exploration program. International Collaboration: Although US-China collaboration is limited, Chang'e 6 includes contributions from France, Italy, Sweden, and Pakistan. Future Chinese Lunar Missions: China plans to launch Chang'e 7 in 2026, featuring an orbiter, rover, and a hopping robot, and Chang'e 8 in 2028, which will attempt 3D printing using lunar regolith. Artemis Accords and the Outer Space Treaty: As China and the US both aim to establish a presence on the moon, questions arise about territorial claims and the enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty. Space Race Rhetoric: Both the US and China have engaged in nationalistic rhetoric regarding their lunar ambitions, with concerns about China's potential to claim exclusive rights to lunar resources. Scientific Significance: Despite the geopolitical tensions, Chang'e 6 and future missions from both nations have the potential to greatly advance our understanding of the moon and its environment. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Mike Wall Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

In this episode of This Week in Space, Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik discuss the latest updates on Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, the potential for aurora sightings due to increased solar activity, and China's ambitious lunar exploration program with returning guest Mike Wall, Spaceflight Editor at Space.com. The conversation focuses on China's upcoming Chang'e 6 mission, its capabilities, and the implications of China's growing presence on the Moon. The hosts also touch upon the nationalistic aspects of the new space race between the United States and China. Headlines: Boeing's Starliner update: The spacecraft is ready for launch on June 1st, despite recent issues with parachutes, wiring, and helium leaks. Venus Exploration: Japan's Akatsuki probe, currently the only active mission at Venus, has lost contact with JAXA. However, NASA, ESA, and private companies like Rocket Lab are planning future missions to explore the planet. SpaceX Dragon capsule debris found in North Carolina: A piece of the trunk, about the size of a small coffee table, was discovered on a hiking trail. Increased solar activity may lead to Aurora sightings: A giant sunspot has returned, and its intense activity could trigger powerful Aurora displays. Main Topic - China's Lunar Ambitions and the New Space Race: Chang'e 6 Mission: China is set to launch the Chang'e 6 mission to the far side of the moon's southern polar region, with the goal of returning samples. The mission is part of China's ambitious lunar exploration program. International Collaboration: Although US-China collaboration is limited, Chang'e 6 includes contributions from France, Italy, Sweden, and Pakistan. Future Chinese Lunar Missions: China plans to launch Chang'e 7 in 2026, featuring an orbiter, rover, and a hopping robot, and Chang'e 8 in 2028, which will attempt 3D printing using lunar regolith. Artemis Accords and the Outer Space Treaty: As China and the US both aim to establish a presence on the moon, questions arise about territorial claims and the enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty. Space Race Rhetoric: Both the US and China have engaged in nationalistic rhetoric regarding their lunar ambitions, with concerns about China's potential to claim exclusive rights to lunar resources. Scientific Significance: Despite the geopolitical tensions, Chang'e 6 and future missions from both nations have the potential to greatly advance our understanding of the moon and its environment. Hosts: Rod Pyle and Tariq Malik Guest: Mike Wall Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

CSIS' Kari Bingen and Heather Williams join the podcast to discuss Russia's new space-based anti-satellite weapon, its violation of the Outer Space Treaty and what steps the U.S. can take to mitigate the risks.

Russia is building a secret nuclear-powered space weapon, but what does that mean for the rest of us? In this episode, Tariq Malik is joined by Space.com's Brett Tingley to discuss the recent reports and delve into the history of nuclear weapons and reactors in space, the existing international treaties governing weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and the growing militarization of space by Russia, China, and the United States. Malik and Tingley also cover the week's top headlines, including SpaceX's upcoming Starship orbital launch attempt and NASA's continuing struggles to revive the Voyager 1 spacecraft. Headlines: SpaceX sets March 14th as tentative date for Starship's third test flight, pending final launch license approval from the FAA NASA's Voyager 1 probe, launched in 1977 and now in interstellar space, continues to experience significant computer glitches that mission controllers are struggling to diagnose The next Great North American Solar Eclipse is just one month away, with the path of totality crossing from Mexico through the central and northeastern US on April 8th Main Topic: Potential Russian Nuclear Space Weapons Recent reports from US officials suggest Russia may be developing a new nuclear-powered anti-satellite weapon or electronic warfare platform The weapon likely wouldn't pose an immediate threat, but highlights the growing militarization of space and potential for a new arms race Nuclear power has long been used in space, from radioisotope thermoelectric generators on probes like Voyager to plans for nuclear propulsion The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans placing WMDs in orbit, but has some gray areas and lacks robust enforcement mechanisms The US, Russia, and China have all demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities in recent years, from missiles to lasers to mini-satellites with robotic arms There are also growing concerns over military interest in cislunar space and the Moon as another "high ground" to be contested While there are more pressing threats than space-based nuclear weapons, the situation reflects deteriorating international relations and the need for updated treaties Host: Tariq Malik Guest: Brett Tingley Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-space. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit

Last month, there was a sudden panic in the United States when House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner issued a statement warning of a “serious national security threat” and demanded that President Biden declassify related information. The American media subsequently reported that Turner was referring to alleged Russian plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space, though U.S. National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby later clarified that the matter concerns anti-satellite weapons that cannot be used to attack people or to strike targets on Earth. He explained that Russia's development of the technology is concerning but does not pose an immediate threat. To make sense of these reports and to respond to the panic that this situation provokes, The Naked Pravda welcomes back nuclear arms expert Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research. Timestamps for this episode: (3:20) The (im)practicality of nuclear weapons in space (5:31) Imagining a nuclear blast in orbit (9:59) The feasibility of nuclear-powered space weapons (28:02) The 1967 Outer Space Treaty and its modern-day implications (31:26) Common misconceptions about space in moviesКак поддержать нашу редакцию — даже если вы в России и вам очень страшно

It's January 28th. This day in 1967, the U.S., U.K., and Russia sign a treaty that, among other things, says that outer space should be off-limits for the testing and deployment of weapons of mass destruction. Jody, Niki, and Kellie discuss why there was a need for the Outer Space Treaty, and how — despite its important language about nuclear weapons — it left a lot of grey area and confusion about how different countries would take on space exploration. Sign up for our newsletter! Get your hands on This Day merch! Find out more at thisdaypod.com This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

As humanity builds settlements beyond Earth, myriad ethical issues will arise--many in a different way than they do terrestrially. Astrophysicist and space communicator Erika Nesvold has devoted extensive thought and research to how to ethically govern space settlements, most notably on her podcast Making New Worlds and in her book Off-Earth.In a conversation that pairs well with Shane Harris's March 2022 Chatter discussion with astrobiologist Lucianne Walkowicz about ethical space exploration, David Priess spoke with Erika about her grounding in Star Trek and other science fiction, the JustSpace Alliance that she co-founded with Lucianne, that alliance's interactions with space industrialists, Erika's application to be an astronaut, conflicting motivations for humanity to settle space, how we should select space settlers, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the concept of legal personhood for non-terrestrial bodies, labor law and criminal justice in space settlements, how motivations for settling space influence openness to various forms of government, and more.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The podcast Making New WorldsThe book Off-Earth by Erika NesvoldThe Chatter podcast episode Ethical Space Exploration with Lucianne WalkowiczThe Star Trek universeThe Foundation book series by Isaac AsimovThe Dune book series by Frank HerbertThe YouTube video All TomorrowsThe movie 2012The book 2010 by Arthur C. ClarkeThe book Artemis by Andy WeirThe movie SunshineThe book A Brief History of Equality by Thomas PinkettyThe book series The Wheel of Time by Robert JordanThe book Doomsday Book by Connie WillisChatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.