Big Sky Debate Page
THE OUTER SPACE TREATY CREATES UNCERTAINTY ABOUT LEGALITY OF MINING-Welch et al ‘10
Download 1.49 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- IT IS CRITICAL THAT LEGALITY OF ASTEROID MINING BE ESTABLISHED FIRST-Welch et al ‘10
- THERE IS A TOTAL LACK OF CLARITY ABOUT HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATY OBLIGATIONS WILL IMPACT ASTEROID MINING-Welch et al ‘10
- THERE IS EVEN DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER MINING IS LEGAL-Welch et al ‘10
- SOLVENCY: MICROBE REINTRODUCTION MICROBES RETURNING TO EARTH PRESENT A GREAT RISK-Welch et al ‘10
- ASTEROID MINING THREATENS HUMAN LIFE WITH INTRODUCTION OF MICROBES-Welch et al ‘10
- SOLVENCY: US POLICY IS THE PROBLEM FOR RARE EARTH US MINING POLICY IS TO BLAME FOR OUR IMPORTATION FROM CHINA-Kennedy ‘10
- SUPPORTING GREATER EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RARE EARTH MINERALS WILL MEET AMERICAN NEEDS-Humphries ‘10
- THE FIRST STEP THE US SHOULD TAKE IS DOMESTIC MINING-Brown ‘11
- SOLVENCY: NO SINGLE POLICY SOLVES NO POLICY AIMED AT SINGLE PART OF PROBLEM CAN SOLVE-Parthemore ‘11
- STOCKPILING IS THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE FOR MILITARY SHORTAGES-Parthemore ‘11
- RATIFYING THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY WILL BETTER PROTECT ACCESS-Parthemore ‘11
- Constellation Negative HARMS: CONSTELLATION NOT CRITICAL TO US LEADERSHIP THE DEMISE OF CONSTELLATION DOES NOT HURT US LEADERSHIP-Zak ‘10
- THE OBAMA PLAN EXPANDS AMERICAN LEADERSHIP BY ADDING DEEP SPACE AND MARS MISSIONS-Kaufman ‘10
- CANCELLING CONSTELLATION WILL NOT HURT AMERICAN SPACE LEADERSHIP-Friedman ‘10
- HARMS: OBAMA PLAN EFFECTIVE THE OBAMA PLAN CREATES JOBS AND INCREASES SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-Mace ‘11
- THE OBAMA PLAN SPEEDS THE PROCESS OF SPACE EXPLORATION-Mace ‘11
- THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO MARS IS WITH THE OBAMA PLAN-Friedman ‘10
THE OUTER SPACE TREATY CREATES UNCERTAINTY ABOUT LEGALITY OF MINING-Welch et al ‘10 [Dr. Christopher; Chair of International Space University Space Studies Program 2010 Team Project Asteroid Mining; Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Application Final Report, 2010; http://www.isunet.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=5; retrieved 22 Jul 2011] The need exists to determine applicable legislation for the mining of asteroids conducted in outer space. If the asteroids are mined in outer space, the States who are parties to the Outer Space Treaty (OST, 1967) would be bound by its provisions and as lex generalis, general law. It is supplemented by further treaties and principles of international space law (among others Liability Convention, Registration Convention, Moon Agreement) which are lex specialis, a law that governs a more specific subject matter. The OST presents a challenge because of its wide interpretability. For example, it states that any activity in space must be conducted in a way that is for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development and shall be the „province of all mankind? (Art. I OST). Asteroid mining would have to be conducted in this way. One interpretation that would enable asteroid mining argues that most commercial space activities (such as telecommunications and remote sensing) benefit in a general sense. Since the interpretation of this principle of Art. I OST, is very subjective, one State may consider what is beneficial to them differently compared from another State. Therefore, each State would define on its own what is beneficial for them (Gorove, 1982). Based on these arguments, this principle of the OST would represent a moral obligation rather than a specific duty (Lee, 2009). Consequently, the mining of asteroids would not be hindered by this principle. IT IS CRITICAL THAT LEGALITY OF ASTEROID MINING BE ESTABLISHED FIRST-Welch et al ‘10 [Dr. Christopher; Chair of International Space University Space Studies Program 2010 Team Project Asteroid Mining; Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Application Final Report, 2010; http://www.isunet.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=5; retrieved 22 Jul 2011] Establishing the legality of asteroid mining to ensure that an entity can extract and sell resources is an important milestone. The uncertain legal framework surrounding asteroid mining is an impediment to asteroid mining (Tronchetti, 2009). Section 3.5.2 covered the challenges of appropriation with regard to asteroid mining. This section discusses these challenges, describes the legality of asteroid mining based on current legislation, and proposes addressing further challenges by investigating the legislation described in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982). Such analysis can lead to creation of new legislation to unambiguously legitimize the use of resources in outer space for the benefit of humankind. THERE IS A TOTAL LACK OF CLARITY ABOUT HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATY OBLIGATIONS WILL IMPACT ASTEROID MINING-Welch et al ‘10 [Dr. Christopher; Chair of International Space University Space Studies Program 2010 Team Project Asteroid Mining; Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Application Final Report, 2010; http://www.isunet.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=5; retrieved 22 Jul 2011] Current legislation governing activities in outer space do not explicitly consider asteroid mining. There are several challenges present within existing space treaties and international law. First, the Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty or OST) states that any activity in space must be to the benefit of humankind (Art. I OST, 1967). This presents a challenge because of the wide interpretability of this statement (Lee, 2009). The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) allocates orbits, such as geostationary orbits, to divide the various radio frequency bands that are available amongst the users. Here, a market is created that allows private exploitation of a limited resource in space. Adopting a similar framework to asteroid mining is an important challenge. We must examine current space law to ascertain applicability to asteroid mining. This includes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (United Nations, 1982) and the Antarctic Treaty (Antarctic Treaty, 1961), as well as applicable national legislation of space-faring nations who regulate space activities on a national level. It is important to define the jurisdiction for the activities associated with asteroid mining for the attribution of responsibility and liability, as discussed in Section 3.5.3 below. Considerations in this area include identifying the launching State, responsibility for changing the asteroid?s orbital configuration, and jurisdictional issues relating to activities of humans in outer space. THERE IS EVEN DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER MINING IS LEGAL-Welch et al ‘10 [Dr. Christopher; Chair of International Space University Space Studies Program 2010 Team Project Asteroid Mining; Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Application Final Report, 2010; http://www.isunet.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=5; retrieved 22 Jul 2011] There is debate on whether or not the existing legal basis prohibits the extraction of material from an asteroid and selling it to customers (Kerrest, 2004). Art. II of the OST states that celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty. For those States that are signatories to the OST, activities of private entities conducted in outer space are subject to supervision by the State (Art. VI OST). Consequently, each State is obliged to supervise and exert control over its non-governmental entities to ensure compliance with international law. This control then presumes that any claim of appropriation by an entity may transfer to the State. This contravenes the OST. It is not permissible for a State to gain an advantage by purchasing mined ore from one of their private entities, although commercial transactions will eventually lead to benefits because of corporate and personal taxes paid to that State. Equivalently, the private entity may have an advantage by selling only to specific States. SOLVENCY: MICROBE REINTRODUCTION MICROBES RETURNING TO EARTH PRESENT A GREAT RISK-Welch et al ‘10 [Dr. Christopher; Chair of International Space University Space Studies Program 2010 Team Project Asteroid Mining; Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Application Final Report, 2010; http://www.isunet.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=5; retrieved 22 Jul 2011] Apart from human factors, we must also address microbial life and the possibility of bringing space-faring bacteria and contaminants back to Earth. Although the likelihood of such an occurrence is low, the potential risk is great. As such, microbes may present a threat to which humanity and other terrestrial species have no pre-existing immunity. There is evidence suggesting that microbial life can indeed survive in the harshness of space. For example, astronauts during the Apollo 12 mission found evidence of Streptococcus mitis on a piece of the Surveyor 3, an unmanned probe sent to the moon 2.5 years earlier. The bacteria had survived 31 months of radiation, harsh temperatures, no water, and no atmosphere. Scientists have made similar discoveries related to the tenacity of microbial life on Earth. In a New Mexico cavern, located 600 meters below the surface, spores of Bacillus bacteria in a state of suspended animation were present in samples of crystal salts. Revival and growth of these spores in a laboratory was possible after lying dormant for 250 million years (Clément, 2003). One theory of the origin of life on Earth postulates that microbe-carrying meteorites seeded Earth during collisions, (O?Leary, 2008). The Outer Space Treaty also addresses the issue of possible contamination from celestial bodies. Nations should to take precautions to avoid homebound contamination that may result in harmful changes to Earth?s ecosystem (Clément 2003). To protect against possible contamination of Earth upon return of ore samples and equipment from an asteroid mining mission, it is necessary to develop appropriate methods and tools for sterilization of materials before return to Earth, possibly through irradiation or chemical means. ASTEROID MINING THREATENS HUMAN LIFE WITH INTRODUCTION OF MICROBES-Welch et al ‘10 [Dr. Christopher; Chair of International Space University Space Studies Program 2010 Team Project Asteroid Mining; Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Application Final Report, 2010; http://www.isunet.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=5; retrieved 22 Jul 2011] Another vital question raised in the context of asteroid mining is that of planetary protection. One scientific hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth is that it began when microbes hitchhiking on a meteorite collided with the planet (O?Leary, 2008). It is conceivable that backward contamination – that is, bringing microbes from asteroids back to Earth – could occur when bringing ore back from an asteroid mining mission (Crosby, 2009). These microorganisms, to which we have had no evolutionary exposure, might pose a threat to our immunities or to those of other organisms on Earth, thereby threatening populations, ecosystems and the integrity of the biosphere. Caution must be exercised, for example, through irradiation and chemical sterilization, to ensure that no extraterrestrial organisms are imported back to Earth (Recommendation IX). SOLVENCY: US POLICY IS THE PROBLEM FOR RARE EARTH US MINING POLICY IS TO BLAME FOR OUR IMPORTATION FROM CHINA-Kennedy ‘10 [Jamie, President, Wings Enterprise; Critical and Strategic Failure of Rare Earth Resources; 2010; http://www.phenix.bnl.gov/WWW/publish/ondrejch/misc/JimKennedyRE/NMAB-paperTMS.pdf; retrieved 18 Jul 2011] Despite having two of the greatest rare earth deposits in world, The United States, does not produce any rare earths domestically. In fact, the U.S. is 100% import dependent upon others for its rare earth oxides, elements and alloys. Today China is the world’s near-exclusive supplier of rare earth oxides, elements, and increasingly, alloys. China has developed a near monopoly in the production of rare earths. China continues to leverage this strength through the processing and refining of these elements. As the balance of this strategic resource continues to grow inside China, China further uses this leverage to attract emerging industries that are dependent upon rare earths. All of the following statements represent the current status of America’s failure to secure, develop and produce primary materials that are classified as “Strategic and Critical” to American Industry and our National Defense.
[Marc; CRS Analysis in Energy Policy; Rare Earth Elements: The Global Supply Chain; Congressional Research Service; 30 Sep 2010; http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41347.pdf; retrieved 19 Jul 2011] Supporting/encouraging greater exploration for REE efforts in the United States, Australia, Africa, and Canada could be part of a broad international strategy. There are only a few companies in the world that can provide the exploration and development skills and technology for REE development. These few companies are located primarily in Canada, Australia, China, South Africa, and the United States, and may form joint ventures or other types of alliances for R&D, and for exploration and development of REE deposits worldwide, including those in the United States. Whether there should be restrictions on these efforts in the United States is aquestion that Congress may ultimately choose to address. THE FIRST STEP THE US SHOULD TAKE IS DOMESTIC MINING-Brown ‘11 [Josh; US Urged to Mine Rare Earth Minerals for High Tech Devices; Washington Times; 11 April 2011; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/11/us-urged-to-mine-rare-earth-minerals/?page=all; retrieved 11 Jul 2011] It is time for the U.S. to stop panicking and start mining in the face of a possible shortage of “rare earth” mineral supplies from China, which dominates the global supply for the obscure minerals critical to the modern high-tech economy, according to market analysts and a growing number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “The first step in the supply chain is the mining,” said Jack Lifton, a founding principal of Technology Metals Research LLC, an Illinois-based research firm that tracks the rare earths market. “The United States should develop immediately what it does have. Stop looking already. Start producing the stuff, [and] stop talking about it.” SOLVENCY: NO SINGLE POLICY SOLVES NO POLICY AIMED AT SINGLE PART OF PROBLEM CAN SOLVE-Parthemore ‘11 [Christine; Fellow at the Center for a New American Security; Elements of Security, June 2011; http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf; retrieved 19 Jul 2011] Since the United States depends on minerals for its defense and economic vitality, it is time to update American policies to reflect current global conditions. As policymakers address these issues, they must understand the complexity of the challenge and develop multifaceted solutions. No policy prescription aimed at a single geographic, economic or political variable will reduce U.S. vulnerability to supply disruptions. Policymakers, nongovernmental analysts and the media must pay far less attention to singular factors like import dependence and focus on the full range of economic, geographic and political factor. STOCKPILING IS THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE FOR MILITARY SHORTAGES-Parthemore ‘11 [Christine; Fellow at the Center for a New American Security; Elements of Security, June 2011; http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf; retrieved 19 Jul 2011] Stockpiling critical minerals (for example, those important to current and future defense production, concentrated in the hands of only a few suppliers and also experiencing high global demand growth) remains one of the best policies for ensuring supplies, especially for DOD. In a 2008 report, the National Academies recommended that DOD develop a new inventory system (versus simply stockpiling) that would “assess the risks in order to make better-informed decisions on mitigating them (for example, deciding if stocks need to be held),” “spot vulnerabilities in the supply chain and redesign it to eliminate or mitigate them before events occur” and “design and manage the supply chain to be more resilient to disruption.” 54 DOD has been working to update its stockpiling policies, and should fully embrace the National Academies report’s recommendations. Congress also has a role in supporting and funding these changes. (See the Evolving Tool of Stockpiling box) However, DOD should be far more open with Congress and the public regarding how it intends to modernize its stockpiling policies than it has been to date. RATIFYING THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY WILL BETTER PROTECT ACCESS-Parthemore ‘11 [Christine; Fellow at the Center for a New American Security; Elements of Security, June 2011; http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf; retrieved 19 Jul 2011] The Senate should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While today the United States recognizes UNCLOS as customary international law, ratifying this treaty would increase the ability of U.S. policymakers to promote the rule of law and freedom of navigation around the world and also to participate in important discussions about critical minerals. Today, the United States cannot play a full role in the Arctic Council because it has not ratified UNCLOS, and its position of promoting the rules enshrined in this treaty rings hollow to international audiences. Since American concerns over seabed mining informed the initial refusal to ratify this treaty, these issues are likely to resurface in any debates about UNCLOS. To date, efforts toward UNCLOS ratification have stalled out of a misguided notion that the treaty would negatively affect U.S. sovereignty, as it recognizes exclusive economic zones for countries around the world. Ratification, however, has strong support from the armed services, the private sector and a wide range of security and foreign policy experts. Despite the lack of a strong political constituency for ratification, there is widespread belief that the treaty is integral to protecting U.S. economic and security interests in U.S. coastal areas, and in serving as a neutral voice in territorial disputes in regions like the South China Sea. Growing mineral concerns will make ratification all the more pressing. Constellation Negative HARMS: CONSTELLATION NOT CRITICAL TO US LEADERSHIP THE DEMISE OF CONSTELLATION DOES NOT HURT US LEADERSHIP-Zak ‘10 [Anatoly; space historian and journalist; End of Constellation: It Is Not All Doom and Gloom; Russian Space Web; 04 Feb 2010; http://www.russianspaceweb.com/sei_end.html; retrieved 10 Jul 2011] Obviously, for every space enthusiast around the world, it would be sad to see any major space exploration effort to be axed in a budget crunch. The frustration of legislators representing congressional districts with heavy involvement into a discontinued federal project is also understandable. However there is a silver lining. Every failure presents a new opportunity and even more so does the inevitable demise of the Constellation program. NASA still can make it right, make it big, and remain a leader in space, if it chooses to do so. THE OBAMA PLAN EXPANDS AMERICAN LEADERSHIP BY ADDING DEEP SPACE AND MARS MISSIONS-Kaufman ‘10 [Marc; staff writer; Obama Plan to End Much of Constellation Program Angers Republican Senators; Washington Post; 23 April 2010] A group of space experts, former astronauts and space advocates voiced support for Obama's plan Thursday in a teleconference organized by the Planetary Society, the world's largest private space organization. The speakers, who included three-time Hubble repair astronaut John Grunsfeld, Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and George Washington University space policy expert John Logsdon, said the Obama plan is significantly superior to the Constellation program. Louis Freidman, executive director and co-founder of the Planetary Society, said that Obama's willingness to propose new pathways and destinations is a sign of American leadership. "This plan would take Americans out to near-Earth asteroids, to deep space and to Mars -- destinations that other nations are not even contemplating," he said. "These would be capabilities Constellation didn't have." CANCELLING CONSTELLATION WILL NOT HURT AMERICAN SPACE LEADERSHIP-Friedman ‘10 [Louis; Hang Together or Hang Separately; 26 May 2010; http://www.planetary.org/action/opinions/blog_spacenews_20100526.html; retrieved 14 Jul 2011] It is hard to imagine that public interest, not to mention patience, in exploration will be sustained by having the U.S. finally reach the Moon again 60 years after the Apollo landings. With such a program, NASA would take no steps beyond the Moon and only accomplish the same thing that other nations would also be on the verge of achieving. That future scenario — NOT the cancellation of Constellation — is how the United States could squander its lead in human spaceflight. HARMS: OBAMA PLAN EFFECTIVE THE OBAMA PLAN CREATES JOBS AND INCREASES SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH-Mace ‘11 [Frank; online columnist; In Defense of the Obama Space Exploration Plan; Harvard Political Review; 07 April 2011; http://hpronline.org/united-states/in-defense-of-the-obama-space-exploration-plan/; retrieved 12 Jul 2011] Last April, President Obama unveiled a comprehensive overhaul of NASA’s future and cancelled much of the Bush-era Constellation plan to return to the moon. Obama’s plan looked to add $6 billion to the NASA budget over the next five years, renew the focus on scientific discovery, lengthen the lifespan of the International Space Station, and most importantly, dramatically increase the role of private contractors in NASA missions. Obama rightly prioritized jobs, science, and national inspiration with his new direction for NASA. This plan drew immediate criticism from, among others, Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong, Apollo 13 Commander James Lovell, and Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan, who jointly wrote in a letter to President Obama: “It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded. For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one second or even third rate stature.” The three commanders, however, overvalue pure nationalism at the expense of the NASA roles in job creation, science, and national inspiration. In today’s economic climate, our first consideration should be jobs. The Obama Plan would add 2,500 more jobs to the American economy than the Bush-era plan. Additionally, the increased private sector involvement in the space program could generate upwards of 10,000 jobs. Conservative critics of Obama’s plan should take note of this increased reliance on the private sector for innovation—after all, a belief in the efficiency of the private sector is a central Republican tenet. THE OBAMA PLAN SPEEDS THE PROCESS OF SPACE EXPLORATION-Mace ‘11 [Frank; online columnist; In Defense of the Obama Space Exploration Plan; Harvard Political Review; 07 April 2011; http://hpronline.org/united-states/in-defense-of-the-obama-space-exploration-plan/; retrieved 12 Jul 2011] Finally, Obama’s plan deftly prioritizes national inspiration over simple nationalism. He argues “exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new generation—sparking passions and launching careers . . . because, ultimately, if we fail to press forward in the pursuit of discovery, we are ceding our future and we are ceding that essential element of the American character.” And this plan is not lacking in inspiration capability. It calls for innovation to build a rocket at least two years earlier than under the Constellation program. This point alone negates the three astronauts’ criticism that many years will be “required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.” Crewed missions into deep space by 2025. Crewed missions to asteroids. Crewed missions into Mars orbit by the 2030s. A landing on mars to follow. This plan will truly continue NASA’s history of inspiring the people, especially the youth, of the United States. THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO MARS IS WITH THE OBAMA PLAN-Friedman ‘10 [Louis; executive director, The Planetary Society; NASA’s Down-To-Earth Problem; Los Angeles Times; 22 Mar 2010] Almost all in the space exploration community are united in support of Mars as the ultimate goal to advance human exploration beyond Earth orbit, and of increased funding for NASA. There are differences of opinion about milestones and technology and interim goals, including what architecture is needed to build a human Mars mission. Missions to return to the moon, to go to near-Earth objects and to the Martian moons Phobos and Deimos are all still to be decided. International and commercial partners need to be engaged. However, all of these necessary steps can be worked out only if the administration is allowed to proceed with a new plan, new dates, new milestones and a realistic budget. Directory: file -> fetch fetch -> 11 th Lit Semester 1 Final Study Guide!!! fetch -> Industrial Revolution Inventors fetch -> Analysis for Galveston Hurricane of 1900 fetch -> The Illuminators (Team 2) 1900 Galveston Hurricane Cycle a team Assignment fetch -> Team csi-utb ruth Reyes Jose Ferrer fetch -> Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Cycle a-teacher as a Problem Solver fetch -> Is Climate Change Starting a New Dust Bowl? Cycle A fetch -> What makes a storm a hurricane fetch -> The 1950s were the "Happy Days" because it was a time of economic prosperity, technology development, new entertainment, new fashion and family growth. The 1950s was a great time fetch -> Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Download 1.49 Mb. Share with your friends:
|