I realized that I’d never provided a link to an article I wrote for Astrosociological Insights, published last Winter. My article explores “Opportunities of First Impression and the Outer Space Treaty,” and may be found about half way through the newsletter. From the introduction:
Because a question of first impression is one where no binding legal authority controls the answer, we may interpret the Treaty so that it does not unduly burden private activities in outer space. There are three controversial provisions of the Treaty where the three different branches of the U .S. government could interpret ambiguities in favor of commercial operators. It is my own view that such interpretations are the right ones. They include Article II’s prohibition on national appropriation of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, Article VI’s call for the authorization and continuing supervision of non-governmental entities in outer space, and Article IX’s requirement that States Parties pursue their studies and exploration of outer space so as to avoid harmful contamination to outer space and adverse changes in Earth’s environment resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter. Advocates from academic and governmental institutions have argued that these provisions bar commercial ownership of property in outer space, require governmental authorization and supervision of all private activities in outer space, or prohibit private U .S. activity without that authorization and supervision, and that the harmful contamination provisions apply to private actors. These interpretations are burdensome, unnecessary, and incorrect.
Read the whole thing if you want the analysis and the footnotes. Because who doesn’t like footnotes?