Soon the universe will no longer belong to all of us

https://inosmi.ru/20220731/kosmos-255273012.html

Soon the universe will no longer belong to all of us

Soon the universe will no longer belong to all of us

Soon the universe will no longer belong to all of us

According to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, outer space is a peaceful zone, the use or deployment of weapons of mass destruction is prohibited… | 2022-07-31, InoSMI

2022-07-31T09:07

2022-07-31T09:07

2022-07-31T11:30

The New York Times

Place

Miss

/html/head/meta[@name=”og:title”]/@content

/html/head/meta[@name=”og:description”]/@content

https://cdnn1.inosmi.ru/img/07e6/01/13/252608351_0:71:1498:914_1920x0_80_0_0_24ad7ba8eb7de7c86f7e534411926d7d.jpg

Jessica Green The Russian government has said it will leave the International Space Station “after 2024”. Instead of choosing multilateral cooperation, it plans to build its own station and send cosmonauts there to continue exploration and exploration of space. Russia’s statement sounds ominous. But this move, part of a broader trend away from the principles of multilateralism in international space law, is just one of the latest signals of a weakening of international space cooperation. The other was the Artemis Accord, a legal framework designed to potentially regulate future commercial activities in outer space created under the Trump administration and supported by the Biden administration. Such actions threaten the multilateralism of extraterrestrial relations and portend a future in which space may no longer belong to all humans equally. Outer space governs a number of UN-sponsored treaties and underpins these international rules with strong legal norms. The basic agreement is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which sets out the principles for outer space, the moon and other celestial bodies. This treaty, signed at the height of the Cold War, became a symbol of the triumph of science over politics: states could cooperate in space, even when the prospect of mutual destruction loomed on Earth. According to the treaty, outer space is a peaceful zone, it prohibits the use or deployment of weapons of mass destruction, and space is considered the “property of all mankind”. Currently, more than 100 countries are parties to the treaty, including the United States and Russia. States cannot claim sovereignty or relevant territory. The treaty also calls for scientific cooperation between states, and it expresses confidence that such cooperation will promote “friendly relations” between countries and their peoples. In a word, the document assumes that all countries benefit from all activities carried out in space. The symbolic meaning of the treaty is obvious: when astronauts are in space, nationality and citizenship recede into the background. But beyond that, it will establish standards, procedures and work methods to prevent contamination of the environment of the Moon and other celestial bodies. The treaty facilitates the exchange of data, including on many objects such as satellites and spacecraft launched into space, which helps avoid collisions. And the norms inscribed in it, which provide for the common heritage of mankind, peaceful uses and scientific cooperation, contribute to the preservation of multilateralism in relations, despite the fact that states deviate from these norms. But the looming prospect of the commercialization of outer space has begun to test the strength of international space law. In 2020, NASA single-handedly drafted the Artemis Agreement, which goes against the basic principles of multilateralism in previous space agreements. These are rules that were primarily developed by the United States and that other countries are now adopting. This is not the result of cooperative multilateral rulemaking, but rather the export of American laws abroad for adoption by a coalition of the willing. The agreements take the legal form of a series of bilateral treaties with 21 foreign countries, including Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. These are not just remnants of the anti-globalization rhetoric and policies of the Trump administration. Just two weeks ago, during President Biden’s visit, Saudi Arabia signed the Artemis agreement, and in addition, the agreements open the possibility of extracting resources from the moon or other celestial bodies. They create “safe zones” where states can extract resources, although the document says this activity must be carried out in accordance with the Outer Space Treaty. Legal experts note that these provisions in the agreements could violate the principle of non-appropriation, which prohibits countries from declaring parts of outer space as their sovereign territory. Others say it’s important to keep up with the changing technology landscape. They argue that by the time mining on the moon becomes possible, there should already be rules governing such activities. Failure to do so could lead to a crisis similar to the seabed mining crisis that is about to begin, even though the UN rules are not yet final. Although the norms of cooperation are clearly enshrined in international law, they are only as firm as the public guidelines and activities that ensure their implementation. When countries, especially powerful ones, impose rules that conflict with these norms, multilateral institutions can collapse or, worse, lose their meaning. As a result of this disruption, there may be opportunities to update rules to better reflect changes in world politics and technology. But it can also lead to a less fair institution that favors powerful countries and gives them an unfair opportunity to reap economic benefits. For this reason, developing countries have long been staunch supporters of the “commons for all mankind” as a way to counter it with the power of richer countries and secure their right to benefit economically from the extraction of global resources. Ultimately, Russia’s withdrawal from the ISS is just one of a number of unresolved issues in space management. Russia and the United States, powerful space powers, are taking steps to challenge existing rules and regulations. Russia alone cannot deny the collective efforts to preserve outer space as a peaceful zone for scientific research and development. But the current system is in dire straits and is likely to be replaced by US regulations that create opportunities for future commercialization of space. This future poses a real threat to multilateralism and the rights of humanity to the “last frontier” (universe).Dr. Green is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto.

/20220203/mks-252849859.html

/20220728/cosmos-255239858.html

InoSMI

info@inosmi.ru

+7 495 645 66 01

Federal State Unitary Enterprise MIA “Russia Today”

2022

News

ru-RU

https://inosmi.ru/docs/about/copyright.html

https://xn--c1acbl2abdlkab1og.xn--p1ai/

InoSMI

info@inosmi.ru

+7 495 645 66 01

Federal State Unitary Enterprise MIA “Russia Today”

https://cdnn1.inosmi.ru/img/07e6/01/13/252608351_93:0:1405:984_1920x0_80_0_0_14914c8d98a63be1891389086d33ac40.jpg

the new york times, space, iss

.

Leave a Comment