Hot Topics

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
"I have always wondered, in a distant future when humanity is able to settle permanently on a distant body (such as planet, moon or rocky body), are there any current legal frameworks that could be applied as a precedent for such individuals to “take ownership” of that body and its resources?" – Daniel, Croydon, Australia
Despite regular excited talk, human “settlement” of another planet, the Moon or an asteroid may still be many years away. Physicist Andrew Coates sees major challenges in Elon Musk’s public plans to colonise Mars.
But mining of space resources is a realistic possibility – and several nations are already investing in extraction operations in space.
We currently have five space law treaties which cover many key issues about the use, exploitation and protection of space. These treaties deal with ensuring that no nation claims sovereignty over a celestial body.
However they do not provide any clear guidelines for extracting resources in the absence of that sovereignty – that is, extracting resources from an asteroid or body that is not “owned”.
The moon flag was symbolic
Humanity first walked on the Moon in 1969.
The historic landing of Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong’s first moon walk are remembered for Armstrong’s deliberate choice of words – “that’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind” – as well as the symbolic planting of an American flag on the surface of the Moon.
The choice of flags for this occasion was carefully planned. The relevant NASA appropriations bill provided that the planting of the flag was “intended as a symbolic gesture of national pride in achievement” and “not to be construed as a declaration of national appropriation by claim of sovereignty”.
In total, twelve men have walked on the Moon, all of them American and the last of these was as long ago as 1972. None of these acts have been interpreted as an act of settlement or claim of US sovereignty.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IFDgqkQ0agk?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Astronaut Gene Cernan described his 1972 moon visit as like “being on God’s front porch”.
Since this time, the popularity of space exploration has waxed and waned, due to the prohibitive cost of space programs.
However, recent developments in space flight have drastically cut the cost of space vehicles. This has resulted in a renewed interest in exploring more permanent settlements on Mars or other celestial bodies.
Space law treaties
Let’s look at the five existing space law treaties that would apply if humanity were to establish a base on Mars or the Moon.
The first of these, the Outer Space Treaty (1967) provides that: "Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
This fundamental principle of “non-appropriation” prevents any nation from claiming sovereignty over the Moon or any other celestial body.
The other space treaties deal with:
<ul>
<li>Rescue of Astronauts (1968)</li>
<li>Liability of States for Damage Caused by Space Objects (1972)</li>
<li>Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (1975)</li>
<li>Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (known as “the Moon Agreement”) (1979).</li>
</ul>
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232609/original/file-20180820-30605-57aygk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Would you like to live on the Moon? This is what it might look like. <a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back" target="_blank">NASA</a>
These treaties (like the Antarctic Treaty with respect to the management and use of Antarctica) represent the international law that applies to outer space.
The Moon Agreement provides the most extensive protection of the Moon environment, and includes specific rules relating to potential activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
However, Australia is one of the very few countries which has acceded to the treaty – only 18 parties have acceded to or ratified this treaty (compared to the Outer Space Treaty, which has 107 members).
The Moon Agreement is therefore not considered to reflect customary international law – this means that its terms are not considered to reflect existing rules and norms of international space law. China, the United States and Russia are not members of this treaty, and neither are United Arab Emirates and Luxembourg (countries that do have clear space mining interests).
Taking resources without ownership
Despite the fact that nations may not claim sovereignty over a celestial body, the international treaties leave open the scope for states and private firms to use and mine celestial bodies without asserting ownership of the entire asteroid or planet.
In other words, you can extract and own resources without asserting sovereignty over the entire planet.
At the moment, in the absence of any clear laws regulating resource extraction, it is a case of first in, best dressed.
Corporations are now preparing operations to explore and utilise space resources, such as platinum, helium-3 (a potential fuel source) and water.
Various states, including the United States, Luxembourg and the United Arab Emirates have begun authorising resource exploration and extraction operations and conveying rights under their respective laws to their nationals with respect to the ownership of those natural resources.
Some states have argued that the Outer Space Treaty requires benefit-sharing of the materials extracted from space mining, as detailed by the Moon Agreement. However, even that agreement foreshadows the development of a further international regime to govern the exploitation of natural resources of the Moon, but such a regime has never been agreed on.

<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101464/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">So while there is no ability for states to claim sovereignty over space, there is still scope for exploitation of its resources.
Melissa de Zwart, Professor, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide
This is an article from I’ve Always Wondered, a series where readers send in questions they’d like an expert to answer. Send your question to alwayswondered@theconversation.edu.au
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ive-always-wondered-could-someone-take-ownership-of-a-planet-or-a-moon-101464" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Could someone take ownership of a planet or a moon?

<html><body>
There's still debate among economists over just whether there's a deepening credit crunch that could further adversely impact on housing markets.
We are now well into attempts begun in late 2014 by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, to curb over zealous lending, along with house price escalation and ballooning household debt.
Last August, I wrote that one of the key reasons that spring 2017 would see easing price growth was that the banks wouldn't lend as much.
It has extended right through the 2018 autumn market too, yet Macquarie’s latest survey of bank lending for property loans has found credit availability actually hadn’t changed too much over the past year.
Maybe the bank's bark is worse than their bite. If correct that's a relief, but that doesn't mean home loans will get any easier to obtain or that house price growth will return.
Macquarie undertakes its annual mortgage “mystery shopping” exercise where Macquarie analysts pose as potential customers at ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac, Bankwest, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Bank of Queensland, Suncorp and St George.
They found that banks had tightened their credit standards by a further 5% over the past year as a result of policy changes.
From the peak of mortgage activity in 2015, borrower capacity has fallen by 13% for owner-occupiers and 22% for investors.
The survey found some banks were willing to lend up to $1 million to a property investor earning $105,000 a year, but typically less than $600,000 to an owner-occupier on the same income.
The average loan capacity for owner-occupiers fell from $700,000 in 2015 to $600,000 presently, while average loan capacity for investors has fallen from $1 million to $800,000.
The anonymous mortgage shopping study conducted by Macquarie analyst Victor German tell the bank officers they were earning $105,000, had general living expenses of $1200 a month, were spending $1300 a month on rent, and had no dependents and a clear credit history with an $11,000 credit card limit.
UBS have an alternative view which is that the credit tightening process was only going to get tighter.
It argues regulatory pressure to tighten lending standards has so far primarily hit the investor market.
UBS banking analyst Jonathan Mott says owner-occupiers have only been hit with a higher household living expenditure benchmark.
“We estimate owner-occupier maximum borrowing capacity has been reduced 7-10% since 2015 and investor maximum borrowing capacity has reduced by 10-30% depending on the borrower’s existing debts,” Mott said in a research note.
Interestingly the boss of Australia's banking regulator, Wayne Byres, recently claimed "the heavy lifting on lending standards has largely been done".
Byres added that "any tightening from here on is expected to be at the margin as banks seek to get a better handle on borrower expenses, and better visibility of borrower debt commitments".
Of course since 2014 APRA has also required banks to assess borrowers' repayment capacity using a minimum 7% interest rate, which is well above prevailing home loan interest rates.
This article first appeared in The Daily Telegraph. 
</body></html>

Hot Topics

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Hot Topics

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News