Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


The Artemis Accords: A Turn Towards International Cooperation or a Weapon for Establishing U.S. Hegemony?

6/9/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Kanishka Bhukya
​

Kanishka Bhukya is a 2nd  year B.A./LL.B student at the National Law School of India University.

On October 13, 2020, eight countries (the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Canada, Italy, the United Arab Emirates, and Luxembourg) signed the Artemis Accords Principles for a Safe, Peaceful, and Prosperous Future. [1] Just after that, on November 13, 2020, Ukraine became the ninth signatory to this set of non-binding principles which actively seek to direct the behavior of countries participating in outer space exploration in the context of NASA's Artemis Program to place the first woman and the next man on the moon. [1]​

These Accords appeared innocuous and insignificant when they were first publicly disclosed by NASA. It was envisioned that foreign astronauts would receive emergency assistance if they were in danger or trouble, and that space travel plans and research would take place in a transparent way, with findings disseminated in a timely manner for the benefit of all humanity. A closer look at the Artemis Accords, however, reveals a different picture. It gives the idea that the Accords are about using and exploiting the moon to retain American dominance, potentially to the point of subverting international law. As Stephan Hobe, the Director of the Institute of Air Law, Space Law and Cyber Law at the University of Cologne, put it, “The Artemis Accords are an attempt by the Americans to walk softly to legitimize their deviation from the Outer Space Treaty.” [2]

In this context, the primary objective of this article is to demonstrate how the US plans to achieve global hegemony in space and defy international treaties and instruments by enacting multilateral treaties such as the Artemis Accords in the hope that they may eventually develop into customary law.

The Artemis Accords disrupt the conventional framework for developing policies for space governance by taking an alternate route to the customary approach of going through United Nations channels. They do not, however, propose new legal principles; rather, they simply operationalize the Outer Space Treaty (OST), a multilateral UN operationalised treaty that serves as the foundation of International Space Law in the present world. The Artemis Accords are mainly framed within the boundaries of the OST and execute the latter while providing some details for clarity's sake. Certain sections, on the other hand, bring new ideas or interpretations, and these are the kinds that are the most contentious.

The clause dealing with the extraction of space resources, for example, was the one that sparked the most debate. While the OST does not directly forbid the exploitation of minerals in outer space, it does emphasize the principle of non-appropriation through Article III. [3] However, Section 10(2) of the Accords interpreted this principle in a unique way, stating that “the Signatories affirm that the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation.” [4]

Such an interpretation is consistent with the US' own position on non-appropriation, as exemplified by the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which it seeks to legitimize internationally. According to the aforementioned Act, a “United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including the right to possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the United States’ international obligations.” [5] As evidenced by this provision, the Artemis Accords are just an attempt to universalize this view of these principles, and they have been judged as a unilateral attempt to sidestep the OST and international law.

Proponents of the US’ position have interpreted the concept to suggest that it only prevents appropriation through territorial sovereignty, and therefore space resources are not covered. They also draw a comparison with commercial fishing in the high seas, where fishing is not forbidden and is not understood as a statement of state sovereignty because the resource is tied to the title. From this, they argue that a similar strategy should be applied to space resources as well.

However, such an analogy does not hold water because Article 87 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea expressly permits for fishing in the high seas, whereas no such acknowledgment has been made in international outer space treaties. [6] Not only is there no acknowledgment, but Article 11 of the Moon Agreement, introduced by the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, designates outer space as "Common Heritage of Mankind," making all extra-terrestrial resources common goods. [7] The Moon Agreement, in essence, prohibits state and commercial entities from taking possession of natural resources on the Moon and other celestial bodies. As a result, Section 10 of the Artemis Accords, which allows for the sole use of lunar resources, is clearly in breach of the Moon Agreement. However, the Moon Agreement suffers from the fact that it has not been signed by the US and the majority of the leading space-faring nations, making it difficult to enforce.

Moreover, Section 11 of the Artemis Accords establishes Safety Zones to avoid unwanted or harmful interference, so advancing the idea of "due regard" as specified in Article 9 of the OST. [3] However, such an installation is in marked contradiction with the freedom of exploration and use promised by Article 1 of the OST, as any kind of deployment of such Safety Zones may result in alienation and isolation of other states. This would imply that some feeling of sovereignty is asserted here if the zones are interpreted as belonging to a specific state.

Therefore, the fundamental question now is whether the Artemis Accords are in breach of international law. Their claimed goal is to "create a shared vision through a realistic set of principles, rules, and best practices." [4] That is, they do not claim to be the foundation of new laws and hence cannot, technically speaking, contradict current international law. However, it is a savvy ploy by the US government to draught recommendations in the expectation that they may eventually develop into customary law, weakening the existing space laws.
​

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties specifies when a "subsequent practice" may be used to influence the interpretation of a treaty. [8] The treaty stipulates that in such circumstances, total unanimity is not required, and that even the opinion of one or a few states does not constitute international law. And, given this broad consensus on when an interpretation of a law becomes a "subsequent practice," it is worth noting that the Accords becoming a "subsequent practice" and so influencing the general interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty is unlikely for the time being. This is due to the fact that, first, only a few countries have agreed to sign the accords so far, and, second, notable space-faring countries such as Russia and China are clearly apprehensive of it. Furthermore, because no international committees were formed, no broad talks were held, and the accords were merely imposed by the US, even if other governments later sign this pact, the question of whether their approval is essentially illusory would always be present. [9]​

[1] Azcárate Ortega, A., 2020. Artemis Accords: A Step Toward International Cooperation or Further Competition?. [online] Lawfare. Available at <https://www.lawfareblog.com/artemis-accords-step-toward-international-cooperation-or-further-competition> [Accessed 7 April 2022].
[2] Keynote Speech, International Astronautical Congress 2020, quoted in Stirn. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 27 January 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967) 610 UNTS 205 (Outer Space Treaty).
[3] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 610 U.N.T.S. 205, entered into force, Oct. 10, 1967.
[4] The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids, NASA, <https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/img/Artemis-Accords-signed-13Oct2020.pdf>
[5] US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Pub. L. No. 114-90, 129 Stat. 704.
[6] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, available at: <https://www.refworld.org/docid/3dd8fd1b4.html> [accessed 7 April 2022]. 
[7] Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, done on Dec. 18, 1979, xvii I.L.M. 1434. 
[8] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969. Entered into force on 27 January 1980. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331.
[9] Azcárate Ortega, Almudena. 2020. "Artemis Accords: A Step Toward International Cooperation Or Further Competition?". Lawfare. <https://www.lawfareblog.com/artemis-accords-step-toward-international-cooperation-or-further-competition> [accessed 7 April 2022]. 
​

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.