Talk:Moon Treaty

message: The article doesn't say what the Moon Treaty IS -- which is a bare minimum even for a stub. The links to Outer Space Treaty and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea don't substitute, and in any case they still aren't enough to figure out what the MT is.  Thx, "alyosha" (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attn template 

message: What is the conventional understanding of what this treaty is/was intended to cover?  All bodies that are captive and remain within the gravitational influence of our sun?  That would include all eight other planets, Kuiper Belt Objects, satellites, the asteroids and comets.  It would then not include objects even as close as Proxima Centauri if such are discovered that close. Or does the treaty envision covering the newly-discovered exo-planets that are even hundreds of light years away?
In other words, does the treaty only cover celestial objects that it can be reasonably foreseen will be reached by manned spacecraft, with return journeys, and with the ability of radio communications?  Objects as far away as Proxima Centauri and further do not fall into this category as it requires theoretical FTL, and communications, if possible (requiring immense power), would take decades.
GBC 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the treaty text " The provisions of this Agreement relating to the moon shall also apply to other celestial bodies within the solar system" so only in the solar system. When the solar system "ends" I don't know but I'm sure there's a technical definition somewhere.--David Youngberg 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of coverage by the treaty

message: In the article, Lebanon is mentioned as having ratified the treaty, but this fact isn't reflected in the map. Could someone correct it? Eklipse (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 3 states (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) still missing on the map Aldwoni (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: If I understand it correctly,
the treaty is only signed by France, Guatemala, India and Romania.
And ratified by Australia, Belgium, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, 
Peru, Kazakhstan, Austria, Chile, Morocco, The Netherlands, 
The Philippines and Uruguay
So, India should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.
See this databes
Tristan Laurillard (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  India does 

message: Who wrote this treaty? I didn't see any information about which entity crafted it, or the history of the treaty, for that matter. 75.45.244.204 (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. In particular, the article doesn't explain why no space-faring nation ratified it, a rather important point. Bomazi (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author  

message: I guess what I'm still not comfortable with is the use of "international community". Technically, any international treaty only applies to the countries which are a party to it. That means the "community" in question is just 18 countries. And, since 17 of them can't launch anything into space, that's hardly a spacefaring "community". To me, at least, "international community" implies all, or at least a large majority, of nations. Some of the wording about being a framework for further regulation, rather than being specific regulations itself, also doesn't come across correctly to me. It seems to imply that, if specific regulations are agreed to, then they would be binding for the all nations. In practice, they'd only apply to the 18 nations in question and any others which subsequently ratified the Moon Treaty.
Since this is going on in parallel with edits to the Outer Space Treaty article, I'm just put my related comments here. On the subject of extraterrestrial resources, OST article seems to imply that anything not specifically permitted by international law is prohibited. Or that a number of cited sources believe this, with a brief comment that there is some controversy. I don't think that's the case. One of the cited references uses fishing in international waters as allowed resource exploitation in unclaimed territory. But then it shoots the idea down on the next slide, by noting that fishing in international waters is subject to a large number of rules and regulations. While true, that's circular: Those rules and regulations are a direct result of specific treaties. Without the treaties, or with vague ones, those rules and regulations would not exist. A better example might be dumping trash off a ship. That was completely legal under international law until the London Convention of 1972. By analogy, the only widely ratified, international treaty on extraterrestrial activities is the OST, and it's extremely vague on the subject of resource exploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for taking the time to perform a thoughtful and objective review. This is one of the reasons I think you are one of the top contributors to the Spaceflight Project and I appreciate it immensely. I have no formal training in law, so I am reading high-quality sources —not to argue— but to achieve better clarity in Wikipedia at explaining the nature of the controversy. Mining the Moon is around the corner (and apparently Mars by SpaceX) so I am interested in the legal dynamics and status of the exploitation of natural resources. I see three points in your fair assessment above:
1) The precise use of the term "international community" 
: I agree in that a treaty applies only to the participants or State Parties, and not to the complete "international community".  I will review that this term is used in the correct context in this article.
2)  "[…] framework for further regulation, rather than being specific regulations itself, also doesn't come across correctly to me."'
:Actually, 'a framework' is definitely correct. I checked it multiple times from multiple sources in the specialized literature. The Moon Treaty repeats or reaffirms the common property of outer space as agreed in the OST and introduces two new proposals for the purpose of orderly mining, which is its main purpose or  raison d'être:
*a) the concept of "Common heritage of mankind" for equitable sharing of natural resources in outer space, as well as protecting the large-scale environment of the Moon and planets, but there was no consensus as to how to apply it to outer space (objections were presented on sharing this with nations that have simply not invested in spaceflight, exploration and on the related technologies).
*b) an "international regime" (e.g. specific laws) was proposed to help establish the specific laws for an orderly exploitation of natural resources. The Article 11.5 states that the exploitation of the natural shall be governed by an international regime that would establish the appropriate procedures. Said laws or regime are not yet listed in the Moon Treaty because it was a proposal for the international community to create them. That is why this treaty is called a "framework" in the specialized literature. The Moon Treaty was a specific push or stage for their detailed creation. Further research, shows that when explaining the Moon Treaty, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) uses the term "framework of laws",  so lets use that term instead.    I also edited that line to read: "Another expert highlights the viability of the treaty to develop a legal framework of detailed laws." 
3) OST article seems to imply that anything not specifically permitted by international law is prohibited. […] I don't think that's the case.
: I have concentrated in the Moon Treaty and Lunar resources articles, and I still have to study and edit the OST article. While I have not read it, I agree with you. That interpretation or implication should be presented as part of the controversy, not as a fact. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I added to the OST article the short version of: "Thus, the first article providing the freedom of use is balanced by the second article outlawing the ownership or appropriation of any celestial body. It therefore remains under contention whether the extraction of resources falls within the prohibitive language of appropriation or whether the use encompasses the commercial use and exploitation." Source:   It is also worth noting this statement from the same source: "Article VI serves as a juridical link to bind non-state actors within the scope of the treaty." Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: The first sentence of the second paragraph includes an in-line "Needs update" tag, with the explanation that the date near the tag has passed  - but there is no date near the tag.  Since the tag was put there in September 2020, can I just remove it? --JDspeeder1 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it out, but I'll also rewrite the whole sentence. India has signed the Moon Treaty and they have plan for human spaceflight. Fcrary (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Needs update" tag no longer necessary?