Global Sustainability Space resources activities from the perspective

cambridge.org/sus
of sustainability: legal aspects
Mahulena Hofmann and Federico Bergamasco
University of Luxembourg, Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, rue Alphonse Weicker 4, L-2721 Luxembourg
Intelligence Briefing
Cite this article: Hofmann M, Bergamasco F Non-technical abstract
(2020). Space resources activities from the
perspective of sustainability: legal aspects.
The new forms of the use of outer space, such as space resources activities, not only will pro-
Global Sustainability 3, e4, 1–7. https://doi.org/ vide a vital contribution to research and industry, but could also entail a negative impact to
10.1017/sus.2019.27 the space environment. The present article aims at discussing from a legal perspective crucial
problems such as how we shall ensure that the entities active in the area of space resources take
Received: 29 November 2018
Revised: 9 December 2019
environmental concerns into account, how we shall ensure that they utilize the best possible
Accepted: 9 December 2019 and least invasive technology and whether they should restore the ‘mining’ area when finish-
ing their tasks.
Author for correspondence:
Prof Dr Mahulena Hofmann,
E-Mail: mahulena.hofmann@uni.lu Technical abstract
Space resources activities present numerous opportunities for expanding the exploration and
use of outer space, but they could also involve environmental risks. The purpose of the present
article is to navigate across such risks from a regulatory perspective and to investigate the
potential solutions. The final findings relate to three fundamental questions: How shall we
ensure that the entities active in the area of space resources take the space environment
into account? How shall we ensure that they utilize the best possible and least invasive tech-
nology? And should they restore the ‘mining’ area when finishing their tasks? To this purpose,
an overview on the planned space resources activities will first be provided, together with a
summary of the involved entities. Subsequently, the analysis will shift to the legal framework,
starting with the main international treaties and the related applicable principles. It will then
move onto national legislations. The concluding remarks will indicate an international frame-
work as the most suitable solution to the problem of environmental sustainability, taking into
considerations existing models and proposals.

Social media summary

Legal issues of the environmental aspects of space resources activities and solutions for regu-
latory gaps are discussed.

1. Introductioni
Due to the new forms of the use of outer space as space resources activities, not only their
contribution to research and industry, but also their potential negative impacts on the envir-
onment are discussed: How shall we ensure that the entities active in the area of space
resources take the space environment into account? How shall we ensure that they utilize
the best possible and least invasive technology? And should they restore the ‘mining’ area
when finishing their tasks?
The more general question of how to ensure the sustainability of space activities emerged
within the context of the proliferation of space actors and the intensification of the uses of
outer space over the last 10 years. The main deliberations on these issues took place in the
UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOS), which agreed upon a
set of recommendatory guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge in 2016 (UN COPUOS, 2018a). Recent plans to exploit the mineral resources found on the
University Press. This is an Open Access article, celestial bodies – on the Moon and asteroids – have only intensified these discussions.
distributed under the terms of the Creative This contribution focuses on the environmental aspect of these future space resources activ-
Commons Attribution licence (http:// ities and observes it from its legal perspective. The objects of analysis are the selected UN space
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and treaties, the US and Luxembourg domestic legislation on space resources and the principles
reproduction in any medium, provided the elaborated by the international The Hague Space Resources Governance Working Group.
original work is properly cited.

2. Space resources activities: overview

In several countries, intense activities on space resources exploitation and extraction have
developed in recent years. In the USA, Planetary Resources, Inc., came forward with a plan

https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.27 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 2 Mahulena Hofmann and Federico Bergamasco

to transform asteroid water into rocket fuel and eventually to har- exploitation of space resources, contains inter alia a thesis on
vest platinum-group metals from space rocks (Planetary the “potentially disruptive economic impact” of space resources
Resources, 2018; Wall, 2015). Before its acquisition by Bradford exploitation activities on existing global inequality, and it pro-
Space Group, Deep Space Industries had a project to change the claims that only a new international governance framework is a
economics of the space industry by providing the technical precondition for a “lawful and sustainable exploitation” of space
resources, capabilities and system integration required to prospect resources (UN COPUOS, 2019a).
for, harvest, process, manufacture and market in-space resources The proliferation of space resources projects also led to pas-
(Bradford Space Group, 2018). sionate discussion in academia. Whereas some authors started
For Japan, space resources development may be a promising deliberating on how to develop practicable rules for the imple-
industry in the future (Mizushima et al., 2017), as symbolized mentation of these programmes (Blount & Robinson, 2016;
by the Hayabusa Project, in which a spacecraft operated by the Ganatra & Modi, 2015–2016; Frank, 2017; Gangale, 2015–2016;
Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency succeeded in landing Mizushima et al., 2017; von der Dunk, 2017; White, 2003), others
on the surface of a small near-Earth asteroid, returning samples saw in these activities a violation of international legal rules
of the materials back to Earth (JAXA, 2018). There are also (Cocca, 1996; De Man, 2016, 2017; Gorove, 1969; Hobe &
reports stating that China is planning to exploit resources such De Man, 2017; Kelly, 2004; Roth, 1992; Tronchetti, 2014;
as titanium, helium-3 and water from the far side of the Moon, Volynskaja, 2016).
where its first module landed in January 2019 (Goswami, 2016). The positions regarding space mining have been divided in
Its Chang’e lunar exploration programme is an ongoing robotic principle along two main lines of inquiry: first, whether space
mission to the Moon based on the White Papers on China’s resources projects are compatible with the non-appropriation
Space Activities (Shouping, 2017) led by the China National principle of the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the
Space Administration. There is also information available showing Activities in the Exploration and Exploitation of Outer Space,
that investments are being made in asteroid exploration including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies – more com-
(Mizushima et al., 2017). Additionally, space resources pro- monly known as the Outer Space Treaty (OST); and second, do
grammes are being pursued in the United Arab Emirates these projects comply with the “province of mankind” require-
(Gulfnews, 2017). ments as embodied in Article I OST? In comparison with these
In Luxembourg, the Government announced its ‘Space questions, the issue of respect for the environments of celestial
Resources.lu’ initiative in February 2016, which is a series of mea- bodies and the Earth by the space resources operators seems to
sures “to position Luxembourg as a European hub in the explor- be less controversial at the moment; however, it could turn into
ation and use of space resources.” One of the central elements of a battlefield on the details of environmental protection in the
this policy was the development of a legal and regulatory frame- future.
work confirming certainty about the future ownership of minerals
extracted in space (Luxembourg Space Agency, 2019b). To foster
3.1. Prohibition of the appropriation of outer space
international cooperation, the Government of Luxembourg con-
cluded bilateral cooperation agreements with Portugal (2017), Because of its very high level of recognition among States (UN
United Arab Emirates (2017), Japan (2017), China (2017), COPUOS, 2017b) and its customary character (Hobe et al.,
Czech Republic (2018), Poland (2018), Belgium (2019) and the 2017; von der Dunk, 2015), the 1967 OST became the central
USA (2019) aimed at the exchange of information and the international legal source of the law of outer space. One of its
strengthening of bilateral relations in the field of space activities key provisions is Article II, which states that “outer space, includ-
(Luxembourg Space Agency, 2019a). ing the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupa-
tion, or by any other means.”
3. International legal framework of space resources
For the opponents of space mining, this provision means that
activities
nothing in outer space might be ‘appropriated’ because, in their
The expansion of space resources activities, even in its research view, any extraction – whether by a State or a non-governmental
and development stage, was not welcome everywhere, and not entity – of any material from any celestial body necessarily
simply because of environmental concerns. implies a kind of such ‘appropriation’ (Volynskaja, 2016).
As an example, the Russian Federation, which in 2013 Another chain of arguments is based on the differentiation
included space resources mining in its key political document between various forms of activities in outer space provided by
in the area of space activities approved by the President of the Article I OST, which separates the freedoms of its “exploration”
Federation called ‘The Keystones of State Policy of Russian and “use,” also including “exploitation” of outer space
Federation in the Area of Space Activities for the Period till (De Man, 2017). If there are no constraints on the exploration
2030 and with a Further Perspective’ (Russian Federation, of outer space, then any ownership of space minerals would
2013), surprised us by turning into one of the most active critics imply the prevention of others from using the same matter; by
of these projects, especially in the UN COPUOS (2016). Whereas this logic, only the use of outer space without property rights to
currently the position of Russia seems to be more muted than in space resources could correspond to international law (De Man,
2016, Belgium – one of the 18 States Parties of the 1979 Moon 2017).
Agreement – remains the leader of the countries that see these This thread of argumentation is considered to be further sup-
activities as violations of international law (UN COPUOS, ported by the existence of the later adopted 1979 Agreement
2017a). The working document submitted to the Legal Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other
Subcommittee of the UN COPUOS in 2019 by Belgium and Celestial Bodies (Moon Agreement). In line with this postulate,
Greece, proposing to establish a working group for the develop- it prohibits, in its Article 11(3), that any “natural resources in
ment of an international regime for the utilization and place” shall become the property of any entity or person

https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.27 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Global Sustainability 3

(De Man, 2017). From this prohibition are exempted only undefined regulation of human activities in other common spaces, such as
“samples” of minerals from celestial bodies, which may be used for activities on the High Seas and the Deep-Sea Bed” (Hobe et al.,
scientific purposes, as well as “minerals and other substances” of 2009).
celestial bodies used in “quantities appropriate for the support of The 1979 Moon Agreement reiterates the “province of man-
the missions” of the States Parties of the Agreement (Article 6). kind” principle (Article 4). However, the Moon, celestial bodies
However, the purpose of space mining activities is considered and their natural resources are additionally declared by
to be neither any ‘appropriation’ of parts of outer space nor of Article 11(1) to be “the common heritage of mankind” (CHM).
space resources in situ. Instead, the sole aim of any such activities This principle can be understood as an idea of intergenerational
is their extraction, use and commercialization, without any terri- equity in that it couples the preservation of the environment
torial demands or titles as to the celestial bodies (or parts thereof) with its use by future generations (Jakhu et al., 2013). However,
concerned (Mizushima et al., 2017). the Cologne Commentary refers to the fact that “there is no
The argument, which sees in the use or exploitation of a space unique feature or specific meaning of the CHM in all its manifes-
mineral by one subject a limitation of the same right of another tations.” While different interpretations may be put forward, the
subject, is difficult to contest by other means than analogy with proper meaning of the CHM can only be determined in the
space exploration. As has been recognized by the drafters of the context of its use and for the purpose of the future applicable
OST in its Articles IX and XII, a purely scientific project in one regulatory regime (Jakhu et al., 2013).
area of outer space could de facto prevent research at the same In the body of the Moon Agreement, in addition to CHM’s
site by a subject from another State. To avoid such situations, relation to the prohibition of the appropriation of natural
the Treaty pre-envisages a system of international consultations resources on celestial bodies in Article 11(3), this principle finds
aimed at avoiding any harmful interference with operations. its expression in Article 11(5), which envisages the establishment
It should also be stressed that the Moon Agreement has been of an international regime to govern the exploitation of these
ratified by only 18 States Parties (UN COPUOS, 2019b); thus, its resources when “such exploitation is about to become feasible.”
limitations concerning space activities resulting from the common This obligation can be interpreted as a duty of its States Parties
heritage principle are binding only upon its Parties, and it cannot to make good faith efforts to convene an international conference
constitute international customary law. Additionally, there is a and to negotiate for the purpose of reaching an agreement; “how-
Joint Statement of its States Parties dating from 2008 and pro- ever, they would not be bound to reach an agreement on an inter-
claiming that the common heritage of mankind principle does national regime,” and the proposed international conference
not constitute an obstacle to space mining initiatives (UN might even “reject the principle CHM, or give it a new and liberal
COPUOS, 2008). scope” (Jakhu et al., 2013).
Finally, this liberal line of thought points to the legal regime of The modification mechanisms of both treaties (Article XV
the High Seas under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the resp. 17) or the convening of an international conference as envi-
Sea (UNCLOS) and, in particular, to the regulation of fishing, saged by Article 18 of the Moon Agreement have not yet been
which allows the States Parties, in principle, to freely fish on called upon. In 1994, 10 years after the entry into force of the
the High Seas. This is a relevant analogy with space resources. Moon Agreement, the Resolution of the UN General Assembly
Article 87 UNCLOS grants States Parties of the treaty the freedom A/RES/49/34 of 30 January 1995 took note of the recommenda-
to fish on the High Seas, subject to specific conditions in “due tion of the UN COPUOS that the General Assembly, at its current
regard for interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom session, in considering whether to revise the Moon Agreement,
of the high seas.” Furthermore, Article 116 UNCLOS postulates should not take any action (paragraph 42). The present discus-
that “all States have the right for their nationals to engage in fishing sions about the future international regime shall be described
in the high seas,” subject to their treaty obligations and the rights below.
and duties of coastal States (Freestone, 2009; Wright et al., 2016).
There are also discussions as to whether the term ‘celestial
3.3. Protection of the environment
bodies’ should be redefined. Currently, according to the
International Astronomical Union, known natural objects that Parallel to the questions of the appropriation of space resources
can be found in the solar system include the Sun, the planets, and the future international regime, there are already several pro-
the Moon, the moons of other planets, near-Earth objects, aster- visions of the UN space treaties that are relevant for the protection
oids, comets, dwarf planets, trans-Neptunian objects and Kuiper of the environment of outer space and that frame the way in
Belt objects (Lyall & Larsen, 2009). Discussions on these categor- which space ‘mining’ might be performed in the future. It can
izations have resulted in proposals to exclude smaller asteroids be stated, however, that those norms are of a general character
under a minimum diameter from the term ‘celestial body’ and cover only a small part of the whole spectrum of space
(Marboe & Friedl, 2019), which would eliminate those from the resources activities.
prohibition of appropriation. Article IX OST requires that States pursue studies of outer
space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct
exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination.
3.2. Outer space as ‘province of all mankind’
At the same time, it obliges spacefaring nations to avoid adverse
According to Article I OST, the freedom of exploration and the changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the intro-
use of the Moon and other celestial bodies are “the province of duction of extra-terrestrial matter and, when necessary, to adopt
all mankind.” The Cologne Commentary on Space Law considers appropriate preventative measures. The problem is the narrow
this rule as “one of the most important, but also of the most dis- scope of application of this obligation. A literal interpretation of
puted provisions of the entire Outer Space Treaty” (Hobe et al., the second paragraph limits the duty of States Parties to avoid
2009), and it concludes that the notion of “province of mankind” harmful contamination only in the pursuance of “studies of
brings this lead provision of the Treaty “in line with the legal outer space” and “space exploration.”

https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.27 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 4 Mahulena Hofmann and Federico Bergamasco

Second, the core element of the second paragraph is the con- supervision by the appropriate State Party.” This provision led
cept of “harmful contamination” and the related duty upon States to the adoption of the numerous space legislations throughout
Parties to avoid it. However, it is not sufficiently precise as to the world that regulate the conditions and procedures of such
which type of degradation of the outer space environment is pro- authorizations (UNOOSA, 2019). Some of these laws include
hibited and to what extent (Kramer, 2014). The presence of the aspects of sustainability and environmental protection as one of
term ‘harmful’ suggests at first that contamination is not per se the preconditions for obtaining this authorization.
prohibited, and thus that exploration activities are lawful even
if, to a limited degree, contamination is caused (Lyall, 2010). In
4.1. General national space legislation protecting
addition, the term ‘contamination’ lacks a definition. This seem-
sustainability
ingly leaves it open to cover both biological and non-biological
kinds of contamination, thus encompassing the release of chem- As an example, the US national space law comprises the National
ical and radioactive contaminants (Lyall, 2010). However, it Environmental Policy Act (United States, 1970), which must be
hardly covers environmental modifications of different kinds, complied with by space missions during their launch and re-entry
such as the alteration of the topography and geology of a celestial phases. It requires the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of
body, which could be a consequence of large-scale human activ- Commercial Space (FAA AST) to integrate environmental values
ities such as space mining. The generic terms ‘appropriate mea- into its decision-making processes concerning commercial launch
sures’ and ‘where necessary’ further water down any rigorous or re-entry activities (FAA AST, 2019).
content of the obligation. Other examples are the Russian 1993 Law on Space Activity
These problems are partially remedied by the 1979 Moon (Russian Federation, 1993), which requests all participants in
Agreement, whose Article 7(1) concerns environmental protec- space activities to take any necessary measures in order to avoid
tion. It widens the scope of Article IX OST by explicitly including any threat to the environment.
the “exploitation” phase of space activities and by stating the duty Environmental criteria are part of the licensing procedures
of States Parties to “prevent the disruption of the existing balance” inter alia the 1986 UK Act on Outer Space Activities (United
of the environment of celestial bodies. Such disruption can take Kingdom, 1986), the 1998 Australian Space Activities Act
place through the introduction of “adverse changes,” through its (Commonwealth of Australia, 1998, 2019), the 2005 Belgian
“harmful contamination through the introduction of extra- Law on the Activities of Launching, Flight Operation or
environmental matter,” or “otherwise.” Although the concept of Guidance of Space Objects (Belgium, 2014), the 2006 Space
the ‘harmful contamination’ of celestial bodies remains Activities Act of The Netherlands (The Netherlands, 2006), the
undefined, it is beyond doubt that these specifications give a French Law on Space Activities (Article 4) of 2008 (France,
more substantial meaning to the provision. As stated above, how- 2008), the Austrian Act on Authorization of Space Activities
ever, the Moon Agreement has a very limited number of States and the Establishment of a National Space Registry of 2011
Parties. (Austria, 2011), the Danish Outer Space Act of 2016 (Denmark,
More details about the implementation of Article IX OST and 2016) and the 2018 Finnish Act on Space Activities (Finland,
Article 7 of the Moon Agreement can be found in the Planetary 2018).
Protection Policy formulated by the Committee on Space The Government of Luxembourg prepared a general Draft Law
Research (COSPAR), a Scientific Committee of International on Space Activities in 2018, which is being discussed in
Council for Science (ICSU) established in 1958. The updated pol- Parliament within the present legislative period (for the current
icy (COSPAR, 2005) recommends the adoption of specific mea- state of the legislation, see Chambre des Députés, 2019). The pro-
sures that should be taken before and after space missions (e.g., ject contains provisions dealing with the protection of the envir-
to meet specific criteria on spacecraft cleanliness). These measures onment; for example, if the space activity authorized by the
are differentiated in the extent to which the specific target body respective Minister of Luxembourg would amount in a danger
(e.g., the planet or an asteroid) is of interest for understanding for a non-specified ‘environment’, the authorization can be with-
the origins and evolution of life (Hofmann, 2010). The formal drawn (Article 9). However, with the exception of launch activ-
limitation of COSPAR standards consists in the fact that – as in ities and space object registration, space resources activities are
Article IX OST – they concentrate on scientific research, not on exempted from the scope of this general Draft Law (Article 2).
commercial space activities; furthermore, they do not go beyond
the protection of outer space and the Earth against biological con-
4.2. Specific space resources legislation
tamination. It has been discussed, however, how the scope of the
policy could be extended in the future. In view of the planned intensity of space resources activities, first
the USA and later Luxembourg adopted specific legislation
devoted to these projects.
4. National legislation on space resources from the
The 2015 US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act
sustainability perspective
(United States, 2015) made the USA the first country to have
The OST and the Moon Agreement impose obligations to their adopted a national regulatory framework for space mining activ-
respective States Parties without any direct impact to non-state ities. Its aim is to “facilitate commercial exploration for and com-
actors (e.g., operators of space resources activities). However, mercial recovery of space resources by United States citizens”
one of the crucial and specific principles of international space (§ 51302). The Act defines a “space resource” as an “abiotic
law, Article VI OST, declares that States Parties shall bear inter- resource in situ in outer space,” including minerals and water
national responsibility for all national activities in outer space – (§ 51301 (2)), and an “asteroid resource” as a “space resource
independently of the whether they are performed by themselves found on or within a single asteroid” (§ 51301 (1)). Title IV of
or by non-state entities. Moreover, space activities of non- the Act authorizes citizens of the USA “to possess, own, transport,
governmental entities require “authorization and continuous use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource” that they

https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.27 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Global Sustainability 5

obtain “in accordance with applicable law, including the inter- contribute to sustainable development (BB 4.2 c) and promote
national obligations of the United States” (§ 51303). the use of sustainable technology (BB 4.2 g). BB 10 is specifically
The Act does not contain any specific provision dealing with devoted to the “avoidance and mitigation of potentially harmful
the sustainability of space resources activities. The National impacts resulting from space resources activities.” It requires
Environmental Policy Act (United States, 1970) is focused on that States and intergovernmental organizations authorizing
launch and re-entry activities only. However, the commercial space resources activities adopt appropriate measures with the
exploration and recovery of space resources by US citizens should aim of avoiding their harmful impacts, including risks to the
be “consistent with the international obligations of the United environment (BB 10 a), damage to the environment (BB 10 b),
States” (§ 51302 (a)). Consequently, the conditions of Article IX adverse changes in the environment of the Earth (BB 10 c), harm-
OST cannot be ignored. ful contamination of celestial bodies (BB 10 d) and outer space
The 2017 Law on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources (BB 10 e), as well as harmful interference with other ongoing
of Luxembourg was inspired by the US model. The law was space activities (BB 10 g). These measures should take into
adopted on 27 July 2017 and entered into force on 2 August account the internationally agreed planetary protection policies
2017. The legislation deals generally with “space resources” with- elaborated by COSPAR (BB 10 c and d).
out making a distinction between space and asteroid resources. To prevent such harmful changes, the expected international
Article 1 of the Law declares that “space resources are capable framework should provide that a review of the safety and avoid-
of being appropriated.” Article 16 of the Law deals with the ance of harmful impacts prior to the authorization of space
“responsibility for damage.” According to this provision, the resources activities is required by the States and international
operator is fully responsible for any damage caused at the occa- organizations authorizing them (BB 11). BB 12 is devoted to
sion of the mission, including all preparatory works and duties. the monitoring and redressing of harmful impacts resulting
The Law does not explicitly mention the environmental cri- from space resources activities. The envisaged international
teria among the conditions that have to be met when applying framework should provide that States and intergovernmental
for the authorization of the space resources mission. Similarly organizations shall monitor whether any harmful impacts result
to the US Law, Article 2(2) of the Law states that an authorized from space resources activities for which they are responsible
operator may only “carry out the activity” in space resources (BB 12.1). If such a harmful impact occurs, the States and inter-
area “in accordance with … the international obligations of national organizations shall “implement measures to respond to
Luxembourg.” As in case of the USA, this obligation leads to such harmful impact (response measures) and consider whether
Article IX OST and – even if only implicitly – to the obligation the space resource activity should be adjusted or terminated”
to comply with its planetary protection provisions. (BB 12.2). The future international repository established on the
basis of the Article XI OST should collect information inter alia
on “any harmful impact resulting from space resources activities”
5. An international regime: solution for sustainability
and “the measures planned or implemented to redress such
From the perspective of the sustainability of space activities in impacts” (BB 14 e and v).
relation to space ‘mining’, the optimal solution would be an inter- This document should, in the formulation of The Hague BBs,
national regime giving the States guidance when authorizing serve as a basis for negotiations on an intentional framework
space resources missions. The question is: by whom and how and recommendations for an implementation strategy (BB
should this regime be shaped? Introduction). It will be interesting to see the extent to which
It is questionable whether the model of the deep seabed based these practical propositions shall influence the present discussions
on Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the on space resources activities in the UN COPUOS, especially in its
Sea of 1982 is the best example to follow. Until now, only a very Legal Sub-Committee in the framework of the item ‘General
limited number of contracts have been concluded, and there are Exchange of views on potential legal models for activities in
good reasons to question whether the existing complicated and exploration, exploitation and utilization of space resources’ (UN
expensive structure is an attractive pattern to be followed, espe- COPUOS, 2018b).
cially for developing countries.
A different approach is followed by the multi-stakeholder The
6. Conclusion
Hague Space Resources Governance Working Group, which pub-
lished in November 2019 the ‘Building Blocks for the In the introduction to our analysis, the following questions were
Development of an International Legal Framework on Space raised: How shall we ensure that the entities active in the area
Resources Activities’ (The Hague Space Resources Working of space resources take the space environment into account?
Group, 2019). In this document, this international group – com- How shall we ensure that they utilize the best possible and least
posed of representatives of several governments, academia and invasive technology? And should they restore the ‘mining’ area
future space resources operators – stressed that a future inter- when finishing their tasks? Our overview demonstrated that
national framework should create an enabling environment for there were several complementary paths for influencing the
space resources activities. This framework must be consistent behaviour of space resources operators by means of law.
with international law, should promote consistency and predictabil- First, it is Article IX OST that stipulates that States shall avoid
ity among domestic frameworks of States and internal frameworks harmful contamination of the Earth and outer space. Naturally,
of intergovernmental organizations and should prevent disputes the addressees of this provision are not space resources operators,
arising out of space resources activities (Building Block (BB) 4). but ‘States’; however, if domestic legislation, such as that of the
From the perspective of sustainability, it should first be under- USA and Luxembourg, requires that the operators may only
lined that the scope of the BBs is limited to activities conducted carry out their activities in accordance with the international obli-
in outer space, not on the Earth. Concerning space activities, gations of the respective State, the need for compliance of the
the framework suggested by the document should, inter alia, activities of the operators with the norms of Article IX OST is

https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.27 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 6 Mahulena Hofmann and Federico Bergamasco

inevitable. It is in our view less important that these provisions are Blount, P. J. & Robinson, C. J. (2016). One small step: the impact of the US
vague and hardly enforceable in international law (Apking, 2005). Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 on the exploitation
Second, as long as there is no international regime regulating of resources in outer space. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology,
18, 1.
space resources activities, domestic laws seem to be the most
Bradford Space Group (2018). Bradford Space Group Acquires Control of
effective tools for ensuring the compliance of operators with the
Deep Space Industries, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.bradford-space.
sustainability and environmental criteria. The most feasible com/news2019-01-02.php.
instrument for the implementation of Article IX OST is the Chambre des Députés (2019). 7317 – Projet de loi sur les activités spatiales et
domestic authorization procedure based on Article VI OST. The portant modification de la loi modifiée du 9 juillet 1937 sur l’impôt sur les
State authorities could make the environmental criteria of space assurances. Retrieved from https://www.chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/
activities to be one of the conditions of their authorization and TravailALaChambre/Recherche/RoleDesAffaires?action=doDocpaDetails&
objects of their control and supervision. Once part of the national backto=/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/Recherche/Aucun
procedure, compliance with Article IX OST can be enforced by Resultat&id=7317.
means of domestic law, and also, in extremis, through the with- Cocca, A. (1996). Property rights on the Moon and other celestial bodies. In
Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space
drawal of an authorization.
(pp. 9–19). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Third, the future international regime (e.g., as suggested by
COSPAR (2005). COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy. Retrieved from
The Hague Space Resources Governance Working Group) may http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/ethics/documents/environment/COSPAR
have a considerable impact on the activities of operators. Its %20Planetary%20Protection%20Policy.pdf.
strong emphasis on the protection of the environment during De Man, P. (2016). Exclusive Use in an Inclusive Environment: The Meaning of
and after space resources activities is a very positive signal for the Non-appropriation Principle for Space Resource Exploitation. Springer.
the future. The BBs not only suggest that States should take envir- De Man, P. (2017). Luxembourg Law on Space Resources Rests on Contentious
onmental criteria into account when authorizing and supervising Relationship with International Framework. KU Leuven Working Paper No.
space resources missions, but they also propose additional mea- 189.
sures, such as the duty to submit information about harmful FAA AST (2019). Environmental Program. Retrieved from https://www.faa.
gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental.
impacts resulting from space resources activities to a publicly
Frank, R. J. (2017). International and domestic laws on commercial use of
accessible international repository. The present status of the docu-
space mineral resources. Presented at 68th International Astronautical
ment has been discussed above; here, it should be stressed that Congress, Adelaide, Australia, 25–29 September.
it was not imposed on space resources operators, but – quite to Freestone, D. (2009). Fisheries, High Seas. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public
the contrary – it was developed together with them. International Law.
Finally, the environmental provisions of the OST were Ganatra, D. & Modi, N. (2015–2016). Asteroid mining and its legal implica-
developed on the basis of solidarity among the members of the tions. Journal of Space Law, 40, 81.
international research community and the need to avoid com- Gangale, T. (2015–2016). The legality of mining celestial bodies. Journal of
promising the results of space research. The motives of the pre- Space Law, 40, 187.
sent generation of space resources operators, who have grown Gorove, S. (1969). Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. Fordham
Law Review, 37, 349.
up within the global sustainability discourse, to collaborate in
Goswami, N. (2016). China’s Unique Space Ambitions. The Diplomat.
the drafting of the rules protecting the ‘clean’ use of celestial
Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/chinas-unique-space-
bodies might be similar. In the end, it can be an advantage for ambitions.
all not to impair the environment of outer space as a good that Gulfnews (2017). Space-mining may be only a decade away. Retrieved from
is available for the use of all. https://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/technology/space-mining-may-be-
only-a-decade-away-1.2019210.
Acknowledgements. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr Hobe, S. & De Man, P. (2017). National Appropriation of Outer Space and
P. J. Blount for his indispensable assistance in the editing phase of this paper. State Jurisdiction to Regulate the Exploitation, Exploration and Utilization
of Space Resources. ZLW Sonderdruck.
Author contributions. The two authors have contributed equally to this
Hobe, S., Schmidt-Tedd, B. & Schrogl, K-U. (eds.) (2009). Cologne
paper.
Commentary on Space Law, Vol. I. Heymanns Verlag GmbH.
Financial support. None. Hobe, S., Schmidt-Tedd, B. & Schrogl, K-U. (eds.) (2013). Cologne
Commentary on Space Law, Vol. II. Heymanns Verlag GmbH.
Conflicts of interest. None. Hofmann, M. (2010). Planetary protection from a legal perspective: due diligence
and national legislation. In IAA Cosmic Study: Protecting the Environment of
Ethical standards. This research and article complies with Global Celestial Bodies (pp. 51–53). International Academy of Astronautics (IAA).
Sustainability’s publishing ethics guidelines. Hofmann, M. & Bergamasco, F. (2018). Mining in outer space: legal aspects. In
M. Bungenberg et al. (eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic
Law 2018 (EYIEL) (pp. 313–334). Springer.
Note Jakhu, R., Freeland, S., Hobe, S. & Tronchetti, F. (2013). Article 11 (Common
Heritage of Mankind/ International Regime). In S. Hobe, B. Schmidt-Tedd
i
The article is a continuation of the research published in Hofmann and & K.-U. Schrogl et al. (eds.), Cologne Commentary on Space Law Vol. II (pp.
Bergamasco (2018). 388–399). Heymanns Verlag GmbH.
JAXA (2018). Hayabusa Project: Science Data Archive. Retrieved from https://
darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/project/hayabusa.
Kelly, R. (2004). Nemitz v. United States, a case of first impression: appropri-
References
ation, private property rights and space law before the Federal Courts of the
Apking, A. G. (2005). The rush to develop space: the role of spacefaring United Sates. Journal of Space Law, 30, 297.
nations in forging environmental standards for the use of celestial bodies Kramer, W. R. (2014). Extraterrestrial environmental impact assessment – a
for governmental and private interests. Colorado Journal of International foreseeable prerequisite for wise decisions regarding outer space explor-
Environmental Law and Policy, 16, 429. ation, research and development. Space Policy, 30, 215–222.

https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.27 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Global Sustainability 7

Luxembourg Space Agency (2019a). Press Release Archive. Retrieved from UN COPUOS (2017a). Contribution from Belgium to the discussion under
https://space-agency.public.lu/en/news-media/press-release.html. UN COPUOS Legal Subcommittee on item ‘General exchange of views
Luxembourg Space Agency (2019b). Space Resources. Retrieved from https:// on potential legal models for activities in exploration, exploitation and util-
spaceresources.public.lu/en.html. ization of space resources’, UN Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/2017/CRP.19.
Lyall, F. (2010). Planetary protection from a legal perspective – general issues, UN COPUOS (2017b). Status of International Agreements relating to
in protecting the environment of celestial bodies. In IAA Cosmic Study: activities in outer space as at 1 January 2017, UN Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/
Protecting the Environment of Celestial Bodies (pp. 45–50). International 2017/CRP.7.
Academy of Astronautics (IAA). UN COPUOS (2018a). The Hague Space Resources Governance Working
Lyall, F. & Larsen, P. B. (2009). Space Law: A Treatise. Routledge. Group: Information provided by the Netherlands, UN Doc. A/AC.105/
Marboe, I. & Friedl, M. (2019). What are space resources? What are celestial bodies? C.2/2018/CRP.18.
– The need for refined legal definitions in view of recent regulatory efforts con- UN COPUOS (2018b). Questions and observations by Belgium on the estab-
cerning space resources. In P. J. Blount, R. Moro-Aguilar, T. Masson-Zwaan & lishment of national legal frameworks for the exploitation of space
K.-U. Schrogl (eds.), 2018 Proceedings of the IISL (pp. 749–760). Eleven. resources, UN Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/2018/CRP.8.
Mizushima, A., Fujii, K. & Ishido, S. (2017). What is an Appropriate UN COPUOS (2019a). Proposal for the establishment of a working group for
Interaction between International Law and Domestic Legal Systems to the development of an international regime for the utilization and exploit-
Promote Space Resources Development? Kluwer Law International BV. ation of space resources, UN Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L.311.
Planetary Resources (2018), About the Exploration Program. Retrieved from UN COPUOS (2019b). Status of International Agreements relating to activities
https://www.planetaryresources.com/missions/arkyd-301. in outer space as at 1 January 2019, A/AC.105/C.2/2019/CRP.3.
Roth, D. (1992). La prohibition de l’appropriation et les régimes d’accès aux UNOOSA (2019). National Space Law Collection. Retrieved from http://www.
espaces extra-terrestres, Graduate Institute Publications. unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/nationalspacelaw/index.html.
Russian Federation (1993). Decree No. 5663-1 of the Russian House of Soviets. United States (1970). 91 Pub. L. 190 (1970) codified at 42 U.S.C.4321et seq.
Russian Federation (2013). Document No. Pr-906, approved by the President United States (2015). US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, HR
of the Russian Federation on 19 April 2013. 2262.
Shouping, L. (2017). China. IISL Directorate of Studies, Background Paper. Volynskaja, O. (2016). Space resources exploitation from the international and
International Institute of Space Law. domestic law perspectives, the Russian approach. In Proceedings of the
The Hague Space Resources Working Group (2019). Building Blocks for the International Institute of Space Law (pp. 291–300). Eleven.
Development of an International Legal Framework on Space Resources von der Dunk, F. (2015). Handbook of Space Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Activities. Retrieved from https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/ von der Dunk, F. (2017). Asteroid mining: international and national legal
assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/instituut-voor-publiekrecht/lucht--en-ruimterecht/ aspects. Michigan State International Law Review, 26, 1.
space-resources/hisrgwg_building-blocks-for-space-resource-activities.pdf. Wall, M. (2015). Asteroid Mining May Be a Reality by 2025. Retrieved from https://
Tronchetti, F. (2014). Private property rights on asteroid resources: assessing www.space.com/30213-asteroid-mining-planetary-resources-2025.html.
the legality of the Asteroids Act. Space Policy, 30, 193–196. White, W. N. (2003). Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. In 46th
UN COPUOS (2008). Joint Statement on the benefits of adherence to the Proceedings of the Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space (pp. 171–188).
Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Eleven.
Celestial Bodies of 1979 by States Parties to that Agreement, UN Doc. Wright, G., Rochette, J., Blom, L., Currie, D., Durussel, C., Gjerde, K. &
A/AC.105/C.2/2008/CRP.11. Unger, S. (2016). High seas fisheries: what role for a new international
UN COPUOS (2016). Document on the 53rd Session of the Scientific and instrument? IDDRI Studies. Retrieved from http://publications.iass-
Technical Subcommittee of UN COPUOS, UN Doc. A/AC.105/C.1/2016/ potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1636893:9/component/escidoc:1636894/
CRP.15. 1636893.pdf.

https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.27 Published online by Cambridge University Press