U.S. space policy: An international model—Response

doi:10.1126/science.abf4916

GSTDTAP > 气候变化

DOI	10.1126/science.abf4916
	U.S. space policy: An international model—Response
	Aaron Boley; Michael Byers
	2020-11-27
发表期刊	Science
出版年	2020
英文摘要	We agree with Gilbert et al. that “environmental management and standards are essential to space mining.” However, we do not agree that national legislation is sufficient for regulating space mining, nor do we inherently expect national laws to help “facilitate sustainable space mining innovation.” In the case of terrestrial mining, differing national laws and regulations, along with weak enforcement, have led to human rights abuses, environmental damage, and adverse health impacts, particularly in the Global South. National regulation of space activity with little to no international involvement has already led to a low Earth orbit debris crisis ([ 1 ][1], [ 2 ][2]), which will likely be exacerbated by the construction of mega-constellations of communications satellites, again under national regulation ([ 3 ][3]). Gilbert et al. argue that the Artemis Accords set the stage for global cooperation and access to space resources for all countries, but these bilateral agreements with just seven close U.S. allies have so far left out the vast majority of nations. The four treaties that make up the core of international space law, to which Gilbert et al. positively refer, were negotiated through a multilateral process. The U.S. approach leaves out Russia, China, and India—all powerful space actors. As for deep seabed mining, the greatest challenge has not been multilateralism, but prohibitively high costs. So far, the International Seabed Authority created under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has issued exploratory contracts for over 1.3 million square kilometers of the high seas ([ 4 ][4]). Sundahl focuses exclusively on the Artemis Accords without acknowledging the multiple components we discussed that now make up U.S. Space Policy, including the September 2020 announcement that NASA would purchase lunar regolith from a private company. Such a purchase would set a precedent for the U.S. view that commercial space mining is legal—a view not supported by most other nations. Our Policy Forum examines the concerted U.S. effort to secure widespread acceptance of the U.S. preferred interpretation of space law as the international interpretation of space law. We are pleased that NASA partner states ultimately chose not to make the Artemis Accords legally binding. As explicitly non-binding political documents, their effect on existing international law will be limited. At the same time, this means that—legally speaking—the United States might continue to act unilaterally in space, for instance, by pursuing the planned purchase of regolith. Although the Accords make multiple references to an eventual multilateral process, this is not guaranteed and would take place against the backdrop of any U.S. unilateralism. As for the safety zones foreseen in the Artemis Accords, we appreciate that the zones are only meant to be advisory; however, notifying the United Nations of any such zone will have no legitimizing effect in the absence of a multilateral regime for space mining. It also raises the question of how China and other spacefaring nations might regard any safety zones that they choose to establish, now that the United States has opened this door. 1. [↵][5]NASA, Orbital Debris Program Office (). 2. [↵][6]1. J.-C. Liou, 2. N. L. Johnson , Adv. Space Res. 41, 1046 (2008). [OpenUrl][7] 3. [↵][8]1. J. O'Callaghan , “SpaceX's Starlink could cause cascades of space junk,” Scientific American (2019). 4. [↵][9]1. M. Lodge , “The International Seabed Authority and deep seabed mining,” UN Chronicle ([www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/international-seabed-authority-and-deep-seabed-mining][10]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAdv.%2BSpace%2BRes.%26rft.volume%253D41%26rft.spage%253D1046%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [9]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [10]: http://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/international-seabed-authority-and-deep-seabed-mining
领域	气候变化 ; 资源环境
URL	查看原文
引用统计
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/304862
专题	气候变化资源环境科学
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Aaron Boley,Michael Byers. U.S. space policy: An international model—Response[J]. Science,2020.
APA	Aaron Boley,&Michael Byers.(2020).U.S. space policy: An international model—Response.Science.
MLA	Aaron Boley,et al."U.S. space policy: An international model—Response".Science (2020).