[FPSPACE] Sovereignty on the Moon?

[Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz]

There is an important distinction between the star registry and the 
companies "selling" lunar plots. The star registry has always had a 
disclaimer that said the "registry" was for entertainment purposes 
and that they could not guarantee that the name they registered would 
be officially accepted. They made clear you were purchasing a novelty 
item that looked beautiful in a frame on your wall. There was no such 
disclaimer by the lunar plot "sellers". They represented they were, 
in fact, selling actual lunar plots.  They further represented that, 
according to their interpretation of international space law, they 
had the authority to sell the plots.  In one case, however, after two 
of its "agents" were arrested, one in Canada, the other in China, 
their website changed and began to include a similar disclaimer.


At 11:24 -0400 07/05/2009, Peter Pesavento wrote:
>Does that mean that those companies selling lunar real estate plots 
>are doing so illegally?  Does that mean people who have bought 
>tracts of land on the Moon were relieved of their money by con 
>artists?  That the pieces of paper declaring that they own lunar 
>land are worthless?
>
>Could we lump in those organizations that sell you a star name for a 
>fee?  (I don't think that they are recognized by any international 
>body.)
>
>I think we can say yes to all of this.
>
>That's what I suspected from the get go, since there are a number of 
>laws on the books about that-Moon treaty, etc.
>
>But it's similar to those who follow entertainer/talk show host Rush 
>Limbaugh here in the States-if one doesn't do one's homework, you 
>can be had.  Royally.
>
>
>From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org 
>[mailto:fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org] On Behalf Of 
>MattWriter at aol.com
>Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:52 AM
>To: jameseoberg at comcast.net; fpspace at friends-partners.org
>Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] Sovereignty on the Moon?
>
>Been there, discussed that. The OST is explicit about no national 
>ownership or sovereignty (and that includes corporate or private 
>ownership, since people and companies are extensions of their parent 
>nation.)  No one seriously wants to reopen the OST. The use of land 
>for a scientific base has always been understood as ok.  Resource 
>extraction, beyond the resources needed to run the base, is dicey 
>even if you discount the Moon Treaty, which doesn't have enough 
>signatories to be legally effective. I understand the economic logic 
>of allowing certain classes of ownership, but it's not going to 
>happen.
>
>Matt Bille
>
>
>**************
>Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. 
>(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
>
>_______________________________________________
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace


-- 
Prof. Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, Director
National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Space Law
Res Communis Aerospace Law Blog
The University of Mississippi School of Law
P.O.Box 1848
University, MS 38677-1848
jgabryno at olemiss.edu
Voice: (662) 915-6877
Fax: (662) 915- 6921
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20090507/75ad3535/attachment.html