From: utzoo!decvax!cca!VLSI@DEC-MARLBORO@sri-unix
Newsgroups: net.space
Title: re: space law
Article-I.D.: sri-unix.2383
Posted: Sun Aug  1 18:36:09 1982
Received: Mon Aug  2 03:31:21 1982

From: John Redford 
As I understand it, the US rejected the Law of the Sea treaty because
of the provisions about sharing the income from seabed mining operations
with the Third World.  This was thought to be both unfair and a disincentive
to the mining companies.  However, the proponents of the treaty argued 
that it was even more unfair for any one nation to benefit exclusively
from resources which they had no prior claim to.  And mining companies
might be even more reluctant to undertake major programs in a
complete legal vacuum.  The technology for dredging up manganese nodules
from the deep sea floor is not cheap.  Suppose that while you are
working in the North Atlantic England suddenly extends her territorial
waters to cover your area, sends in its own harvesters, and politely
evicts you.  What do you do? Call in the Marines?
   The same argument applies to space resources.  Say that both the
US and Japan find a precious lode of ice on the Moon.  Who gets it?
The ones who can hole the others spacesuits?  A businessman would be mad
to invest in an operation without a legal framework for orderly
development.  Such a framework must be agreed upon internationally, and
that means that we must pay attention to other countries' interests.
If their demands are unreasonable, well then let's negotiate that.
It's not as if there's any rush about the issues.  But doing without a
treaty would surely kill civilian development of space.
   --------