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 RedfordAs 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. --------