France signed the “Artemis agreements” with the National Center for Space Studies on Tuesday. This was the 20th nation to join NASA’s lunar exploration program. These agreements establish the framework within which signatory countries will collaborate in exploration, exploitation, and use of Mars, the Moon, and other celestial bodies like asteroids, comets, and other celestial bodies.
The Artemis program is ambitious, admits it. It aims to return human beings from the Moon by 2025. Are the agreements France signed in accordance to the 1967 space treaty? This is one of the most important texts in space law. This treaty states, in essence, that “outer-space, including the Moon, and other celestial bodies shall not be subjected to national appropriation through claim of sovereignty nor by way of usage or occupation”. . The Artemis agreements allow for the possibility to delimit “safety areas” in order to avoid any “harmful interference” from a third party. This is especially important to ensure the protection of the exploitation and exploitation of natural resources.
Cecile Gaubert is a lawyer who specializes in space law.
Were the agreements and Artemis programs in violation of laws governing space exploration?
Because it is neither yes or no, the answer is complicated. Two parts of the Artemis Accords may be in conflict with the 1967 Outer Space Law Treaty, which raises questions. It concerns the creation of a safety zone and the exploitation resources. Article 2 of 1967 treaty states that outer space, which includes the Moon and other celestial bodies cannot be appropriated by national sovereignty by proclamation. This article establishes the principle that sovereignty cannot be extended to space or over celestial body.
Artemis Accords, however, establish Article 7 the principle of the possibility of establishing a security zone for the Moon to “avoid any harmful interference.” It is now unclear if the establishment of this security area is equivalent to a national takeover of a part of the Moon.
The 1967 treaty’s provisions are very vague. This leaves the space open for the states to interpret the terms.
Exactly. There is no clear answer. The Americans clearly claim that this isn’t an appropriation and that there is no sovereignty in this security area. They also state that it isn’t an occupation, and that Artemis agreements comply with the provisions of the treaty. This is the US interpretation, as well as all signatory countries to the agreements, including France which has ratified the 1967 treaty, and is therefore bound by its terms.
Is it possible that we will witness the exploitation lunar resources once humans step foot on the Moon’s surface?
This question concerns mainly certain gases and lunar resources that could be used after treatment to provide energy or to move satellites. We also have a 1979 moon accord, which prohibits the use of space resources. It has not been signed and ratified by France, nor have many others.
A 2015 amendment to the United States law specifically authorized the exploitation space resources. Two years later, Luxembourg was joined by the United Arab Emirates, three countries that had signed the Artemis agreements. Editor’s Note: There is still consensus to legalize and exploit space resources.
France has nothing in the texts on the subject except for our international commitments.
Is there a legal vacuum for space exploration?
Yes, this is why the Americans leapt into the fray. Because the future activities include the exploitation space resources. We can now declare that the activity is legal thanks to all the regulations, including the Moon agreement, 1967 treaty, and Artemis agreements. What would the penalties be if it wasn’t legal? Who could they be implemented? Is it the UN? The UN can’t impose sanctions on the United States, because American companies are using space resources… It is very unlikely that this issue will be addressed in a binding international document.
In space, every country will finally have the ability to do what they want…
Yes. And we can draw a parallel to space debris, which is an important topic today. There are more inactive satellites and launcher elements that remain in orbit, which cause damage and reenter into the atmosphere. This is a problem. There are no international “guidelines”, but there are recommendations. It is the States that put in place the necessary measures to prevent collisions and debris from being created.
