Regulatory recognition of commercial space flights

Ownership is more than the investment of the damaged space satellite and it should also include the liability of human life beyond Earth's atmosphere. Hence, the liability from injury by a service provider of flight wherever point in Space shall be cracked since even states aren't able to provide liability protection for non-astronauts. That is because most service travel space providers are American companies, and therefore the gap between international law, state, and federal laws might be solved under contractual terms and conditions. A relative study of the demand for the enactment of a special accomplishment about safety during human manned space flights could be carried out, similar to an extreme type of tourist activity, such as regulation of parachute jumps, high-altitude ascents to a mountain, etc.

The governance of private interests

The research delves into the discussion of property rights in space and argues that international space law is inadequate for the emergence of human-manned space flights necessitating a comprehensive overhaul. The research stresses that private companies are progressing faster than the existing legal framework and allows for requiring a governance foundation of ownership through revised laws before advancing human extra-terrestrial space exploration. Thus, the expansion of existing legislation by presenting special rules for property rights in space is necessary. The proposal further suggests that any nation, company, or individual should only be allowed to claim a portion of a celestial body that they can effectively control. Hence, there is a proposal to adopt a law on property rights in space with respect to three matters: (i) the first bloc discusses the concept of ownership in space, and (ii) the second bloc focuses on the relevant governance measures to celestial bodies.

The ownership approach

A substantial sight of Wrench [33, p. 460] for space law of how it approaches land ownership based on the prior appropriation doctrine: underlying land is available for use not because it is unowned but because it is owned by a community who has the right to make productive use of it. Because the community owns the land, claimants should use the land properly and the government is responsible for stewardship. This framing fits neatly with proponents of the idea that outer space is collectively owned by the international community. Regardless, stewardship and government ownership do not necessarily displace the potential for productive use. Parties do not violate the non-appropriation principle simply by extracting - or as here, diverting - resources from the land. At no point does extraction equate to a sovereign claim over the land. In instances where non-productive use or the like violates those principles, property rights disappear. Furthermore, the OST encourages the idea that outer space is to be used to benefit the broader international community. The prior appropriation doctrine illustrates that parties can establish and transfer robust property rights in resources independent from landownership while promoting beneficial use. At the same time, a less recognized challenge with the economic and legal management of a defined area is the concept of the anticommons [19, p. 19]. When there are too many owners holding rights of exclusion, the resource is prone to underuse--a tragedy of the anticommons [Ibid., 20]. We cannot characterize all of outer space and its various activities and usages as a single type of economic good that requires a single type of management structure [Ibid., 23].

The ambiguity in property space regulation creates challenges for future commercialization. The OST Art. VI opens the door for private companies, as it mentions international responsibility applying to non-governmental entities. The ownership operations during human-manned commercial space flights could potentially be attributed to commercial and private companies, including non-governmental ones.

Also, according to the OST Article II, outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, through use or occupation, or by any other means. Yet, the guide is the creation of unified rules for all formed activities involved in space resource extraction, allowing for future claims of ownership. The research is conditioning a rule about granting protection from interference with a claimed object to anyone who arrives on a space planet (with commercial interest) and/or resides there for a specific period (a year let's say). After this period, the person can return to Earth while retaining exclusive rights to appropriate resources and the ability to sell real property. This approach expects to encourage private space exploration. Accordingly, responsible ownership would mean the preservation of the accountability of states and commercial space flight activities would be limited by the responsibility of their sovereign entities.

According to the OST Art. VIII, ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data before their return. Hence, in the event of claim ownership concerning commercial space flights, there shall be in mind these stages:

1. Register the object with the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry it is accepted.

2. Land the object in outer space or on a celestial body through a commercial spaceflight provider or by obtaining the necessary permits and licenses for private space exploration from the State.

3. Verify evidence of ownership by providing records with descriptions that show your privilege to the thing of a claim.

4. Employ legal backing to compass the complexities involved in claiming ownership in outer space.

Also, the Moon Treaty in Art. 11 heightens the principle of nonappropriation by delivering that the moon shall not be subject to claims of sovereignty or occupation; and the structure of facilities or modules does not create any property right whatsoever in the adjacent area. Unlike the Outer Space Treaty, the prohibition to establish property rights on the surface or subsurface of the moon extends to non-governmental entities as well as natural persons [27, p. 219]. Notably, the Moon Agreement has only been signed by a few countries and fails to address the ownership rights of non-signatory nations. This situation enables companies from non-member countries to make claims of full ownership over lunar resources. Accordingly, tangible and intangible space ownership is crucial in formulating space law. The proposal suggests classifying spacecraft and satellites as movable property, while lunar bases or sections of celestial real estate would be considered immovable property. However, categorizing celestial bodies such as planets, asteroids, and comets is more challenging due to their inherent movement. Regardless, von der Dunk [34, pp. 90-91] noted about interesting condition that the Moon Agreement itself already excludes from its scope extraterrestrial materials that reach the surface of the earth by natural means. While resources extracted by mining companies do not reach the surface of the Earth by natural means, the distinction already made here between celestial bodies and extraterrestrial materials is noteworthy. The asteroids targeted by the space mining companies would likely be magnitudes smaller in size than the celestial bodies usually addressed under that heading, such as the Moon and planets. Landing on a celestial body would constitute a rather different mission than landing on an asteroid, which may come much closer to capturing extraterrestrial materials. The distinction made in the Moon Agreement may provide further justification for the argument that the prohibition of celestial bodies under Art. II of the Outer Space Treaty does not extend to extraterrestrial materials, the latter also referring to something magnitudes smaller than the classic celestial bodies.

The research goes further and points out an influential relationship between the state from which the spacecraft was launched and the state procuring the launch. This assembles a dual crisis when companies drive a domain territory to transmit people to space, as the state can be held liable for losses even if it does not have ownership or rights to the object. This lets companies exploit the territory and evade the greatest responsibility. And, the outcome is a situation where the vehicle owner and satellite operator are from different states. In such models, a contract between the parties may not play a significant role in claims against the state by third parties. This raises the option of a design where an operator provider from State A offers a satellite owned by an organization from State B, which is registered in State C. If impairment materializes on the territory of State C, both States A and B are jointly answerable. However, if damage happens to State C spacecraft in orbit, liability is determined by fault.

The state orientation of international space law as a juncture of departure for the international legal regime for private spaceflight is also reacted by the concept of state liability, as per Art. VII of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. The former law already provided for state liability for damage caused by space objects attaching to a state fundamentally involved in the launch of the space object in question. To assume, the registered space object is the main link for the onset of liability and the choice of the correct settlement. This is also important since this mode depends on the type of vehicle itself, which is applicable either for suborbital human-manned commercial flights with non-astronauts or for space flights in general. Another instance, this one of speculative nature, can be offered to better exemplify the issue of obtaining exclusionary rights on an orbital route [Ibid., p. 239]. The AMC-14 Satellite case showed that orbital patents may be leveraged to restrain competitor activities and that their powers may extend beyond the realm of the patent law [Ibid., p. 241]. Therefore, antitrust might be another device to avoid or rectify the consequences of de facto orbital appropriation through patents [Ibid.].

Asteroid mining claims

Diagnosing the activities of commercial space companies from a legal perspective and categorizing it as a non-governmental activity and permissible under UN Treaties, - it is crucial not to solely concentrate on this specific type of activity, but also look at the interest in asteroid mining. Commercial asteroid mining is private, profit-driven in character, and arguably distinguishable from the more wholly scientific objectives of sovereign space agencies like NASA [35, pp. 203-204]. For instance, the policies of Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries align with the prospecting, processing, harvesting, and manufacturing course. In this regard, the critical questions are: If manned space resources are obtained, does this mean that all the resources acquired by a company should be shared on the world market? Or should commercial companies be required to share the profits derived from these resources?

There is the essence of the private sector in the ownership of asteroid resources and, accordingly, there is a proposal about fixed percentage division. Asteroid mining is perhaps a more fleeting occupation than a permanent colony, but if the asteroid mining industry becomes a fully mobilized component of the new space economy, the degree of extraction and use would far exceed the scattered lunar samples in terms of volume, making those a tenuous precedent upon which to rely [Ibid., 193]. The viability of asteroid mining depends on a space economy to which asteroid mining companies can sell fuel and metals: the lack of a current market in asteroid resources should resolve itself when the space population hits critical mass, demanding infrastructure [Ibid.]. Accordingly, several authors have extensively discussed the sale of space resources to other space actors by companies such as Planetary Resources, Deep Space Industries, Shackleton Energy, iSpace, and Kepler Energy and Space Engineering LLC [36, p. 10]. These companies are intending to explore and exploit asteroid resources primarily driven by the commercial harvesting of valuable materials such as iron, nickel, platinum, and water, which can be sold on

Earth. These resources, which have no Earthly analogy possess potential value in electronic and life support systems in outer space, and attract significant interest from companies. For example, Planetary Resources have created 3 different types of satellites i.e. the Arkyd Space Telescope Series, with each satellite contributing at a different stage in the process [37, p. 89]. Yet, as claims reduce the number of available near-Earth asteroids, and asteroids in the asteroid belt remain too costly to reach, competition will increase as investors remove their rose-tinted glasses and see that it will not be easy to make a phenomenal profit [38, p. 16]. As vessel payload capacities will be known, the volume of resources that are transferred back to Earth, as well as their approximate market values, could likely be estimated with reasonable accuracy [32, p. 254]. There is thus only limited scope for operators to shirk their obligation to share parts of their realized commercial profits without being found to be in noncompliance [Ibid.].

The point put forth is that while the Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits countries from appropriating these resources, it does not extend the same rule to private entities. It is because the law regarding the extraction of space resources is largely seen as analogous to the law of the high seas, which allows international waters to be fished and its seabed to be mined [Ibid., p. 11]. However, the potential illegality of asteroid mining according to international space law discourages participation in this new venture due to supplemented risk and uncertainty. Regardless, Heins [38, p. 17] provides insights that asteroid mining, like traditional mining, would allow for claim jumping to occur, just a slightly different version. In the context of asteroid mining, claim jumpers could still use force to either destroy or knock off mining operations from asteroids. Likewise, one could begin mining an asteroid that had a rival mining operation on it already, thus decreasing the available resources for the original party that laid the claim. While this action could be seen as simply economic competition, it might also qualify as claim jumping. Claim jumping has been illegal since at least the California Gold Rush and the practice should be no less illegal in outer space. Assuming an organization had legally claimed the asteroid, a conflict would occur if another party also began mining the same asteroid. The newcomer would be illegally violating the founding party's claim and decreasing the available resources for the founding party. This would diminish the economic incentive to mine asteroids if the legal claim to an area could be usurped by any other party's arrival. As even scattered reports of claim jumping would spread, organizations would likely feel the need to protect their investments.

Hereinafter, it is visible the model to adjust the utilization of natural space resources during commercial space flights by enforcing the US

General Mining Law of 1872. This law grants property rights not only to the extracted subsurface resources but also to adjacent property. Consequently, the successful claimant must:

1. For mining claims, demonstrate a physical exposure of a valuable (commercial) mineral deposit (the discovery) as defined by meeting the Department Prudent Man Rule and Marketability Test.

2. For mill sites, show proper use or occupancy for uses to support a mining operation and be located on non-mineral land.

3. Have a clear title to the mining claim (lode or placer) or mill site.

4. Have assessment work and/or maintenance fees current and performed at least $500 worth of improvements (not labor) for each claim (not required for mill sites).

5. Meet the requirements of the Department's regulations for mineral patenting as shown in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 3861, 3862, 3863, and 3864.

6. Pay the required processing fees and purchase price for the land applied for.

It is important to recognize that the Mining Law would not cover each unique feature of an asteroid mining law [39, p. 165]. Two of the more obvious additional considerations are a provision codifying the commonlaw doctrine of possession and a more detailed definition of the scope of minerals covered by the asteroid mining law [Ibid., p. 166]. On the other side, international law relies on cooperation among states, for treaties do not even become law unless countries choose to bind themselves to it [40, p. 668]. When one nation acts unilaterally, absent any sort of agreement, it could lead to conflict [Ibid.].

According to the first block, the posed idea is to incorporate the principle of first possession into legislation granting ownership and associated rights to those who first explore and claim a territory, yet, there shall be an indication to redefine the legal concept of asteroids from celestial organs to movable property (chattel) to prevent private companies from smoothly commandeering sovereignty over land plots. This would help prevent conflicts arising from disputes among companies from different countries fighting for resource supremacy. In the context, for instance, the US national regulation, the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, specifically Title IV, is dedicated to Space Resource Exploration and Utilization. By comparing this act with the Outer Space Treaty, the research has identified key aspects regarding the value of asteroids in the ruling of human-manned space flights. Firstly, there is a prohibition on the appropriation and commercial colonization of celestial bodies. Secondly, it is ambiguous wording `benefit of mankind' and its potential variation due to commercial operations. Thirdly, the issue of liability materializes. To whom will these companies be held accountable? Is it reasonable to adhere to national legislation when space resources should be seen as the collective business of all humanity? The concern is that if further nationalization occurs, international space law may lose its relevance in governing space activities, potentially leading to international conflicts and political disputes over territories. Hence, it is urgent to make changes to international space law that would affect the legality of such governance and provide the necessary safeguards.

Finally, the study forecasts various approaches to private property management that may prevail in outer space, including the right of first possession, tradable development rights, and asteroid mining systems. Competing interests, coupled with the lack of uniform regulation, would likely prompt private entities to develop defense strategies - because of the heightened need to deter interference from other actors - and cause other entities to do the same [38, p. 19]. As a result, private companies might discourage potential attackers by building up their offensive and defensive capabilities and possibly going so far as to retaliate against others if interference ultimately occurred [Ibid.]. Hence, the research underlines the need for strong management supervision to prevent the exploitation of space resources, misappropriation, and conflicts arising from contentious actions by participants of commercial space flights, thereby ensuring fairness and justice. The defined course would involve allocating specific sites, resources, and production schedules to each country, promoting fairness in resource exploitation by both states and private entities while imposing limitations.

Conclusions

While outer space is not a lawless frontier, activities in space are not strictly supervised or policed [28, p. 53]. Hence, the emergence of commercial space flights has created a need for reasonable regulation for peaceful sharing. While the three rights (free access, exploration, and service of outer space) give States a wide ambit for activities in space, they are not unlimited [37, p. 94]. Therefore, there is a demand to balance the different approaches to appropriate regulation by the relevancy of norms to regulate commercial space flights effectively and shall be regarded by analogy to contractual relationships. There are several key aspects that regulatory courses on contractual solutions should address to restrain commercial space flights. Firstly, it is crucial to safeguard the legitimate interests of parties and define property rights affirmations. Secondly, it is important to take a longterm contract view and consider the development of terms and conditions relevant to the conditions of commercial space flights and rights posed and demark commercial interests throughout the entire partnership process and place liability weights. The benefits of cooperation can be maximized by guaranteeing an efficient resource portion. Also, the full utilization of the space domain, including asteroids, natural space resources, and the moon, should be pursued with the well-being interests of all nations in mind. While some states may not directly benefit from the partnership, in the long run, such teamwork can be advantageous for all partakers involved.

The study underscores the matter of contractual collaboration to govern the increasing wave of space commercialization and privatization due to the weakness of international space law shielding the exclusive settlement of commercial space flight and the risk of relevancy loss. Thus, the author shows expectations that, for instance, the contract between the commercial space flight operator and carrier service, commercial space flight service provider and participants, etc., would move on consent annex, rights, liability, compensation, insurance, disciplinary policies, and else relevant assessments. However, it is worth noting that many non-space countries face limitations in penetrating areas of interest due to technological and regulatory impediments. This might interfere with the headway of sustainable regulation. Accordingly, an uncoerced and comparable international alliance is critical to stimulate the all-around participation of the representatives from the international community and the development of encyclopedic state-of-the-art for an inclusive ruling of space tourism. Here, it is essential to prioritize a contractual model that protects rights, documents the way out from predictable and nonpredictable risks, effectively assigns resources, and lets the participation of all citizens in the domain of space evolution under the sameness approach.

The contractual regulatory course posed by the author has foreknew a relevant key since it specifies the perimeter of governance for contractors, subcontractors, and clients, trusting the track of commercial space flights activity and aids the transparent understanding about from whom to ask for the liability (with further clauses, for example, a waiver of liability as a prerequisite of its consensus with the space tourist) as well as the respective rights and obligations under the designations of the contractual conditioning would theoretically unravel specific circumstances that international space law worthless to fix but strong enough to drag fundamentalism for a mutual pact in developing distinctive contacts. In addition, given the private contractual nature - between the operator and the tourist - by which most space tourism activities will take place, it is highly likely that carefully crafted exclusion of liability clauses for death and injury will be included in the space tourism services agreement, although the domestic law principles in each State will dictate the extent to which such provisions might be enforceable [30, p. 280]. Hence, as with all space activities, a careful balancing of interests is required in determining whether, and if so, to what extent the space tourism operator should be required to pay for the privilege of conducting that commercial business, recognizing also that any such costs will inevitably flow down and be passed onto the customer in the contract price [Ibid., 282].

References

1. Benko, M.E., Zickler, A., & Rohn, G. (2015). Space Tourism: Facts and Fiction. ZLW, 64, Jg. 1, 50-53. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309375622_ Space_Tourism _Facts_and_Fiction.

2. Dunk von der, F.G. (2011). Space Tourism, Private Spaceflight, and the Law: Key Aspects. Space Policy, 27(3), 146-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2011.04.015.

3. Clayton, E.M, Christensen, C. B, & Smith, P. (2017). The Global Launch Industry: Progress and Evolution, Recent Successful Satellite Systems: Visions of the Future. Reston VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from https://dokumen.tips/documents/global-space-industry-dynamics-web-view-global-space-industry-dynamics-research.html?page=1.

4. Lits, M., et al. (2017). International Space Law. BRICS law Journal, 4(2), 135-155. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-2-135-155.

5. Francot-Timmermans, L., & Vries de, U. (2013). Eyes Wide Shut: On Risk, Rule of Law and Precaution. Ratio Juris, 26(2), 282-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12014.

6. Kuluyev, I., & Khalilov, Z. (2014). Prospects of Legal Regulation of Space Tourism in International Space Law. Legal Bulletin, 30(1), 21-26.

7. Jonckheere, E. (2018). The Privatization of Outer Space and the Consequences for Space Law. Department of European, Public and International Law. Ghent University.

8. Hertzfeld, H.R., Weeden, B.J., & Christopher, D. (2016). Outer Space: Ungoverned or Lacking Effective Governance? New Approaches to Managing Human Activities in Space. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, 36(2), 15-28. https://doi. org/10.1353/sais.2016.0017.

9. Mountin, S.M. (2014). The Legality and Implications of International Interference with Commercial Communication Satellite Signals. International Law Studies, 90(101), 103-196.

10. Wheeler, J. (2012). Managing Space: International Space Law and Prospective Reforms. Harvard International Review, 33(4), 60-66.

11. Bohenc, E. (2013). International Space Law: Legal aspects of Exploiting Outer Space. Evropska Pravna Fakulteta V Novi Gorici, Diplomsko delo.

12. Morris, P. (2018). Space Mining, Space Law, and Why No State Can Boldly Go Forth Alone. University of Amsterdam.

13. Santos, C., & Rapp, L. (2019). Satellite Imagery, Very High-Resolution, and Processing-Intensive Image Analysis: Potential Risks Under the GDPR. Air & Space Law, 44(3), 275-295. Retrieved from https://blogs.alternatives-economiques.fr/reseauinnovation/2019/12/13/l-espace-d-innovations-de-la-nasa-a-jeff-bezos.

14. Meyer, Z. (2010). Private Commercialization of Space in an International Regime: a Proposal for a Space District. Northwestern Journal of international law & Business, 30(1), 241-261. Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/ njilb/vol30/iss1/8.

15. Simmonds, A. (2019). The Space Industry Act 2018: a giant leap? Coventry Law Journal, 24(2), 95-104. Retrieved from https://publications.coventry.ac.uk/index.php/clj/ article/view/809/903.

16. Pastorius, C. (2013). Law and Policy in the Global Space Industry' Lift-Off. Barry Law Review, 19(1), 201-247. Retrieved from https://lawpublications.barry.edu/barrylrev/vol19/iss1/7.

17. Fitzgerald, P.P. (2017). Intercontinental Space Flight: Learning from the Concorde. Air & Space Law, 42(6), 583-600. https://doi.org/10.54648/AILA2017041.

18. Masson-Zwaan, T., & Freeland, S. (2010). Between Heaven and Earth: The Legal Challenges of Human Space Travel. Acta Astronautica, 66(11), 1597-1607. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.12.015.

19. Dempsey, P.S. (2016). National Laws Governing Commercial Space Activities: Legislation, Regulation, Enforcement. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 36(1), 1-44. Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/ vol36/iss1/1.

20. The Stratosphere. (2009). Center for Science Education. Retrieved from https://scied. ucar.edu/shortcontent/stratosphere-overview.

21. Matignon Gouvon, Louis de. (March 5, 2019). Space Tourism Legal Aspects. Space Legal Issues, 5.

22. Weeks, E. (2012). Outer Space Development, International Relations and Space Law a Method for Elucidating Seeds. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

23. Goehring, J.S. (2018). Properly Speaking, the United States Does Have an International Obligation to Authorize and Supervise Commercial Space Activity. The Air Force Law Review, 78, 101-123. Retrieved from https://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/ properly-speaking-the-united-790197305.

24. Feichtner, I. (2019). Mining for Humanity in the Deep Sea and Outer Space: The Role of Small States and International Law in the Extraterritorial Expansion of Extraction. Leiden Journal of International Law, 32(2), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0922156519000013.

25. Larsen, Paul B. (2019). Outer Space: How Shall the World's Governments Establish Order Among Competing Interests? Washington International Law Journal, 29(1), 1-60. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol29/iss1/3.

26. Hardenstein, Taylor S. (2016). In Space, No One Can Hear You Contest Jurisdiction: Establishing Criminal Jurisdiction of the Outer Space Colonies Tomorrow. The Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 81(2), 251-290. Retrieved from https://scholar.smu. edu/jalc/vol81/iss2/4.

27. Avveduto, Rosario. (2019). Past, Present, and Future of Intellectual Property in Space: Old Answers to New Questions. Washington International Law Journal, 29(1), 203246. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol29/iss1/7.

28. Alshamsi, H., Balleste, R., & Hanlon, M.L.D. (2018). As the Gr As the Grapefruit T apefruit Turns Sixty urns Sixty, It's Time t s Time to Get Serious About Clean o Get Serious About Clean Up in Outer Space. The Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 83(1), 45-66. Retrieved from https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol83/iss1/3.

29. Betankande av Rymdlagsutredningen, Report SOU 2021:91. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/c2ce7f4fc880452dab862faff6135136/ en-ny-rymdlag-sou-202191/.

30. Freeland, S., & Martin, A.-S. (2022). A Round Trip to the Stars?: Considerations for the Regulation of Space Tourism. Air and Space Law, 47(2), 261-284. https://doi. org/10.54648/AILA2022014.

31. Linden, D. (2016). The Impact of National Space Legislation on Private Space Undertakings: Regulatory Competition vs. Harmonization. Journal of Science Policy & Governance, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/ uploads/5/4/3/4/5434385/ linden_nationalspacelegislation.pdf.

32. Butkeviciene, E., & Rabitz, F. (2022). Sharing the Benefits of Asteroid Mining. Global Policy, 13(2), 247-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13035.

33. Wrench, J.G. (2019). Non-Appropriation, No Problem: the Outer Space Treaty is Ready for Asteroid Mining. Case Western Reserve Journal of international law, 51(1), 437462. Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol51/iss1/11.

34. Dunk von der, Frans G. (2018). Asteroid Mining: International and National Legal Aspects, Michigan State International Law Review, 26(1), 83-102. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=spacelaw.

35. Heise, Jack (2018). Space, the Final Frontier of Enterprise: Incentivizing Asteroid Mining Under a Revised International Framework, Michigan Journal of International Law, 40(1), 189-213. Retrieved from https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol40/iss1/5.

36. Sundahl, Mark J. (2019). Business, Legal, and Policy Issues in Relation to Increased Private Space Activity. Law Facuty Articles and Essays, Cleveland State University, 971, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.76.

37. Ganatra, D., & Modi, N. (2015). Asteroid Mining and its Legal Implications. Journal of Space Law, 40(1-2), 81-104. Retrieved from https://airandspacelaw.olemiss.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/07/JSL-40.12.pdf.

38. Heins, R. (2021). Shoot for the Moon, If You Miss You'll Land Among Valuable Asteroids: An Analysis of the Legal Ramifications of Asteroid Mining. Jurimetrics (Chicago, Ill.), 61(2), 219-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3743074.

39. Shaw, Lauren E. (2013). Asteroids, the New Western Frontier: Applying Principles of the General Mining Law of 1872 to Incentivize Asteroid Mining, Journal of Air Law & Commerce, 78(1), 121-172. Retrieved from https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol78/iss1/2.

40. MacWhorter, K. (2016). Sustainable Mining: Incentivizing Asteroid Mining in the Name of Environmentalism. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 40 (11), 645-676. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol40/iss2/11.

Размещено на Allbest.ru