If Space is ‘the Province of Mankind’, Who Owns its Resources? - ORF Occasional Paper, January 2019

My first substantial publication for the year is on space mining, examining the legal angles to this emerging issue. Senjuti Mallick and I have co-authored an ORF Occasional Paper titled, "If Space is ‘the Province of Mankind’, Who Owns its Resources?: An Examination of the Potential of Space Mining and its Legal Implications," where we analyse the rationale for extraterrestrial mining, as well as the efforts and responses of various countries—i.e, USA, Luxembourg, Russia, China and India. In examining the legal and governance basis for States and commercial players, this paper appreciates the economic benefits of space mining but argues against the national legislations legalising extraterrestrial appropriation of resources due to inconsistency with international treaties and customary international law. It further argues that the concept of “common heritage of mankind” is defeated in the light of such legal frameworks. The paper ponders the global governance challenges brought about by space mining activities and suggests legal, policy and global frameworks for realising the benefits of commercial mining without creating disparity between nations and disrupting dynamics of the world economy.

INTRODUCTION
June 2018 marked the golden jubilee of the first United Nations (UN) Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, held in
Vienna in 1968. It also marked 51 years of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967. Today, what was once fodder for cosmological science fiction
has become reality, owing to outer-space innovations that have happened in the last half a century. Unlike the lunar missions of the past,
contemporary explorations are led mostly by private-sector entities eager to capitalise on the potential of extracting resources in outer space.
How plausible is extraterrestrial mining—is it a long-term proposition or more of a fantasy? And what challenges are facing those engaged in
space mining?

Soon after a bill was signed increasing the 2018 budget for NASA (the US’ National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Senator Ted Cruz said, “I’ll make a prediction right now—the first trillionaire will be made in space.” The question is, however, how those trillionaires will make their riches from space. Both Peter Diamandis (founder of the Google Lunar XPrize competition) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (US astrophysicist) suggest that the financial returns are to be made from mining/ asteroids.

Indeed, the economic imperative for space mining is evident and analysts predict that these extraction activities could translate to a multibillion-dollar industry. NASA estimates, for example, that the value of asteroids out there could be in the vicinity of US$700 quintillion – that amount is roughly equivalent to US$95 billion for each of us here on Earth. Another major attraction for the prospective extraterrestrial mining companies is the availability of precious minerals in abundance on the Moon, on Mars and the asteroids (among them—lithium, cobalt,
nickel, copper, zinc, niobium, molybdenum, lanthanum, europium, tungsten, and gold). After all, these metals and mineral resources have
grown scarce on Earth, and both governments and commercial actors are pushing to look to celestial bodies for resources.

This paper examines the legal and governance basis for States and commercial players to undertake space mining activities. It does not,
however, cover the technical aspects of space mining; that is a separate field by itself. The first section discusses the rationale for different stakeholders in undertaking extraterrestrial mining. So far, the countries most eager and making the most active preparations for space mining are the US and—surprisingly, as it has not been typically a spacefaring nation—Luxembourg. This section will detail these efforts as well as those of other countries planning to follow the path being paved by these two. The second section then examines the legal basis for space mining, covering provisions of national and international law. The subsequent section looks at the global policy discourse responses from other governments to proposals and preparations for space mining, primarily Russia and China. The paper concludes by summarising the global
governance challenges that are brought about by space mining activities.

For the full paper, please click here.



Type rest of the post here

India’s Libya Shame Will Haunt It ... my piece in The Diplomat on India's Libya vote last year ....

Here's a piece published yesterday in the Diplomat on India's Libya vote -- the merits and demerits of it and how it has affected its own standing in global affairs.

Last March, India abstained in a vote over enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya, a move that ultimately signaled the beginning of the end for Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. A year later, though, and it’s clear that India gained little from the move – and may actually have done itself some considerable diplomatic harm in the process.



Of course, India has since (reluctantly) voted for a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Syria, and it’s abstention (along with China) ended up meaning little in the grand scheme of intervention in Libya – European assistance to Libyan rebels still changed the balance of power in the conflict, and paved the way for the Libyan rebels to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. And, although Libya is far from stable, the rebels’ eventual victory to a certain extent negated any immediate harm that might have come from India’s reticence.

And yet it’s clear that India’s vote will have long-term consequences for the country’s strategic standing.

As the world’s largest democracy, India should have key advantages in dealing with the turmoil resulting from the Arab Spring. India’s status as a large yet stable developing country without some of the baggage of Western countries should have left it well-placed to offer guidance and exercise some “soft power” in these tumultuous times. Yet India clearly missed the boat. Indeed, far from being a role model, India decided to side with authoritarian states such as China and Russia, in seeming opposition to the democratic revolutions reflecting values that India claims to uphold.

Second, though not all of these democratic movements have succeeded, the spread of democracy in the Middle East is clearly something that will boost the prospects for stability in the medium and long term. India might be uncomfortable with the idea of “democracy promotion,” something that’s easy to understand. But India’s actions surrounding the Arab Spring have made India look as if it is standing against the spread of democracy itself. India’s abstention over Libya might not have impeded progress in the end, but it did nothing at all to help, and left it complicit in efforts to crack down.

Third, India’s abstention and its only reluctant support in the Syrian case have won it no friends in the capitals of the world’s democracies. Even if India’s reluctance to assist in the spread of an ideology is well-known, Western capitals were surprised by a vote that actually impeded its spread. Ironically, India’s “moral” position ended up hurting India’s own moral standing in the international community.

The Libyan vote was a particular disappointment to India’s friends in the United States. The U.S. remains an important strategic partner for India, but the decision over Libya was embarrassing to those in Washington who have championed closer ties. All this has only been compounded by India’s softly-softly approach to Iran. As a result, there are increasing doubts in Washington about the value of the partnership with New Delhi.

What is particularly problematic about the Libya decision is that India failed to support action that was backed by the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). It was also action that would have come under the U.N. umbrella, sending a signal to other countries, including in India’s own troubled neighborhood, that India expects other nations to adhere to certain universal principles. This might have prevented India having to vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations recently – had it seen its giant neighbor backing U.N. action in Libya, Colombo might have thought twice about its resistance to addressing its treatment of its Tamil minority in the closing days of its civil war. And Delhi would also have looked more consistent, appearing to use a similar yardstick when measuring the severity of human rights violations. Instead, the United Progressive Alliance government ended up looking like it was playing domestic politics and buckling under pressure from Tamil political parties at home.

A year on, and it’s clear that India’s decision to step aside over Libya gained it little, and may have done significant damage to its international standing. If Delhi is to meet its aspirations of becoming a significant regional, let alone global, player then it needs to think more carefully about the message its positions send.

India might not want to promote democracy. But at the very least, it shouldn’t stand in its way.