Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Property Rights pp 275–301Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Space Environmentalism, Property Rights, and the Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism ((PASTCL))

Abstract

A considerable body of academic literature exists on the subject of space law, despite the fact that very few human beings have ever been to outer space, and substantial presence beyond the earth’s orbit still seems to be in the rather distant future. Among those proposing detailed, centralized regulatory regimes for a realm that so far has little, if any, need for them are anti-market environmentalists who, not content to attend merely to the earth’s pollution problems, are concerned about the possible future pollution of the moon and other celestial bodies such as Mars. This article considers the ideas of these individuals—whom we will call socialist space environmentalists—and rejects them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Others have been more optimistic about the rate of growth in outer-space activities. See, for example, Amanda L. Moore & Jerry V. Leaphart, Manipulation and Modification of the Outer Space Environment: International Legal Considerations, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 15, 17 (1982) (“Experts assure that lunar surface mining can be accomplished in the near term future defined as no later than 2000 A.D. and perhaps as soon as 1990.”).

  2. 2.

    We include this modifier on the ground that some environmentalists favor private property rights and free enterprise. In our view, “free market environmentalism” is not a contradiction in terms. See Terry L. Anderson & Donald R. Leal, Free Market Environmentalism (1991); Walter Block, Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights, 17 J. Bus. Ethics 1887 (1998); Walter Block, Environmental Problems, Private Property Rights Solutions, in Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation 281(Walter Block ed., 1990); Walter Block & Roy Whitehead, The Unintended Consequences of Environmental Justice, 100 Forensic Sci. Int’l 57 (1999); Thomas DiLorenzo, Does Capitalism Cause Pollution?, 38 Washington University Center for the Study of American Business Contemporary Issues Series (1990); Murray N. Rothbard, Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, 2 Cato J. 55 (1982); Richard L. Stroup et al., Progressive Environmentalism: A Pro-Human, Pro-Science, Pro-Free Enterprise Agenda for Change (Nat’l Ctr. for Pol’y Analysis, Dallas, Tex.), 1991; Roy Whitehead & Walter Block, Environmental Takings of Private Water Rights: the Case for Full Water Privatization, 32 Envtl. L. Rep., 11162 (2002); Roy Whitehead & Walter Block, Environmental Justice Risks in the Petroleum Industry, 24 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 67 (2000).

  3. 3.

    In contrast, the present authors characterize themselves as free market private property space environmentalists.

  4. 4.

    Nonetheless, a substantially similar scheme has been proposed for the earth. See, for example, Rothbard, supra footnote 2.

  5. 5.

    Alyson C. Flournoy, In Search of an Environmental Ethic, 28 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 63, 80 (2003).

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Richard A. Posner, Catastrophe: Risk and Response (2004).

  7. 7.

    See, for example, Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet (1990); Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968); Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species (1981); Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (1992).

  8. 8.

    See supra footnote 2; see also Louis De Alessi, Private Property Rights as the Basis for Free Market Environmentalism, in Who Owns the Environment? (Peter J. Hill & Roger E. Meiners eds., 1998); Tibor R. Machan, Pollution and Political Theory, in Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics (Tom Regan ed., 1984).

  9. 9.

    For an economic critique of the notion of intrinsic value, see James M. Buchanan, Cost and Choice: An Inquiry in Economic Theory (1969). See also, generally, L.S.E. Essays on Cost (James M. Buchanan & George F. Trilby, eds., New York Univ. Press 1981) (1973); William Barnett, II, Subjective Cost Revisited, 3 Rev. Austrian Econ. 137, 137–38 (1989); Roy E. Cordato, Subjective Value, Time Passage, and the Economics of Harmful Effects, 12 Hamline L. Rev. 229 (1989); Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Subjectivist Roots of James Buchanan’s Economics, 4 Rev. Austrian Econ. 180 (1990); Jacob Halbrooks, Value and the Environment, Mises.org, Mar. 27, 2002, http://www.mises.org/story/922.

  10. 10.

    See Tal Scriven, Wrongness, Wisdom, and Wilderness: Toward a Libertarian Theory of Ethics and the Environment 147 (1997).

  11. 11.

    See Flournoy, supra footnote 5, at 81–82; John Grim, Indigenous Traditions and Deep Ecology, in Deep Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Ground 35, 40–41 (David Landis Barnhill ed., 2001).

  12. 12.

    Mikael Stenmark, Environmental Ethics and Policy Making 85 (2002); see also Holmes Rolston, III, Ethics on the Home Planet, in An Invitation to Environmental Philosophy 107, 133 (Anthony Weston ed., 1999) (“Earth does not belong to us; rather we belong to it…. Earth is really the relevant survival unit.”).

  13. 13.

    The land ethic “enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.” Gary D. Meryers, Old-Growth Forests, the Owl, and Yew: Environmental Ethics Versus Traditional Dispute Resolution Under the Endangered Species Act and Other Public Lands and Resources Laws, 18 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 623, 657 (quoting Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac 202–03 (1949)).

  14. 14.

    See George Reisman, Environmentalism in the Light of Mises and Menger, 5 Q. J. Austrian Econ. 3, 11 (Summer 2002).

  15. 15.

    Block, Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights, supra footnote 2, at 1896 n.5.

  16. 16.

    Robert James Bidinotto, Environmentalism: Freedom’s Foe for the 90s, The Freeman, November 1990 (quoting M. John Fayhee, Earth First! and Foremost, Backpacker, September 1988, at 21).

  17. 17.

    Stenmark, supra footnote 12, at 85.

  18. 18.

    Id. at 89.

  19. 19.

    See, for example, Mary Anne Warren, The Rights of the Nonhuman World, in Environmental Philosophy: A Collection of Readings 109 (Robert Elliot & Arran Gare eds., 1983) (stating that environmentalists show concern for the “planetary biosystem” and the “biotic community” as a whole).

  20. 20.

    Erazim Kohák, The Green Halo: A Bird’s-Eye View of Ecological Ethics 129 (2000).

  21. 21.

    Ulrike M. Bohlmann, Planetary Protection in Public International Law, in Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 18, 27 (2003).

  22. 22.

    See Ryder W. Miller, Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space Exploration as an Environmental Issue, 15 Electronic Green J. (2001), available at http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj15/miller1.html.

  23. 23.

    Howard A. Baker, Protection of the Outer Space Environment: History and Analysis of Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty, in 12 Annals of Air & Space L. 143,166 (Nicolas Mateesco Matte, ed., 1987).

  24. 24.

    Bernard K. Schafer, Solid, Hazardous, and Radioactive Wastes in Outer Space: Present Controls and Suggested Changes, in Law, Values, and the Environment: A Reader and Selective Bibliography 395, 399 (Robert N. Wells, Jr. ed., 1996) (emphasis added). One wonders whether the “future generations” of which he speaks are intended to be human beings. If so, this represents an inconsistency in his world view, which, presumably, denigrates human beings of whatever generation, now or in the future. This author seems to think humans (now and in the future) can “enjoy” outer space—apparently by looking at it and knowing it is there—as long as they leave it in its pristine state. But, people cannot own views. If they did, there would be an over-determination of property rights: millions of people would own Disney World and the Grand Canyon, and it would no longer be clear as to who had rights to alter these amenities. See Walter Block, “Homesteading, ad coelum, owning views and forestalling,” (Unpublished).

  25. 25.

    April Greene Apking, Note & Comment, The Rush to Develop Space: The Role of Spacefaring Nations in Forging Environmental Standards for the Use of Celestial Bodies for Governmental and Private Interests, 16 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y 429, 433 (2005).

  26. 26.

    Even NASA is calling for more private initiatives in space travel and exploration. See Lucy Sherriff, Private Enterprise Needed in Space: NASA, The Register, Nov. 17, 2005, available at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/17/nasa_private_investment/;see also George Knapp, The Ultimate Public-Private Partnership, Las Vegas Mercury, July 8, 2004, available at http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2004/MERC-Jul-08-Thu-2004/24250261.html. On the other hand, nothing in this paper should be interpreted as our support for any such initiative. In our view, the market should be left alone to determine just how much investment should go to this area. Certainly, no government subsidies would be justified. For a general critique of NASA as a socialist enterprise and support of private entrepreneurial decision making in this arena, see, for example, William L. Anderson, The Trouble with NASA, The Free Market, Apr. 2003, available at http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=434. See also Robert Murphy, A Free Market in Space, The Free Market, Jan. 2005, available at http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=525.

  27. 27.

    Miller, supra footnote 22.

  28. 28.

    This suggests a legal system in which rocks, dirt, and other inanimate objects somehow have standing to sue those who have disrupted them. Presumably environmentalists would bring these claims on the rocks’ behalf, as they did for trees in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). On that case, and some economic problems of standing to sue for “existence value,” see Donald J. Boudreaux & Roger E. Meiners, Existence Value and Other of Life’s Ills, in Who Owns the Environment? 153, 177–79 (Peter J. Hill & Roger E. Meiners eds., 1998).

  29. 29.

    Paul F. Uhlir & William P. Bishop, Wilderness and Space, in Beyond Spaceship Earth: Environmental Ethics and the Solar System 183, 203–04 (Eugene C. Hargrove ed., 1986) (citing Harry H. Almond, Jr., A Draft Convention for Protecting the Environment of Outer Space, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 101–02 (1980)) (emphasis added).

  30. 30.

    Id. at 205.

  31. 31.

    Glenn H. Reynolds & Robert P. Merges, Outer Space: Problems of Law and Policy 176 (1997).

  32. 32.

    Id.

  33. 33.

    Lawrence D. Roberts, Ensuring the Best of All Possible Worlds: Environmental Regulation of the Solar System, 6 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 126, 153, 158–59 (1997).

  34. 34.

    See, for example, Steven Freeland, Up, Up and … Back: The Emergence of Space Tourism and its Impact on the International Law of Outer Space, 6 Chi. J. Int’l L. 1, 20 (2005) (declaring laws against “littering” by space tourists “imperative” to avoid “additional disruption to the space environment”); Kelly M. Zullo, Note, The Need to Clarify the Status of Property Rights in International Space Law, 90 Geo. L.J. 2413, 2442 (2002) (“Renewable licenses [for space ventures] should be granted liberally unless … the proposed activity would cause an unacceptable degree of harm to the Earth or outer space environment. An unacceptable degree of harm may include ventures that would leave excessive debris, produce harmful radioactive waste, or some other demonstrable damage.”). For an alternative view on littering, see Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, 210–16 (Fox & Wilkes 1991) (1976).

  35. 35.

    See supra footnote 9.

  36. 36.

    See Ehrlich, supra footnote 7; Ehrlich & Ehrlich, supra footnote 7.

  37. 37.

    Mark A. Garlick, The Story of the Solar System 52 (2002) (emphasis added).

  38. 38.

    Id. at 58.

  39. 39.

    Id.

  40. 40.

    Id. at 58, 60.

  41. 41.

    Id. at 60. It may seem strange that Venus is further from the sun than Mercury, and, yet, hotter. This is due to its thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, which creates a “greenhouse effect.”

  42. 42.

    See id. at 66.

  43. 43.

    Id. at 72.

  44. 44.

    Id. at 74.

  45. 45.

    Id. at 72.

  46. 46.

    See id. at 86–106.

  47. 47.

    Dennis Overbye, Vote Makes It Official: Pluto Isn’t What It Used to Be, N.Y. Times, Aug. 25, 2006, at A13.

  48. 48.

    Garlick, supra footnote 37, at 112.

  49. 49.

    See Kenneth Chang & Dennis Overbye, Planet or Not, Pluto Now Has Far-Out Rival, N.Y. Times, Jul. 30, 2005, at A1.

  50. 50.

    Garlick, supra footnote 37, at 97.

  51. 51.

    Schafer, supra footnote 24, at 427 n.19 (citing Michael Freeman, Space Traveller’s Handbook: Every Man’s Comprehensive Manual to Space Flight 154 (1979)).

  52. 52.

    Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 13.

  53. 53.

    Garlick, supra footnote 37, at 127–42. Lest we depress our readers too severely, we note that author Robert Ringer suggests using this “ice ball” scenario as an opportunity to recognize that one’s day-to-day problems are relatively insignificant. See Robert J. Ringer, Winning Through Intimidation 40–43 (1974).

  54. 54.

    Another antidote to depression: if we do not blow each other up before that, it is at least possible that long before this time, man will have learned the techniques necessary to bring us to not only other planets but other solar systems, more welcoming ones.

  55. 55.

    On the enmity between environmentalists and carbon dioxide on Earth, see, for example, Gore, supra footnote 7, at 22.

  56. 56.

    Nat’l Research Council, Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface 28 (2002), available at http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309084261/html/28.html.

  57. 57.

    Benjamin Wallace-Wells, Mars or Bust, Rolling Stone, Feb. 23, 2006, at 45, 50.

  58. 58.

    Roberts, supra footnote 33, at 154.

  59. 59.

    In fairness to Roberts, he recognizes this point at least to a limited extent. See id. at 149 (“With regard to the inhospitable resources of the solar system, any environmental regime should begin with the management of property rights.”); Id. at 151 (“Enforcement, in most cases, is a matter of individual property owners upholding their personal interests.”).

  60. 60.

    See Rothbard, supra footnote 2, at 88.

  61. 61.

    Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law § 13.5 (5th ed. 1998).

  62. 62.

    For example, if courts had continued to allow individuals to bring lawsuits for air pollution from the nineteenth century through the present, an environmental forensics industry would almost certainly be capable of determining sources of harm from air pollution. See Morton Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law: 1780–1860 (1977); Walter Block, Private Property Rights, Economic Freedom, and Professor Coase: A Critique of Friedman, McCloskey, Medema, and Zorn, 26 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 923, 929–30 (2003).

  63. 63.

    Roberts, supra footnote 33, at 154.

  64. 64.

    A relatively low number of parties makes bargaining more likely (though perhaps not certain if transactions costs are high). See Posner, supra footnote 61, at § 3.8; Ronald H. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & Econ. 1 (1960).

  65. 65.

    See Rothbard, supra footnote 2, at 77.

  66. 66.

    Such an act would be characterized as “coming to the nuisance.”

  67. 67.

    See Block, Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights, supra footnote 2, at 1890; see also Horwitz, supra footnote 62.

  68. 68.

    See, for example, Petr Beckmann, The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear 122 (1977) (“Every 1,000 MW of nuclear power that replaces coal-fired power saves between 20 and 100 lives a year.”).

  69. 69.

    See id. at 102 (noting also that while it is correct to say that nuclear waste remains hazardous for thousands of years, the problem is not as threatening as it might seem, nor as threatening to human health in the short or long term as the burning of fossil fuels).

  70. 70.

    See Ty S. Twibell, Note, Space Law: Legal Restraints on Commercialization and Development of Outer Space, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 589, 631 (1997).

  71. 71.

    See Beckmann, supra footnote 68, at 99–111 (“If all of the US power capacity were nuclear, the total amount of wastes per person per year would amount to one aspirin tablet…. If the entire US electrical capacity were nuclear and ran at the present [1977] rate for 350 years, the volume of wastes would amount to a cube 200 feet on a side.”).

  72. 72.

    For example, NASA lost two space shuttles and 14 astronauts in just 114 flights. Tariq Malik, NASA’s New Moon Plans: ‘Apollo on Steroids’, Space.com, Sept. 19, 2005, http://www.space.com/news/050919_nasa_moon.html. In 1999 alone, it also lost two Mars spacecraft and a $246 million infrared telescope which failed shortly after launching. Nasa’s Disastrous Year, BBC News, Mar. 22, 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/686674.stm.

  73. 73.

    See Kenneth Chang, Not Science Fiction: An Elevator to Space, N.Y. Times, Sept. 23, 2003, at F1.

  74. 74.

    See Roberts, supra footnote 33, at 148.

  75. 75.

    Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 176. See also Robert P. Merges & Glenn H. Reynolds, Space Resources, Common Property, and the Collective Action Problem, 6 N.Y.U. Envtl. L. J. 107, 124–25 (1997). Incidentally, Reynolds and Merges also call for “development preserves”—territory set aside to give to poor non-spacefaring nations later. Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 176.

  76. 76.

    Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 176.

  77. 77.

    See, for example, Miller, supra footnote 22; Schafer, supra footnote 24.

  78. 78.

    These groups include, for example, the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society. See John Brätland, Externalities, Conflict, and Offshore Lands, 8 Indep. R. 527, 540 (2004).

  79. 79.

    See id.

  80. 80.

    On the ability of polluters to “capture” centralized agencies ostensibly intended to regulate them, see, for example, Andrew P. Morriss, Bruce Yandle & Roger E. Meiners, The Failure of EPA’s Water Quality Reforms: From Environment-Enhancing Competition to Uniformity and Polluter Profits, 20 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 25, 26 (2001–2002).

  81. 81.

    See, for example, Block, Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights, supra footnote 2, at 1889; Fred L. Smith, Jr., Sustainable Development–A Free-Market Perspective, 21 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 297, 305–06 (1994).

  82. 82.

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Space Law in the 21st Century: Some Thoughts in Response to the Bush Administration’s Space Initiative, 69 J. Air L. & Com. 413, 422 (2004).

  83. 83.

    Id. at 419.

  84. 84.

    Id. at 420 (citing Martyn J. Fogg, Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments (1995)).

  85. 85.

    Id. at 420.

  86. 86.

    Id. (quoting Robert Zubrin, Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization 37 (1999)).

  87. 87.

    Id. (quoting Robert Zubrin, Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization 37 (1999)).

  88. 88.

    Id.

  89. 89.

    A battle between “reds” who want to preserve a pristine Mars and “blues” who want to terraform occurs in an acclaimed series of science-fiction novels. See Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars (1992); Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars (1993); Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars (1996).

  90. 90.

    See Reynolds, supra footnote 82, at 421 (“The character of these objections is likely to reveal much about the environmental movement, or at least about those making them.”); see also, for example, Ryder W. Miller, The Case Against Terraforming Mars, Space Pol’y Dig., May 22, 2003, available at http://www.gyre.org/news/article/3273.

  91. 91.

    See John Locke, An Essay Concerning the True Origin, Extent and End of Civil Government, in Social Contract 17–18 (E. Barker, ed., 1948); see also Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy (1993); Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty 32 (New York University Press 1998) (1982); Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty 34–35 (Ludwig von Mises Institute 2002) (1973); Walter Block, Earning Happiness Through Homesteading Unowned Land: A Comment on ‘Buying Misery with Federal Land’ by Richard Stroup, 15 J. Soc. Pol. & Econ. Stud., 237 (1990).

  92. 92.

    For an analogous case regarding intellectual property, see N. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property, 15 J. Libertarian Stud. 1 (2001) (explaining that the first creator of an idea has an advantage in reaping the economic benefits from the idea even if he cannot own it).

  93. 93.

    For a rejection of the notion of a right to weather of a particular type in the context of global warming on Earth, see Reisman, supra footnote 14, at 14.

  94. 94.

    See supra footnote 9.

  95. 95.

    See Dennis Overbye, When It’s Not Enough to Say ‘Take Me to Your Leader,’ N.Y. Times, Mar. 5, 2002, at F1.

  96. 96.

    Roberts, supra footnote 33, at 157–60. For more on the precautionary principle, see Steven A. Mirmina & David J. Den Herder, Nuclear Power Sources and Future Space Exploration, 6 Chi. J. Int’l L. 149, 164 (2005).

  97. 97.

    See Bruce Jakosky, The Search for Life on Other Planets 2 (1998).

  98. 98.

    Id. at 4.

  99. 99.

    The most earthlike planet known is 21,000 light-years away and has a surface temperature of −370°F. Dennis Overbye, Search Finds Far-Off Planet Akin to Earth, N.Y. Times, Jan. 26, 2006, at A21.

  100. 100.

    This has happened on Earth. For example, the Endangered Species Act encourages people to kill and hide any endangered species on their property (in the vernacular, “shoot, shovel, and shut up”) so they do not lose their property rights. See Andrew P. Morriss & Richard Stroup, Quartering Species: The ‘Living Constitution,’ the Third Amendment, and the Endangered Species Act, 30 Envtl. L. 769, 795 (2000).

  101. 101.

    Rothbard, For a New Liberty, supra footnote 91, at 156; see also Tibor Machan, Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite (2004).

  102. 102.

    Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, U.S.-U.K.-U.S.S.R., art. I, Aug. 5, 1963, 14 U.S.T. 1313 [hereinafter Test Ban Treaty].

  103. 103.

    Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 54.

  104. 104.

    For a libertarian analysis of weapons in space and on the heavenly bodies in a different than earthly context, see Walter Block & Matthew Block, Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control, 3 Ethics, Place & Env’t 289 (2000).

  105. 105.

    See Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 59.

  106. 106.

    Former US Secretary of State Dean Rusk noted, “I can think of no other way to more massively increase the pollution of outer space than to allow the arms race to move out there.” Dean Rusk, Star Wars: The Nuclear/Military Uses of Space, in Beyond Spaceship Earth: Environmental Ethics and the Solar System 315, 318 (Eugene C. Hargrove ed., 1986).

  107. 107.

    Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 61.

  108. 108.

    Test Ban Treaty, supra footnote 102, art. I.

  109. 109.

    Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 61.

  110. 110.

    Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, U.S.-U.K.-U.S.S.R., Jan. 27, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410 [hereinafter Outer Space Treaty].

  111. 111.

    See Steven A. Mirmina & David J. Den Herder, Nuclear Power Sources and Future Space Exploration, 6 Chi. J. Int’l L. 149, 158 (2005) (calling the Outer Space Treaty “the cornerstone of international space law”); Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 62.

  112. 112.

    Outer Space Treaty, supra footnote 110, art. II.

  113. 113.

    Id. art. IV.

  114. 114.

    Id.

  115. 115.

    See R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (1994).

  116. 116.

    Some have argued that the Outer Space Treaty effectively abolishes both government and private property in space. Reynolds, however, argues that a consensus exists to the contrary—that is, property rights are allowed. Glenn H. Reynolds, International Space Law: Into the Twenty-first Century, 25 V and. J. Transnat’l L. 225, 230 (1992). But the idea that the Outer Space Treaty proscribes private property persists among some commentators, and the status of private property rights in space therefore remains uncertain. See, for example, Heidi Keefe, Essay, Making the Final Frontier Feasible: A Critical Look at the Current Body of Outer Space Law, 11 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 345, 350–60 (1995); Leo B. Malagar & Marlo Apalisok Magdoza-Malagar, International Law of Outer Space and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 B.U. Int’l L.J. 311, 345 (1999); Uhlir & Bishop, supra footnote 29, at 196 (noting that this prohibition will preserve space “wilderness”). This debate is beyond the scope of this article, but we note that a considerable consensus does exist that, even if the Outer Space Treaty does not allow for private property rights, it should allow for them so entrepreneurs will have an incentive to go there. See, for example, Kurt Anderson Baca, Property Rights in Outer Space, 58 J. Air L. & Com. 1041, 1083–85 (1993); Julie A. Jiru, Comment, Star Wars and Space Malls: When the Paint Chips Off a Treaty’s Golden Handcuffs, 42 S. Tex. L. Rev. 155, 169–73 (2000); Twibell, supra footnote 70, at 613–19; Keefe, at 350–60; Wayne N. White, Jr., Real Property Rights in Outer Space, in Proceedings of the Fortieth Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space 370 (1998); Zullo, supra footnote 34, at 2438–44.

  117. 117.

    See, for example, Molly K. Macauley, Flying in the Face of Uncertainty: Human Risk in Space Activities, 6 Chi. J. Int’l L. 131, 144 (2005); Uhlir & Bishop, supra footnote 29, at 196–97.

  118. 118.

    Outer Space Treaty, supra footnote 110, art. IX.

  119. 119.

    See Baker, supra footnote 23, at 163 (“[I]t was never intended that the protection offered by the avoidance of harmful contamination principle would extend to the environments of the Moon and other celestial bodies per se.”).

  120. 120.

    Schafer, supra footnote 24, at 404.

  121. 121.

    Outer Space Treaty, supra footnote 110, art. VIII.

  122. 122.

    Schafer, supra footnote 24, at 404.

  123. 123.

    Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, U.S.-U.K.-U.S.S.R., Mar. 29, 1972, 24 U.S.T. 2389 [hereinafter Liability Convention].

  124. 124.

    This is in sharp contrast to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”), Mar. 3, 1973, 27 U.S.T. 1087, the aqueous analog to the Liability Convention. CITES specifically rules out and condemns private property rights as a means of protecting endangered species. See Jonathan Adler, Do Conservation Conventions Conserve?, in Sustainable Development: Promoting Progress or Perpetuating Poverty? (Julian Morris ed., 2002).

  125. 125.

    Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, G.A. Res. 34/68, U.N. Doc. A/RES/34/68 (Dec. 5, 1979) [hereinafter Moon Treaty].

  126. 126.

    Id. art. 7.

  127. 127.

    Id. art. 11. For an analysis of this concept, see Kemal Baslar, The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind in International Law (1998); for applications of this concept to the earth’s oceans, see Jan van Ettinger et al., Ocean Governance and the Global Picture, in Ocean Governance: Sustainable Development of the Seas (Peter Bautista Payoyo ed., 1994); for a critique on the ground that it interferes with private property rights, and opens the door to the tragedy of the commons, see Roy Whitehead, Jr., Catherine Gould & Walter Block, The Value of Private Water Rights: From a Legal and Economic Perspective, 9 Alb. L. Envtl. Outlook J. 313 (2004).

  128. 128.

    Moon Treaty, supra footnote 125, art. 1.

  129. 129.

    Rosanna Sattler, Transporting a Legal System for Property Rights: From the Earth to the Stars, 6 Chi. J. Int’l L. 23, 30 (2005); see also Reynolds & Merges, supra footnote 31, at 116 (“Absent adoption by the major space powers, the Moon Treaty is unlikely to play a major role in the future.”).

  130. 130.

    See Sattler, supra footnote 129, at 30; Twibell, supra footnote 70, at 598.

  131. 131.

    See Kevin V. Cook, Note, The Discovery of Lunar Water: An Opportunity to Develop a Workable Moon Treaty, 11 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 647, 664–70 (1999).

  132. 132.

    Reynolds and Merges, supra footnote 31, at 116.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Loyola University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Walter E. Block

Authors
  1. Walter E. Block
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter E. Block .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Block, W.E. (2019). Space Environmentalism, Property Rights, and the Law. In: Property Rights. Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28353-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28353-7_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28352-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28353-7

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation