Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
A huge legal literature has developed over the years, especially in recent times, which
analyses the controversial points from different perspectives, taking into consideration the
conventional framework provided by the UNCLOS as the fundamental model that realizes
the common heritage principle.
Space law is experiencing opposition to the Agreement by states, especially indus-
trialized countries, which are supposed to have the potentiality to finance exploitation of
the Moon, and whose efforts should also be recognized in the light of the text of the
Agreement: 'the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of
those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the
Moon, shall be given special consideration' (Art. 11.7d).
Again this situation evokes the adoption of the UNCLOS, which was originally op-
posed by the most advanced countries because of the inclusion of the common heritage of
mankind principle. To overcome this deadlock, the Implementing Agreement in Part XI re-
lating to the area had to be negotiated with the aim of mitigating the obligations incumbent
on developed states, stipulating a 'rapprochement' to the free market rules.
During a session of the New Delhi Conference in 2002, the International Law Asso-
ciation discussed the possibility of either improving the Moon Agreement or discarding it.
Reference to the law of the sea was inevitable. But the process of amending multilateral
treaties appears to be equally as difficult as the process of formulating a new treaty. The
suggestion of the General Rapporteur, von der Dunk, to replace the concept of common
heritage of mankind with 'common concern of mankind' was not retained. The Rapporteur
suggested to 'save the Agreement by introducing amendments', but other scholars thought
it appropriate to renegotiate a new Agreement, with the aim of reaching a new consensus
among states (von der Dunk, 2002 ) . The debate was particularly heated and some opinions
diverged greatly.
In 2008, a Joint Statement on the Benefits of Adherence to the Agreement Governing
the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (United Nations Doc.
A/AC.105/C.2/L.272) was issued by seven states parties to the Agreement. The Statement
brings to light inter alia that: '[t]he Moon Agreement does not preclude any modality of ex-
Search WWH ::




Custom Search