GROUND RULES FOR THE MOON

WHERE men go, arguments follow.

Now that man has taken the first small steps toward exploring and exploiting extraterrestrial bodies, he must face up to an important question: What laws will govern his conduct in space?

Legal experts have theorized about the problems of space exploration since well before the first Sputnik was launched in 1957, though their speculations were largely limited to questions of national sovereignty. After a United Nations committee studied the problem, the General Assembly adopted a resolution in 1961 affirming that the U.N. Charter applied to outer space and that celestial bodies were open to exploration by all states.

No Code

At present, the moon's legal status is determined by a 1967 U.N. treaty on outer space that has been signed by 92 nations, including the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Communist China, North Viet Nam and North Korea, none of them U.N. members, have not signed the treaty. The treaty provides that the moon cannot be claimed by any country, that lunar military bases may not be established, and that visitors from the earth are to be considered "envoys of mankind." The U.S. observed each of these provisions last week. Though Neil Armstrong planted his nation's flag on the moon, the gesture was more ceremonial than a claim of sovereignty. Adhering to a treaty requirement that the moon be used "exclusively for peaceful purposes," the astronauts pointedly avoided carrying any weapons. The plaque that was fixed to Eagle's descent stage bore the words "We came in peace for all mankind."

The U.N. treaty is not a detailed code, however, and its provisions are necessarily general. Article XII says that all stations on the moon must remain open to inspection by other states on a reciprocal basis. This might mean that if Russia's Luna 15 had landed with cosmonauts aboard, they would have had the right to look over Eagle. On the other hand, the U.S. could have refused entry by citing the treaty's provision that such inspection must be requested in advance, and must not interfere with normal space operations.

Similarly, the U.S. can probably maintain exclusive use of Tranquillity Base, even though such an act might seem the equivalent of appropriating part of the moon. NASA could claim that admitting any other nation's spacemen might interfere with scientific investigation. The "appropriation" of 60 Ibs. of moon rocks is also legitimate under the treaty, a point not likely to be contested in view of the fact that the U.S. will share the information it gleans from the samples with scientists of all nations. But the U.S. is prohibited from making a profit on the rocks. If commercial mining of the moon's resources becomes feasible some day, it would probably have to be done under international license and regulation.

Earthly Analogies

Other, more detailed space treaties are currently being developed in Geneva by the U.N.'s outer space legal subcommittee, and a number of earthly analogies may be used for guidance. One such treaty now under discussion deals with the thorny issue of responsibility when there are accidents involving spacecraft or when objects from space plunge to earth. To settle any claims that might arise, lawyers probably will look to the precedents offered by existing aviation law. They may also turn to even older legal guidelines. The laws of the high seas, for example, call for freedom of navigation even while they allow nations to exploit specific areas for commercial, scientific, and--in the case of nuclear tests--military purposes. Maritime laws generally use "reasonableness" as the criterion for how much benefit one nation may derive from the sea--a standard that will probably apply when the question arises of how big a slice of the moon the U.S. can claim for scientific use. Spacefaring nations may also turn to Antarctica for legal precedents. There, all states involved in exploration have ruled out territorial claims and military bases, and agreed to permit mutual inspection of their installations.

A major problem with space law is who will be its judge. Some space lawyers believe that eventual disputes over the moon will most likely be resolved through direct negotiations between the states concerned. This will almost certainly be the case for such vital questions as lunar communications and traffic control of spacecraft. Other matters like civil claims and emigration could be turned over to a special court created for the purpose, or to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Contesting parties must agree to accept such a court's jurisdiction, however, and that has proved difficult in the past. For the foreseeable future, it is likely that only the two space powers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, will be capable of enforcing lunar laws.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.