Beyond Earth (ATWG) - Chapter 6 - Space Law in the 21st Century... and Beyond by George S. Robinson

From The Space Library

Jump to: navigation, search

Chapter 6

Space Law in the 21st Century... and Beyond

Dr. George S. Robinson

"Space law is an interdisciplinary journey; not an isolated profession."

Commercial Space Law

Although many of the current genre of space lawyers practicing both in domestic and international arenas are establishing the early legal foundation for the private

sector's entrance into identification and commercialization of space resources, it is the coming generation that will be addressing an explosion of legal issues regarding those that are potentially exploitable. Lawyers and jurisprudents will face the tangle of activities and related policies flowing from the economic potential of asteroids, comets, the lunar and Martian resources, and other celestial body resources barely on the horizon of our awareness. The most difficult issues to be faced by lawyers trying to make sense of, and implement decisions by, policy makers and legislators will be the "soft" issues...human relations and the characteristics of related decision-making by politicians, statesmen, high-level public, military, and industrial administrators, and...even law-makers and lawyers themselves.

The not altogether future space and space-related resources available to the public and private sectors to exploit commercially will include the development of activities, services, and products designed to help sustain human life in the synthetic and alien life support environment of space. Regardless of the multitude of evolving justifications, whether serving civilian and/or military requirements, extraordinary efforts will be pursued to assure that humankind has a reasonable chance to survive off-Earth. The relevant commercially-oriented efforts include biomedicine, directed human genetic intervention, the very difficult pursuit of gene sequencing that could take from fifty to a hundred years to achieve, and genetic manipulation for specific individual and generational survival requirements, on Earth and in long duration and permanent space habitats.

Another developing area of important and lucrative research relates to human biotechnological integration both gross technology and also nanotechnology - for survival and evolution in space. Even more in the not-so-soft aspects of space-related research is the need to identify the psychopathological workings and expressions of human and humankind, astronauts, and the future spacekind, or Homo alterios spatialis. Put a bit differently, defining the empirical characteristics of "human nature," or the "essence" of being human, with some certainty in order to understand just how our evolving technology is changing representatives of our species will provide commercial opportunities for our scientists, engineers, ethicists, and lawyers. Developing laws and regulations to control and implement related policy decisions regarding these undertakings will be mind-boggling, not only for the practitioner of the implementing laws, but also for those identifying and formulating the applicable and very likely necessarily unique jurisprudence, or underlying legal theory.

In addition to amendment of the existing five basic United Nations space treaties, unique concepts of public and private international law will continue being developed. Space lawyers will focus on the proliferating private international agreements relating to the global funding for exploration, development, use, and settlement of near and deep space. Practicing space lawyers will require increasing expertise in the related hard sciences, i.e., there must be a significant ability of lawyers to asses the laws reflecting the physical characteristics and realties of space-related resources and the technologies available for recovering them, and the problems associated with developing them commercially. One of the most pressing domestic and/or international legal issues to be resolved is whether private ownership of space resources will be permitted, and whether sovereign appropriation of those resources will be necessary to establish private ownership. Without these issues being resolved legally, or settled politically and diplomatically, significant private capital investment in space resource exploration will remain with the small-change investor. The implementing characteristics of private space "business" will result in significant part from revisiting the histories of demographic expansionism and applying certain of the motivating or underlying principles finding their roots in economic, military, and cultural imperialism. For example, some of today's principles and practices of space exploration, economics, and politics can be compared with the imperialism and exploration carried out by England in the late sixteenth century. Queen Elizabeth, by the end of the Sixteenth Century, started issuing what was called "monopoly charters" to explore, exploit, and trade around the globe as a means of encouraging, in part, both private and public economic interests. In various respects, these charter companies might serve in part as models for how near and deep space, and the known and yet to be discovered useable resources, can, perhaps should, or indeed should not, be secured, developed, and exploited. The practice of space law in the 21st Century will involve innovative legal variations of some of the principles, good and bad, established for and by the charter companies and used to open up remote areas of Earth to commercial development.

Finally, some of the legal regimes ripe for application and development to evolving private/public commercial, military, and public interest space activities during at least the next fifty years, include antitrust laws in the United States, as well as foreign laws prohibiting certain activities that are clearly designed to restrain trade; laws relating to economic globalization, including the increasing reliance on global participation to fund various space undertakings, such as technology transfer laws and export/import laws, a variety of fiscal laws, securities laws, contract law, corporate and tax laws; international trade agreements and attendant national implementing legislation and regulation; private and public placement laws; insurance laws and other evolving risk management principles and policies; health care laws and quarantine protocols; transportation laws (land, water, air, and space tourism, etc.); domestic and foreign employment laws; human and humankind rights, policies, and laws; domestic, international, and interplanetary communications laws; and all aspects of intellectual property rights, domestic as well as international and global.

Some of the other frequently ill-considered or totally ignored areas of space law that will be addressed in the Twenty-First Century include:

  • Changes in legal education curriculum that will allow examination and formulation of employment laws necessary to meet radically changing characteristics of human capital with specific requirements needed for conducting space activities, both technically and in the context of fiscal globalism and transnational corporations. Education policies and implementing laws must recognize the consequent requirements for drastic changes in education objectives and methodologies.
  • Communications law will have to keep pace with the rapidly changing technical improvements that emphasize the importance of "community of knowledge" unique to exploring, commercially exploiting, and settling near and deep space...in furtherance of domestic and international policies based on reasonably informed transglobal public consent.
  • Space laws will stress and protect "inclusiveness" where appropriate in decision- making, domestic and global, rather than an either-or decision-making methodology.
  • Space jurisprudence will incorporate an international recognition that creating a viable space civilization is critical to the survival of humankind and/or its essence(s).

Laws Relating To Forward, Back, And Cross-Contamination of Planetary Bodies

... States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.

So provides, in part, Article IX of the 1967 United Nations Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, known by its short title as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. This Article reflects the serious concerns of the various United Nations member states involved in negotiating the Outer Space Treaty regarding the unknown dangers of sending launch vehicles and scientific probes/payloads to explore near and deep interstitial space as well as celestial bodies. Given the comparative paucity of the scientific knowns during the Treaty negotiations with respect to the potential for existence of extraterrestrial life forms, carbon-based or not, the primary initial concerns of the negotiators was with potentially harmful contamination of Earth's biotic ecosystem by alien matter returned in or on recoverable manned and unmanned missions.

Despite being cloaked in such precautionary language, the underlying question not really addressed fully...and certainly not publicly...might well be "Why do we need to look for extraterrestrial life?" Does it help in the search to find out about the past and potential future options of Homo sapiens sapiens? Is the search for evidence of extant or paleo-extraterrestrial life and life precursors related to the migratory survival requirements for our species...or evolving specieskind? How do philosophical and theological considerations fit into the decision to search for and locate extraterrestrial life or evidence of it? How does President George W. Bush define "curiosity" of humankind when he says it is the driving force behind his February 2004 policy statement that the United States will establish a manned presence once again on our moon, and ultimately on Mars? How carefully, thoroughly, and effectively have these questions been addressed by the global public as critical components of governmental policies relating to the search for potential extraterrestrial life? Not very thoroughly.

As observed in an October 11, 2005 communication to the author, Dr. John Rummel, Director of NASA's Office of Planetary Protection, NASA controlled for biological contamination prior to the Space Treaty, so it is nice but not necessary that the Space Treaty exists for this purpose. Dr. Rummel also observed that "biological contamination is top priority because its existence could destroy the science that could be done by the mission(s) that we send. Nevertheless, Dr. Rummel doesn't think that Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty "was even intended to be limited to biotic contamination. It could equally be applied to other contaminants...if necessary."

In addition to protecting the integrity of our experiments to detect past and present extraterrestrial life forms or life precursors, it is imperative to determine whether we as a species have a right to interfere with the evolution of any non-Earth indigent species, regardless of level of evolution; indeed, whether we have any biological, moral, or ethical "right" to interfere at all even with non-biotic components of celestial bodies. Nevertheless, whether biotic or abiotic, astrobiology offers a very unique and marvelous opportunity to involve, much more directly and effectively than has been encouraged in the past, the broad general global public in policy and programmatic decisions relating to planetary exploration and, perhaps, settlement. This type of involvement is essential to developing a broad and informed dialogue about the future of Homo sapiens sapiens and, indeed, the more ephemeral aspects of our sentient nature, i.e., the future of "humanity" in space.

In the process of accomplishing this undertaking of involving a broad sector of the general international citizenry in astrobiological research, mutual respect and a meaningful dialogue must be encouraged...insisted upon...among the broad variety of interests involved and expressed. In other words, it does not mean a public information lecture by various national and multinational space agencies conducting current, as well as planning, future astrobiological research programs and projects. Because of the complex multidisciplinary nature of astrobiology and its profound implications, NASA and appropriate agencies of foreign spacefaring governments and space related international organizations must be attuned to the global public's informed input...and consequent consent or rejection of proposed exploratory, migratory, and/or settlement activities. Controversy should be rapidly and fully engaged with the public. Unfortunately, scientists are not necessarily the best or most effective communicators of their research results and research plans. Effective public dialogue leading toward an informed public consent to the research objectives and methodologies ultimately selected for implementation requires establishment of an equally as effective legal infrastructure to assure that kind of transglobal consent. At present, such an effective infrastructure is not available; and certainly not internationally. Nevertheless, our rapidly evolving communications capabilities through the internet and incredible near-term advances should go a long way to encouraging and assuring a high quality of informed public consent. The search for extraterrestrial life and the reasons for doing it constitute a biological and spiritual, a secular and a humanist, survival imperative...and we had better get as many of the lay public as possible on board as soon as possible to determine whether, if not how, to go about doing it.

Finally, although the forward contamination control effort to date has focused primarily, but not exclusively, on primitive life forms and precursors to life, we cannot exclude the prospect of contacting what we assume might be extraterrestrial intelligent life forms...or at least as we currently define "intelligent" in an anthropocentric context. Here, we are dealing with issues that relate to biocultural interaction and/or contamination with those life forms on other celestial bodies, i.e., forward contamination (although it is possible, of course, that such cultural interactions might take place on Earth, in which event we may be facing issues of back contamination creating adverse changes on Earth pursuant to the concerns addressed in Article IX of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty). From one perspective, however, since we also presently are developing biotechnologically transhumanistic characteristics in representatives of our species, such representatives surviving in long-duration or permanent space habitats could well be our own grandsons and granddaughters during the next 100 years. They, in fact, may well be our first tangible contact with a true extraterrestrial intelligence and culture. Toward this end, we might well...and should...find ourselves revisiting the set of eleven basic metalaws (i.e., interactive infrastructure rules between and among humans, humankind, and those long duration and/or permanent inhabitants of off-Earth space referred to as spacekind) suggested in 1970 by Austrian jurist and legal writer, Dr. Ernst Fasan. Using a few basic, and occasionally debatable assumptions, Dr. Fasan asserted seven fundamental metalaws, which he assumed possessed the characteristics of universal applicability and validity. In descending order of importance, they are:


No partner of Metalaw may demand an impossibility.

  • No rule of Metalaw must be complied with when compliance would result in the practical suicide of an obligated race [perhaps an embarrassingly anachronistic and inappropriate characterization of alien life form].
  • All intelligent races of the universe have in principal equal rights and values.
  • Every partner of Metalaw has the right of self-determination.
  • Any act which causes harm to another race must be avoided [i.e., pioneering space lawyer Andrew.G. Haley's posit of an "Interstellar Golden Rule"].
  • Every race is entitled to its own living space.
  • Every race has the right to defend itself against any harmful act performed by another race.
  • The principle of preserving one race has priority over the development of another race.
  • In case of damage, the damager must restore the integrity of the damaged party.
  • Metalegal agreements and treaties must be kept.
  • To help the other race by one's own activities is not a legal but a basic ethical principle. As noted by attorney Robert A. Frietas, Jr., "Fasan's metalaws are the beginning of a new era of metalegal development. Such principles of conduct may soon become a matter of survival; our thinking must be guided by metalegal precepts in astropolitical contexts...When intelligent extraterrestrial life is discovered, mankind must be prepared, for in all of human history there will be but one first contact," and that is likely to be with those springing from our own loins and minds, our sons and daughters, our transhuman grandsons and granddaughters. The demands of creative jurisprudence are immense for dealing with biological and cultural forward contamination issues over the next twenty-five, fifty...a hundred years.


Intelligent Autonomous Biorobotics, Telepresence, Virtual Presence, Avatars, And Transhumans In Space Environments

With the rapid and far-reaching advances being made in human biotechnological integration capabilities, an entirely unique jurisprudence must be formulated to assure individual accountability of these entities...separate from the basic research scientists, engineers, programmers, and the like who create, program, and manipulate them at the outset...under some uniquely responsive regime of law applicable only to highly intelligent and continuously evolving autonomous biorobotics, telepresences, teleported entities, avatars, transhumans, and the like. This unique accountability jurisprudence also must recognize and relate to the establishment of a metalaw regime transitioning the broad sociopolitical, economic, and military relationships between and among humans on Earth (i.e., Earthkind) and those having been altered to possess significantly different biocultural survival characteristics while inhabiting near and deep space long duration and permanently, and who or which may be referred to as Spacekind or Homo alterios spatialis.

Humans unenhanced by appropriate biotechnological integration are extraordinarily fragile in terms of surviving the alien environmental extremes off Earth. For this reason, alone, relying on robotics to explore and settle space may be an end in itself...at least at the outset of establishing a permanent human or humankind presence on the Moon and Mars. Nevertheless, a succeeding intermediary step relying on telepresence technology, or even robotics enhanced by telepresence capabilities, may well precede truly intelligent autonomous robots and human biotechnologically enhanced humankind. "Telepresence" might be defined as the projection to a distant environment of an operator's or user's sensory, cognitive, and motor capabilities; or, the distant environment can be recreated from distant actuators (say, on the lunar or martian surfaces) virtually at the location of the user/operator. In both circumstances, virtual interactive environments, i.e., virtual realities, are created. At some point, these types of entities can and will attain a level of independence that incorporates the embodiment of independent "personhood" requiring a new or even unique jurisprudential way of holding these uniquely independent entities accountable under legal regimes separate from those finding their genesis in Natural Law from which the so-called immutable rights of Homo sapiens sapiens derive.

These immutable human rights were said to be discovered through the use of reason, and, most importantly, represented the progress of knowledge. This understanding allows for a rational transition from the unknown (spiritual?) to the evolving "known" through advancing scientific data and the beliefs of the secularists. It allows, ultimately, for the creation of "new" principles embodied in or flowing from natural order and finding temporary jurisprudential expression in Natural Law theory, that is, it allows for new principles applicable to humankind and not those applicable only to unenhanced or partially enhanced humans. In certain circumstances, the latter have been referred to as "transhumans."

For the above reasons among others, one of the principal undertakings for the secularists, humanists, and secular- humanists during the early years of the twenty-first century will be the determination of whether humankind have their own inalienable rights, both those shared with and those separate and distinct from Homo sapiens sapiens. And in the process, will "faith" continue to diminish in the light of evolving reason...or will that evolving reason lead to ever greater realms of the secular unknown and, hence, create greater realms for expanding faith-based beliefs? The initial issue to be addressed, it seems, is whether immutable Natural Law Rights are really that immutable when referring to the characteristics of human or humankind nature; and whether the corresponding jurisprudences and implementing positive laws are all that immutable as well. In certain respects, current formal legal education does not seem to spend too much time on the jurisprudential efficacy of a non-evolving Natural Law Theory.

Jurisprudence has been described as more a formal than a material science, and has no direct concern with issues and questions of moral or political policy, which fall under the province of ethics and legislation. In this context, philosophy (as in the philosophy of law) has been defined as a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology...the pursuit of wisdom and the search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means. Clearly, the operative terms used to define "philosophy" are inconsistent and confusing at best...as are the variations in terminology and conceptualizations used to define "jurisprudence." Perhaps an equally as confusing, but substantively more accurate definition of jurisprudence, or "The Law," would be "the psychoneurophysiological interpretation of external and internal bio-ecological influences and dictates affecting and shaping the motivational characterizations of individual and collective representatives of humankind life forms."

One of the basic questions to be addressed in formulating both a transitional regime of "metalaw" and in creating a unique jurisprudential infrastructure for transhumans in a space environment would be whether Homo sapiens sapiens, in the biotechnological integration process of becoming transhumanistic, would no longer respond effectively to a jurisprudence embracing basic, traditional principles of Natural Law; particularly since they are not apt to be applicable and survival effective to a significantly altered human, say, Homo sapiens alterios, or Homo alterios spatialis functioning in a completely synthetic life support environment of a space habitat. Must jurisprudence for unaltered humans first define human "spirit," or "soul," or "essence" in a secular sense before attempting to determine at what point a non-human entity can be ascribed the characteristics of individual personhood...as having some independent accountability under some regime of law? Is the nature, or soul, or essence of being human a critical component of personhood and what we want to convey to space as our human envoys? Can a transhuman convey that aspect of Homo sapiens sapiens into near and deep space so as to serve as a true "envoy" of humans? What is the principal difference between these envoys and the unaltered human species? Is it the capacity for abstract perception? Of being "sentient?" If the individual human is genetically societal, is the "whole" of the individual greater than the sum of its "parts?" Just what is it of ourselves that we want to put into space...that we want to survive?

Since the Renaissance, intellectual pursuits relating to the defining and assessing of human nature have been divided into two major camps...often locked in ongoing political and/or legal combat: For example, the issues sub-tending the concept of Intelligent Design, which certain humanists are attempting to insert into public school curricula, and wending its way through the courts of Pennsylvania and other jurisdictions as this chapter is being written. The evolutionist/creationist controversy, particularly in the United States, of the last two decades or so is but a relatively recent manifestation of arguments in theological antiquity. One camp consists of the humanists who frequently are accused of being little or ill-informed regarding the knowledge of scientific and technological progress. On the other hand, conservative humanists frequently accuse the secularists of being uncultivated about, and even disinterested in, the classical studies embracing culture, philosophy, and theology. They may use somewhat similar analytical methodologies in their respective disciplines, but they rarely communicate them socially or meaningfully and in depth...outside a courtroom. In the late 1950s, as the space age was just really beginning to show distinctive activities and a civil complexion of its own not altogether reflecting its military genesis, C.P. Snow observed in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 1959) that societies were being separated into two distinct cultures. Instead of characterizing the humanists (often a non-exclusive characterization ascribed to Christians, and particularly Christian Fundamentalists) and the secular humanists as representing two different "cultures," British psychologist Liam Hudson referred to the two camps, respectively, as "divergent" and "convergent" thinkers. To him, the approach of "divergents" is to work on the whole being greater than the sum of its parts...a kind of open-ended thinking...while the preference of the "convergents" is to unfold empirical data as the basis of problem solving, i.e., they seek closure to the question, issue, or problem and use it as the foundation for the next set of inquiries. And these characterizations are misleadingly simplistic explanations for extraordinarily complex and integrated disciplines.

It might be said, then, that the "essence" of being an individual human is the biological ability to create a separate "out of body" self-image; a kind of "cyber-essence" or "cyber-spirit." In other words, a "cyber-soul." The next question, then, might be "how is the collective essence or spirit of the species created, and who or how does one see or perceive it?" And then, the most difficult question of all..."for what purpose?" Are survival and evolution of the spirit tied to survival and evolution of human biology, i.e., Homo sapiens sapiens as a biological or even biotechnological entity (individually and/or collectively)? In this context, is the "soul" a reflection of the formula that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? How, then, do we define "sum?" Does the soul evolve and change in character in proportion to or context of bio- and biotechnological evolution? Can the soul, once defined, be projected or otherwise transmitted by directed energy fields, much like telecommunications images? Can souls, and/or the biological components and carbon-based systems characterizing the individual and which give form to the soul, be held separately accountable under specific regimes of law? Can a soul reflect or characterize a societal autonomy of cooperating/interacting individual biotechnological components?

These are questions and issues that traditionally have been addressed solely from anthropocentric perspectives...even when observing and assessing the highly evolved societal cetaceans (e.g., whales and porpoises) and certain land mammals previously considered to be of lower taxonomic orders than humans (e.g., elephants). Again, traditionally, humans have been unable to approach these questions and issues from any perspective but human, i.e., "we posit our own intelligence, our behavior, emotions, and language skills, as the norm." But what if we ultimately accept that lower orders of animals do have "standing to sue," do have "Natural Rights," even if it requires an intermediary interpreter to assure expression and safeguarding of the "rights" sought through such a lawsuit. How much more difficult would it be to give the same rights and needs, temporal and spiritual, to humankind...including human biorobotics? Homo alterios spatialis?

In many respects, Earth's current civilizations do not seem quite ready to recognize the technologically and human bioevolutionary imperative to avoid dragging frequently irrelevant Natural Law principles and corresponding expressions of legal constructs into space simply because we are familiar and comfortable with them. We must be pressing with much greater urgency during the Twenty-First Century to catch up with our rapidly evolving space technology in terms of philosophical, theological, and biocultural constructs necessary for establishing a civilization that embodies a framework of values reflecting realities that characterize a new and perhaps unique civilization, and not just another colony. Toward this end, a space age "constitutional convention" must be undertaken to formulate a type of metalaw-based Migratory Manifesto for humans and their humankind or biotechnologically enhanced descendants, their own sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, that will allow them to evolve according to their own unique survival requirements in space.

Summary

In the Twenty-First Century, legal regimes relating to private and governmental activities in space of a commercial nature will reflect both old principles of economic imperialism experienced on Earth, and economic and fiscal principles of a steadily evolving and unifying transglobalism...unless the recidivism of ethnic, religious, economic, political/military, and cultural parochialisms are the survivors. If the latter occurs, an entirely different scenario will evolve relating to space exploration, migration, commercial exploitation of space resources, and settlement in the Twenty-First Century. Whatever the directions, and whatever the implementing policies of the decision-makers, the applicable regimes of law will evolve hand-in-glove to reflect those policies...or new regimes of law, often unique, will share the stage of space jurisprudence. Space law in this century will embrace and respond to new and disparate concepts relating to educational requirements for the changing natures of the private and public sectors workforce, military-private commercial ventures, transglobal trade arrangements, and recognizing the independent trading nature of long-duration and permanent space communities. No area of domestic and international regimes of commercial law will be left untouched in their application to humankind activities in space.

With the expanding global and interplanetary communications capabilities, decision-making by government bodies and officials will become increasingly subject to direct input and effective influence over those decisions by the international or global citizenry, and how those decisions are, or are not, implemented. Interplanetary research and non-Earth celestial body intervention by humans and humankind will experience tighter prior influence, if not control, by the global population, and the resulting law will incorporate an evolving space ethos heretofore pretty much left to the discretion of governmental requirements and officialdom. In short, environmental awareness will expand its ecotone of interest beyond Earth's atmosphere, and will be forced to accommodate an extraordinarily broad array of public interests and demands. Both domestic and international laws will have to evolve that protect not only those concerns and interests, but more importantly, encourage and protect those responsibilities of the general public to help lay a foundation of relevant ethics and philosophic constructs for exploring and intervening with the natural state of other celestial bodies.

Finally, the Twenty-First Century may well see an extraordinarily complex jurisprudential assessment of humankind, or transhumanists, regarding issues of intelligent biorobotic individuality and independent personhood, and separate accountability under regimes of law in a fashion only slightly being addressed curently by lawyers and legal philosophers in the context of cyberspace. Intelligent biorobotics, teleportation, and telepresence very likely will become defined in terms of independent accountability under unique legal regimes, if not jurisprudence, in the ambience of a multitude of space activities. In the process, Homo sapiens sapiens will be forced to attend in a pragmatic and secular fashion the basic question filling endless theological, philosophical, and scientific tomes, i.e., what is the nature, the soul, the very essence of being Homo sapiens sapiens? Toward that end, one of the first all-encompassing legal efforts will be attempting to articulate the underlying values of a space constitutional convention, a Migratory Manifesto incorporating the metalaw ethic that will allow spacekind, whatever its biological or biotechnological genesis, to evolve according to its own needs in a unique space civilization without dragging along unnecessary and unresponsive laws formulated in the immediate physical environment of Earth's surface.

About the Author

Extracted from the book Beyond Earth - The Future of Humans in Space edited by Bob Krone ©2006 Apogee Books ISBN 978-1-894959-41-4

Buy This Book Click here

Retrieved from "http://www.thespacelibrary.com/mediawiki/index.php/Beyond_Earth_%28ATWG%29_-_Chapter_6_-_Space_Law_in_the_21st_Century..._and_Beyond_by_George_S._Robinson"