In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:

As for the time prior to that...that would probably have been the Treaty
of Tordesilla, in which Spain and Portugual carved up the world outside
Europe between themselves.

No, I don't see that as at all comparable. This would be something more
like the Land Grant system used to settle the west (except that in this
case, there are no aboriginal people to complicate the issue).

How is the US land grant system "comparable"? The land that was granted
was part of territory the US had already claimed as its own.

If the US (or UN or any other group of nations) make no claim of
sovereignty to (say) the Moon or Mars yet nevertheless claim to be able
to regulate land title there, why are the titles grant by them likely to
be any more valid than a land title to the same place by some other
nation or group of nations?

In the case of the Treaty of Tordesilla, Spain and Portugual did make
claims of sovereignty, but even then they proved unenforceable when
other nations like France and England simply thumbed their noses at the
treaty. The latter were not a party to it, so they doubtless felt
themselves under no obligation to abide by it. To enforce their rights
under the treaty the Spanish & the Portuguese would therefore have had
to resort not merely to some individual before the courts (like the one
you postulate below) but force of arms.

I mention that latter treaty, in part, because attempting to settle
offworld property rights at this early stage seems (IMHO) to be roughly
the equivalent of Europe of the 1490s attempting to regulate property
rights in the New World. The Treaty of Tordesilla had nothing to say
about private property of course, but it did attempt to divide control;
and control would be what any national or international effort to
regulate offworld property rights at this stage would need to be about.
Without control, any land titles conferred could end up being worthless
in the sense that they would unenforceable--just as the Treaty of
Tordesilla is now defunct because Spain and Portugual proved unable to
prevent other nations like England, France, and the Netherlands staking
claims of their own.

This analogy is quite flawed. You exaggerate the need for control;
there aren't countries (or individuals) all vying to claim the same
hunks of land by force. All that's needed is clear legal status. And
yes, that status can be backed up by force if necessary.

Example: suppose the U.S. decides that any entity that lands something
on the Moon can claim the land within a 100-km radius, as long as that
equipment is functioning and can send back video of the claimed land
upon request. You think there is value in that, so you find investors,
form a company, and land several probes claiming hundreds of km^2 on the
Moon, all in accordance with the law. Perhaps you parcel it off and
sell the pieces (now having a legal basis for doing so).

Now I come along, and for some perverted reason I claim some of the same
land, and start selling some of the same pieces. You can then take me
to court, demonstrate that my claims are invalid, and have my butt
thrown in jail for fraud.

Your scenario assumes that the world is populated only by Americans. Or
at least that both victim and perpetrator will be Americans. That way
the long arm of US law can conveniently reach out and grab them.

As difficult as it may be to believe but the writ of US law only runs on
US soil. Other places have their own laws, their own courts, and their
own governments. If such places are not part of the "majority of
relevant nations", why should they give too hoots about a piece of paper
whose ability to be enforced stops at the borders of those other nations?

If the government of one of the minority decides to set up its own
system why should the bits of paper it may issue be any the less valid
than ones issued by the "majority of relevant nations", especially if
said majority do not claim soverereignty over the places they are
issuing title to? The minority's bits of paper may not be in force in
the US, but then the US's would not bein force in that other nation.

If that other nation gives one of its citizens title to the same patch
of lunar regolith as some US citizen, the US may be able to arrest the
other fellow should he or she ever be rash enough to venture onto US
soil, but how are they going to stop the government which issued it from
issuing further bits of paper?

Invade the other country and throw the lot into Guantanamo Bay?

That is all the legal enforcement that is necessary. It will be a
*long* time before anything is done off Earth without there being
someone on Earth who can be held accountable for it.

And just exactly who would you "hold accountable" on Earth if the land
in question lay on (say) Mars and the rival claimant was living on Mars?
Someone who has gone up to live there on a permanent basis may not have
any assets left in Earth to "arrest".

And by then, Earth
governments will be quite capable of pursuing their needs off Earth too.

You mean in the same fashion the US proved "quite capable" at solving
its Amerindian "problem" back in the 19th Century?

If the US was not making any claim of sovereignty offworld, on exactly
what legal grounds would it propose to "pursue" such "needs" offworld?

So there really is nothing needed here but a clear legal status for
property rights, which can be agreed upon by a majority of relevant
nations.

This is, of course, assuming that it is the US which is on the side of
the "majority of relevant nations".

--
Stephen Souter

http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/