BernardZ wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:34:17 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ
: made the phosphor on my monitor glow
: in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: In article ,
: says...
: Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
:
: :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : BernardZ wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like
: : :ships do today.
: : :
: :
: : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are
: : willing to give up their citizenship.
: :
: :
: :Really? Why?
: :
:
: Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they
: are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens.
: If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company.
:
:
: The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these
: problems.
:
:
: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm
:
: The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime
: and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of
: the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S.
: has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if:
:
: This has nothing to do with space. Space activities are governed by
: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, not maritime law.
:
:
:Although not a definite answer it appears that space law is basically
:maritime law.
:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
:

No, it does not appear that that is the case at all.

If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship
with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially
responsible?

Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is
quite different.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson