Antarctic and Lunar property rights. . . a modest proposal

That it, there currently are none, thanks to the UNerrific Antarctic
treaty and Outer Space Treaty. How do you solve the issue, though, of
divvying up territory that is contiguous with no one, but that everyone
is interested in? At least, without provoking a major war in the
process?

I propose a time-delayed 'homestead' model, with land/mineral rights
awarded based on actual habitation. This means in order to gain the
ability to utilize Antarctic resources, a nation would have to invest
in Antarctic habitation. The percentage of land a nation is allowed to
utilize should be apportioned based directly on how many people each
nation has inhabiting the Antarctic landmass. To prevent 'future
claims' that people have no intention of using (a regular point of
abuse with international GEO oribital slots--Tonga, anyone?),
utilization rights would be tied to actual habitation and would expire
a short time after Antarctic habitation by the registered owner ceased.
Of course, the individual plots could be bought and sold--but
regardless of who owns it, if habitation ceases, the property
disappears and returns to the multilateral organization.

Lunar property rights could be treated similarly.

Of course, this would require abrogating or withdrawing from current
treaties. So? Somebody name a benefit of the current way Antarctica is
managed.


Anyone?

Tom

Tom Cuddihy wrote:

Of course, this would require abrogating or withdrawing from
current treaties. So? Somebody name a benefit of the current way
Antarctica is managed.


Anyone?

It has the not inconsiderable advantage of reflecting current
political, economic, and technical realities far better than space
advocates' frontier fantasies.

Jim Davis

Jim Davis wrote:
Tom Cuddihy wrote:

Of course, this would require abrogating or withdrawing from
current treaties. So? Somebody name a benefit of the current way
Antarctica is managed.


Anyone?

It has the not inconsiderable advantage of reflecting current
political, economic, and technical realities far better than space
advocates' frontier fantasies.

Jim Davis

Call me a caveman, but prior to 2000 the political 'reality' was that
there could be no future nuclear weapons development, no development of
ballistic missile defense, and certainly no way of invading a middle
eastern fascist state that didn't invade the US and converting it to a
democratic state. It was all 'unthinkable', which is part of the reason
the State Department finds itself perpetually behind the actual
national strategy.
Inertia and the the beaureacratic instinct to expect the future to be
the same as the past are very large components of 'political
reality'--insofar as political leaders allow themselves to be kept to
inaction by it.

The current political 'reality' is that the UN is somehow relevant.
That may and probably will change in the future. The UN finds intself
farther behind the realities of the increasingly global world every
day.

Tom Cuddihy wrote:

Call me a caveman, but prior to 2000 the political 'reality' was
that there could be no future nuclear weapons development, no
development of ballistic missile defense, and certainly no way
of invading a middle eastern fascist state that didn't invade
the US and converting it to a democratic state. It was all
'unthinkable', which is part of the reason the State Department
finds itself perpetually behind the actual national strategy.
Inertia and the the beaureacratic instinct to expect the future
to be the same as the past are very large components of
'political reality'--insofar as political leaders allow
themselves to be kept to inaction by it.

The current political 'reality' is that the UN is somehow
relevant. That may and probably will change in the future. The
UN finds intself farther behind the realities of the
increasingly global world every day.

Tom, when reality changes, policy changes.

Tom, try this experiment. There are Congressional elections in
2006. Sound out the various political parties about advocating
unilateral US annexation of Antarctica, the moon, the Andraomeda
galaxy, the Sea of Japan, or whatever sates your appetite for new
territory.

Let us know what kinds of receptions you get. It should make
interesting reading.

Jim Davis

Tom Cuddihy wrote:

I propose a time-delayed 'homestead' model, with land/mineral rights
awarded based on actual habitation. This means in order to gain the
ability to utilize Antarctic resources, a nation would have to invest
in Antarctic habitation. The percentage of land a nation is allowed to
utilize should be apportioned based directly on how many people each
nation has inhabiting the Antarctic landmass. To prevent 'future
claims' that people have no intention of using (a regular point of
abuse with international GEO oribital slots--Tonga, anyone?),
utilization rights would be tied to actual habitation and would expire
a short time after Antarctic habitation by the registered owner ceased.
Of course, the individual plots could be bought and sold--but
regardless of who owns it, if habitation ceases, the property
disappears and returns to the multilateral organization.

I think that the property rights should eventually become "real".
Otherwise, you are basically renting from the UN or whatever agency.
All nations should be allowed accept registerations.

I would prefer something like:

The process would be something:

- register your claim with a national agency (probably would be a fee)
- within 5 years, the property must be explored by probe (or better),
otherwise the registeration is invalid
- dorect exploration by probe counts as an alternative to registeration
- if the property is owned 10 years after initial registeration, the
property becomes permenent property of the registerant subject to the
laws of the original country the property was registered with.
- property can be registered more than once, earlier claims take
priority

- probe presence outweighs probe exploration
- human exploration outweighs probe presence
- human presence outweighs human exploration

- longer presence outweights shorter presence
time in the property's volume effectively moves the registeration
time backwards in time
- the current owner only changes if the new owner has a higher priority
claim
- earlier original registeration outweighs equal priority level

- exploration is a fly-by
- presence requires that the probe/person is actually in the property's
volume

- you cannot prevent someone who would gain ownership by entering the
property from entering the property
- Otherwise, the property is owned by the current owner with the right
to refuse entry and request that those present leave

- max claim size for asteroids is the entire asteroid
- max claim size for planets/moons is a 20km radius cylinder of height
2km above and cone to centre of body below

This allows:

- claims by flyby for low value property

- high value/critical property can be claimed by moving up the priority
chain
If someone is claiming lots of property by flyby, you can just leave
you probe at a specific piece of property to over-rule their claim

- Allows missions to be optimised for cost rather than speed.
"rent-seeking" will strip some of the economic surplus if people
cannot claim objects before launch. This is probably not a big issue
for asteroids as there is so many of them.

- prevents people from mass claiming by just registering, an act is
required to gain ownership.

"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in
oups.com:

[...] Somebody name a benefit of the current way Antarctica is managed.

It keeps oil drilling and strip mining away from a very sensitive
environment.


--
Doing AIX support was the most monty-pythonesque
activity available at the time.
Eagerly awaiting my thin chocolat mint.

Tom Cuddihy wrote:

Call me a caveman, but prior to 2000 the political 'reality' was that
there could be no future nuclear weapons development, no development of
ballistic missile defense, and certainly no way of invading a middle
eastern fascist state that didn't invade the US and converting it to a
democratic state. It was all 'unthinkable', which is part of the reason
the State Department finds itself perpetually behind the actual
national strategy.

Whetever you are a caveman or not, but if you thought in 2000 there
would be no more new ballistic missiles or think that the political
climate has become more tolerant of new nuclear arms then "a cave" or
some other kind of bubble that shield s you from the reality appears to
be part of your daily life.

Jose Pina Coelho wrote:
"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in
oups.com:

[...] Somebody name a benefit of the current way Antarctica is managed.

It keeps oil drilling and strip mining away from a very sensitive
environment.

You trying to turn this into a comedy thread? Might as well saying the
Moon Treaty is meant to keep those nasty water drilling and strip
mining interests away from the sensitive lunar environment....

Pave the Universe, turn up the A/C.

Mike Lorrey wrote:

Jose Pina Coelh


It keeps oil drilling and strip mining away from a very sensitive
environment.



You trying to turn this into a comedy thread? Might as well saying the
Moon Treaty is meant to keep those nasty water drilling and strip
mining interests away from the sensitive lunar environment....



I once read an article that was concerned about the propellant gases of
large-scale manned lunar exploration would "harm the delicate ecology of
the Moon" which is a pretty neat trick as I think that it's fairly
difficult to harm the ecology of a lifeless ball of rock.

Pave the Universe, turn up the A/C.



Tear down Paracelsus, put up a parking lot? ;-)

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Mike Lorrey wrote:

You trying to turn this into a comedy thread? Might as well saying the
Moon Treaty is meant to keep those nasty water drilling and strip
mining interests away from the sensitive lunar environment....

I once read an article that was concerned about the propellant gases of
large-scale manned lunar exploration would "harm the delicate ecology of
the Moon" which is a pretty neat trick as I think that it's fairly
difficult to harm the ecology of a lifeless ball of rock.

It is a lifeless ball now because of the effect of propellant gases and
other human activities. When Barbicane, Nicholl and Ardan[*] went there,
there was plenty of life on it. :-)
[*] Jules Verne, from the Earth to the Moon.

Alain Fournier