Ok some philosophical thoughts on #ArtemisAccords. Legal advancements are tricky. Social institutions create infrastructure for things we couldn’t do alone; as a result they involve compromise (otherwise we’d forgo the compromise and do it however we want).
As a standalone document, the Outer Space Treaty is visionary and idealistic, an index into a (possibly) utopian future. But moving to implementation requires we pull it down from the pedestal. Sacrilege [1] of a holy object.
A safety zone of 2km (with associated implementation details and enforcement mechanisms) is a lot less sexy than non interference as an abstract principle. It’s harder to attach all our own images of the future to it.
But, net on net, this development is exciting and important. The #ArtemisAccords create a landscape on which to have some very important conversations. These conversations are *categorical* prerequisites to enabling sustained presence on the Moon.
We can complain that they aren’t specific enough (they’re not). But if they were, we’d be yelling that we weren’t consulted on the details. This is exactly the moment that we need to roll up our sleeves and get involved.
The US has been a historic leader in space, but there is an unfortunate trend towards politicizing space goals. Being a good partner means long term commitments, minimizing re-vectoring and involving international peers in strategic shifts.
In the sense that legal and regulatory developments can outlive the changing winds of program priorities (& political parties), the move to introduce agreements that increase confidence in the legal treatment of space activities is positive.
Further, the Accords do not appear to involve a departure from current domestic or international law. And since the US 2015 Space Act, space-faring nations have increasingly introduced domestic legislation which affirm the right to ownership of extracted resources.
So are the #ArtemisAccords positive or negative? Should they be seen through the lens of the administration’s values & priorities, or a natural evolution of domestic & international agreements & democratic institutions as would be expected in a rapidly developing domain?
Of course it’s both. But as civil society that means we have a LOT of capacity building to do. These conversations will require developing recommendations in a domain that *cannot* rely on the same body of precedents afforded most other domains.
Why? In 1967, the OST, signed in the context of major arms control negotiations and the fear of nuclear holocaust, created a framework that resets key axiomatic ingredients of international law in outer space (that is: appropriation and access). 🤯
(Nerd diversion: this classic 1965 Bin Cheng article w fantastic quote from a delegate to OST negotiations captures a sentiment that we cannot possibly bring our current systems of international law into space, that they must be “radically revised.” academic.oup.com/clp/article-ab…) 
But that IS the opportunity of space - to push the boundaries and rethink how we might confront our utopias. I say this not to be naive, but to motivate keeping the plot... and to point out we have a lot of work ahead.
</soapbox>
</soapbox>
[1] BTW, not that I had to look it up…. but in case you didn't know: Sacrilege is “violation or injurious treatment" of a thing. "When the sacrilegious offence is verbal, it is called _blasphemy_, and when physical, it is often called _desecration_.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrilege 🤷♀️
