@greenprofgreen @nytimes Dear @greenprofgreen, everyone is entitled to their #opinion, but it’s unfortunate that your op-ed contains several errors about #spacelaw, and also misinterprets the character, intent and context of the #ArtemisAccords. @nytopinion
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion To start, the #OST does *not* "designate space as the province of all mankind". Instead, its use & exploration of outer space shall be the province of mankind. Not the same thing.
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion More serious is the mistake that #OST "codified norms of the common heritage of mankind". The #OST does NOT contain the #CHM principle! The Moon Agreement does, which is why no space faring nation proceeded to sign it, as they misunderstand this concept.
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion Then, "the looming prospect of the commercialization of space has begun to test the limits of international space law" - space has been used commercially since the start, and this is expressly foreseen in art. VI #OST. Nothing new, though it will require additional regulation.
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion And, "NASA, alone, created the Artemis Accords" is a pertinent error. I know the people from @NASA &
@StateDept who travelled to each initial signatory to discuss the text, and adjustments were made as a consequence of those discussions.
@StateDept who travelled to each initial signatory to discuss the text, and adjustments were made as a consequence of those discussions.
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion @NASA @StateDept Of course, subsequent signatories can no longer amend the initial text but it is not excluded that amendments are made n the future with the agreement of all signatories.
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion @NASA @StateDept Then, "The accords take the legal form of a series of bilateral treaties". No, they are not bilateral, and they are not treaties. They are a multilateral (8 simultaneous signatories, subsequent ones added) non-legally binding political instrument. That's a big difference.
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion @NASA @StateDept Next, "They create “safety zones”. Those are not prohibited under #spacelaw. Their stated purpose is
"to avoid harmful interference" (see Art IX OST!). They must comply with specific requirements (time, size, notification etc).
"to avoid harmful interference" (see Art IX OST!). They must comply with specific requirements (time, size, notification etc).
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion @NASA @StateDept You say AA run counter to norms of int. coop. and "multilateral institutions can unravel or, worse, become irrelevant". I quote: "Signatories intend to use their experience under the Accords to contribute to multilateral efforts [...] including through ongoing efforts at COPUOS"
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion @NASA @StateDept Next, "the current system is in trouble and is likely to be replaced with US-made regulations that allow for the future commercialization of space" - Not US-made, and commerce has been there all along and is not forbidden.
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion @NASA @StateDept See also AA's final provisions: the US gov will transmit the AA to the UNSG "with a view to its circulation to all the members of the Organization as an official document of the United Nations". This has been done.
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion @NASA @StateDept Lastly, let me point out the US is actively participating in the discussions in the newly established COPUOS working group on space resources, unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwor…
@greenprofgreen @nytimes @nytopinion @NASA @StateDept I hope this clarifies, happy to discuss #spacelaw anytime. By the way not all #AA signatories represent rich spacefaring states, so why not see this as a genuine way forward in international space cooperation instead? Remember it's Russia that withdraws from #ISS, unilaterally... 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
