Gangale's International Space Law

08/29/2026

The Charter of the United Martian States
A Proposed Constitution for the Future Settlements on Mars
Revision 1
Scorpius 221
August 2026
Aside from reorganization of articles and sections, major changes are the addition of the Planetary Stewardship Trust and the Office of Future Generations as constitutionally entrenched independent agencies to finance and oversee the ecopoesis (terraforming) of Mars, as well as raising the requirement for the secession of a city-state to a two-thirds vote in a plebiscite.

This document presents a complete constitutional framework for a future human society on Mars. The Charter of the United Martian States is a confederative instrument designed for a small, dispersed, high-risk frontier environment in which sovereign city-states voluntarily cooperate under strict limi...

08/21/2026

The Martian Accords: Principles for the Orderly Transition from Dependent Outposts and Colonies to Sovereign City-States on Mars

Gangale, Thomas

The Martian Accords set forth non-binding political commitments to guide the orderly transition of human settlements on Mars from terrestrial-dependent outposts and colonies to sovereign city-states within a voluntary confederal framework. Reaffirming the Outer Space Treaty and complementing the Artemis Accords, the Martian Accords outline three progressive stages-dependent status, intermediate autonomy, and full city-state sovereignty-while ensuring continuity of international responsibility, jurisdiction, control, and liability. They address the transfer of authorization and supervision, the registration of objects constructed on Mars (outside the scope of the Registration Convention), residual terrestrial obligations, asymmetric transitions, and the coordinating role of any future Union of city-states. The Martian Accords expressly preserve the non-appropriation principle, treat safety zones as temporary coordination tools only, and remain open to accession by States and by Martian settlements that acquire sufficient legal personality. Designed as evolutionary political commitments rather than binding treaty law, they aim to facilitate a liberal, pacific order of self-governing Martian polities while maintaining transparency, safety, and peaceful use of outer space.

This link will take you to a page that’s not on LinkedIn

08/16/2026

The Charter of the United Martian States and The Martian Federalist: A Proposed Constitution for the Future Settlements on Mars

This document presents a complete constitutional framework for a future human society on Mars. The Charter of the United Martian States is a confederative instrument designed for a small, dispersed, high-risk frontier environment in which sovereign city-states voluntarily cooperate under strict limits on central power. It is grounded in the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (1967), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the historical lessons of Earth’s confederations and federations.

The Charter deliberately rejects a unitary planetary state or a strong federal model in favor of:

* Absolute city-state autonomy in internal governance, labor-capital relations, and local resource management

* Unrestricted right of secession

* Minimal Union powers, strictly enumerated and subject to immediate judicial review

* A defensive, humanitarian Martian Space Guard capped at 0.2 % of population

* Direct democracy at the Union level (initiative, referendum, recall of the Consul) as a normative model

* Seven equally authentic languages (English, Latin, Russian, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese) with an open clause for future additions

* A high amendment threshold (three-fourths popular vote) with an unamendable core protecting secession, autonomy, rights, and the Guard cap

The Martian Federalist is a series of twelve initial essays that explain the reasoning behind each major article and section. Written in the tradition of the original Federalist Papers, these essays defend the confederative choice, the minimal central structure, and the safeguards against tyranny and centralization. They are addressed not only to the first Martians who must ratify the Charter, but to every future generation that will inherit and perhaps amend it.

This work is offered to the space-law community, to future settlers, and to anyone who believes that Mars should not repeat Earth’s mistakes of empire and coercion. It is a proposal — not a finished imposition — and invites comment, criticism, and improvement.

The experiment begins with ratification. May it proceed in peace, reason, and mutual respect.

This document presents a complete constitutional framework for a future human society on Mars. The Charter of the United Martian States is a confederative instrument designed for a small, dispersed, high-risk frontier environment in which sovereign city-states voluntarily cooperate under strict limi...

08/09/2026

3. No nation objected to the removal of small amounts of material from celestial bodies, likely because these were pilot-study or scientific space probes. If the activity were conducted on a commercial scale generating profit, certain states and scholars might have taken a different position.

As to your third question, its premise invokes counterfactual history, which makes a direct answer to it problematic. The historical fact is that no activities were conducted on a commercial scale generating profit. Nevertheless, the Moon Agreement anticipates such activities in Article 11(5):

“States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible.”

Artemis Accords Section 10 is the beginning of the process to establish such an international regime. The Accords now have 70 signatory states. No national government appears to have lodged a formal diplomatic objection (such as a note verbale, formal protest, or official filing specifically targeting Section 10) to the Artemis Accords’ provisions on space resource extraction and utilization. Although certain scholars have taken a different position, I find such arguments based more on their own views of lex ferenda rather than on a diligent examination of lex lata.

08/09/2026

2. Do we need to reconsider the scope of the “freedom of exploration and use” principle in light of ongoing technological developments?

As to your second question, with regard to the “freedom of exploration and use” principle, there is an undeniable tension between your freedom and mine. I am free to spread my towel on the beach and dig in the sand, and so are you. What is impermissible is for you to interfere with my zone of use. That zone needs a reasonable definition and delimitation commensurate with the ongoing activity. So, no, we do not need to reconsider the scope of the “freedom of exploration and use” principle in light of ongoing technological developments; the principle itself stands. Rather, what we need is to establish norms and procedures that flesh out that principle into a pragmatic regime… preferably before we resort to throwing sand in each other’s faces.

08/09/2026

Three questions were posed to me on LinkedIn this morning regarding the legality of exploiting celestial resources.

1. Would the removal of resources from the surface or sub-surface of celestial bodies, whether for in-situ or ex-situ commercial use or sale, lead to exclusive use, and thereby to partial ownership and appropriation of those celestial bodies and outer space, which is prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty (OST)?

To begin with, it is important to understand the intended scope of the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. The treaty refers to “exploration and use” in its title as well as in its text (Articles I, III, IX, X, XI, and XIII). Nowhere does it mention the exploitation of resources. The was a deliberate choice, not an oversight. A straight line can be drawn through the travaux preparatoires to its predecessor documents, Resolution 1962 (XVIII), entitled “Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space”, which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 1963, and Resolution 1721 (XVI), entitled “International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,” which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 December 1961. The UN’s work on the legal questions regarding the exploration and use of outer space began with the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, established by General Assembly Resolution 1348 (XIII) on December 13, 1958. Two statements stand out with regard to the scope of the committee’s work in the early years. The report of the Legal Committee, dated 27 May 1959, included a working paper submitted by the delegation of the United States:

“It was pointed out that exploration, settlement and exploitation of natural resources raised distinguishable problems, and that only settlement and exploitation raised serious problems of possible claims to sovereignty. These did not appear likely in the near future.” (U.N. Doc. A/AC.98/C.2/SR.1)

On 9 June 1959, the full Ad Hoc Committee issued its report:

“The Committee noted that, while scientific programmes envisaged relatively early exploration of celestial bodies, human settlement and extensive exploitation of resources were not likely in the near future. For this reason the Committee believed that problems relating to the settlement and exploitation of celestial bodies did not require priority treatment.” (U.N. Doc. A/AC.98/C.2/L.1)

The exploitation of resources was not mentioned again in COUPOS documents until 13 June 1969, two and a half years after the Outer Space Treaty was opened for signature and only five weeks before Apollo 11’s first manned landing on the Moon, when Argentina raised the “question of the legal status of substances, resources, and products originating from the Moon.” (U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/C.2/L/54.) The lack of discussion between June 1959 and June 1969 on the legal problems pertaining to the exploitation of natural resources was not an error of omission; rather, it was a deliberate choice. Thus neither Resolution 1721 (XVI), Resolution 1962 (XVIII), nor the Outer Space Treaty ever addressed the question. This was purposefully left to the negotiation of the Moon Agreement, of which Argentina’s question may be considered the start.

08/08/2026

A Voluntary Lunar and Martian Heritage Protection Agreement

The protection of humanity's cultural and scientific heritage on the Moon and Mars represents a critical gap in the governance of outer space. As lunar commercialization accelerates and human missions to Mars approach, existing soft-law instruments and aspirational guidelines may well prove insufficient. This article reviews the evolution of lunar heritage concepts and introduces a Voluntary Lunar and Martian Heritage Protection Agreement designed to provide practical, non-territorial safeguards for historic sites, artifacts, and surface traces. The proposed Agreement establishes a lightweight, consensus-based framework of operational guidelines-including descent/landing keep-out zones, graduated surface buffers, and special due regard for high-value traces-that fully respects the Outer Space Treaty's principles of non-appropriation and free access. It deliberately begins with modest, voluntary commitments to build confidence and precedent for more complex governance challenges. This work forms an integral part of a broader intellectual project: it complements "The Charter of the United Martian States," which proposes a constitutional vision for Mars, and The Martian Federalist, which examines the principles of governance and liberty beyond Earth. Together, these documents argue that preserving the tangible record of our first steps on these two worlds is essential to shaping the values and institutions that will guide humanity's future as a spacefaring civilization. By offering a realistic, incremental, and adaptable mechanism for heritage protection, this Agreement seeks to ensure that the spirit of exploration, scientific integrity, and shared human legacy endures as we move from temporary visits to permanent presence on other worlds.

The protection of humanity's cultural and scientific heritage on the Moon and Mars represents a critical gap in the governance of outer space. As lunar commercialization accelerates and human missions to Mars approach, existing soft-law instruments and aspirational guidelines may well prove insuffic...

08/04/2026

D. The Necessity of an International Regulatory Mechanism

Jakhu does not argue that space resources can never be extracted. Rather, he contends that commercial extraction without an internationally negotiated, multilateral management regime is inherently illegal. In his view, until states establish a global regulatory body (analogous to the International Seabed Authority under the Law of the Sea), any unilateral commercial resource harvesting breaches treaty obligations.

My response:

Again, the Outer Space Treaty is deliberately silent regarding resource exploitation. As to the Moon Agreement, this interpretation is contradicted by “the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion.” (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 32)

Firstly, by the U.S. Representative’s uncontradicted statement in COPUOS:

“[The agreement] places no moratorium upon the exploitation of the natural resources on celestial bodies, pending the establishment of an international regime. This permits orderly attempts to establish that such exploitation is in fact feasible and practicable, by making possible experimental beginnings and, then, pilot operations, a process by which we believe we can learn if it will be practicable and feasible to exploit the mineral resources of such celestial bodies." (U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/PV.203)

Secondly, by COPUOS’s stated understanding of the Agreement in the document which transmitted it to the UNGA to open it for signature:

"Following a suggestion for further clarification of article VII, the committee agreed that article VII is not intended to result in prohibiting the exploitation of natural resources which may be found on celestial bodies other than the Earth but, rather, that such exploitation will be carried out in such manner as to minimize any disruption or adverse effects to the existing balance of the environment." (UN Doc. A/34/20)

08/04/2026

C. Rejection of Unilateral Domestic Legislation

Jakhu strongly opposes national statutes like the U.S. 2015 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act or Luxembourg’s 2017 Space Resources Law. Under Article VI of the OST, states bear international responsibility for all domestic commercial activities. Jakhu argues that a nation cannot grant its citizens property rights over space resources under domestic law if that nation itself does not possess sovereign rights over those resources in international law.

My response:

It is black letter law that sovereigns have extraterritorial rights in the international commons, that a nation has legal authority to regulate its citizens, vessels, or activities beyond its national borders in unowned spaces like the high seas, outer space, and Antarctica.

08/04/2026

To Jakhu, creating a domestic legal regime that awards private property titles over extracted celestial materials is an illegal workaround—it is an act of national appropriation "by other means."

My response:

This interpretation is contradicted by the customary international law that has developed since 1969. Many lunar samples have passed into private possession, with title never being seriously challenged in any nation. The development of the customary international law pertaining to resource extraction has culminated in the Artemis Accords, Section 10(2):

“The Signatories affirm that the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, and that contracts and other legal instruments relating to space resources should be consistent with that Treaty.”