This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moon Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The diagram shows the USA as Signed & Ratified but this doesn't match with the "Ratified" section
The article doesn't say what the Moon Treaty IS -- which is a bare minimum even for a stub. The links to Outer Space Treaty and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea don't substitute, and in any case they still aren't enough to figure out what the MT is. Thx, "alyosha" (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the conventional understanding of what this treaty is/was intended to cover? All bodies that are captive and remain within the gravitational influence of our sun? That would include all eight other planets, Kuiper Belt Objects, satellites, the asteroids and comets. It would then not include objects even as close as Proxima Centauri if such are discovered that close. Or does the treaty envision covering the newly-discovered exo-planets that are even hundreds of light years away?
In other words, does the treaty only cover celestial objects that it can be reasonably foreseen will be reached by manned spacecraft, with return journeys, and with the ability of radio communications? Objects as far away as Proxima Centauri and further do not fall into this category as it requires theoretical FTL, and communications, if possible (requiring immense power), would take decades.
GBC 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In the article, Lebanon is mentioned as having ratified the treaty, but this fact isn't reflected in the map. Could someone correct it? Eklipse ( talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly,
the treaty is only signed by France, Guatemala, India and Romania.
And ratified by Australia, Belgium, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan,
Peru, Kazakhstan, Austria, Chile, Morocco, The Netherlands,
The Philippines and Uruguay
So, India should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.
See this
databes
Tristan Laurillard (
talk)
20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Who wrote this treaty? I didn't see any information about which entity crafted it, or the history of the treaty, for that matter. 75.45.244.204 ( talk) 07:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
First, this article is about the the Moon Treaty, not the Outer Space Treaty. Let's not confuse the issue by saying what the OST covers in the article. Leave that for the article on the OST (which has also been altered in a non-neutral manner.)
Second, the recently changed description is not neutral. Some commentators have said the OST places no restrictions on commercial use of space, including mining and other resource exploitation. It simply prohibits nations from claiming territory and (by implication) enforcing any private claims to real estate. That's different from saying you can't bring back the rocks and sell them. Any mention of this issue should discuss both sides of the discussion. Or we can just say that a controversy exists. Fcrary ( talk) 23:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The Moon Treaty is a follow up of the Outer Space Treaty. The controversy exists on both treaties, and I do not promote either side of the controversy. The Outer Space Treaty says nothing about mining so any interpretation against/pro is POV, so yes, there is a controversy. Next, unlike the OST, the Moon Treaty does seem to have a clause allowing exploitation IF done by an international regime, which has not yet been presented to the UN for amendment. I have been deleting extreme claims, I am fixing the POV to reflect the current international status. What do you assess that is non-neutral? Rowan Forest ( talk) 23:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I'm still not comfortable with is the use of "international community". Technically, any international treaty only applies to the countries which are a party to it. That means the "community" in question is just 18 countries. And, since 17 of them can't launch anything into space, that's hardly a spacefaring "community". To me, at least, "international community" implies all, or at least a large majority, of nations. Some of the wording about being a framework for further regulation, rather than being specific regulations itself, also doesn't come across correctly to me. It seems to imply that, if specific regulations are agreed to, then they would be binding for the all nations. In practice, they'd only apply to the 18 nations in question and any others which subsequently ratified the Moon Treaty.
Since this is going on in parallel with edits to the Outer Space Treaty article, I'm just put my related comments here. On the subject of extraterrestrial resources, OST article seems to imply that anything not specifically permitted by international law is prohibited. Or that a number of cited sources believe this, with a brief comment that there is some controversy. I don't think that's the case. One of the cited references uses fishing in international waters as allowed resource exploitation in unclaimed territory. But then it shoots the idea down on the next slide, by noting that fishing in international waters is subject to a large number of rules and regulations. While true, that's circular: Those rules and regulations are a direct result of specific treaties. Without the treaties, or with vague ones, those rules and regulations would not exist. A better example might be dumping trash off a ship. That was completely legal under international law until the London Convention of 1972. By analogy, the only widely ratified, international treaty on extraterrestrial activities is the OST, and it's extremely vague on the subject of resource exploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary ( talk • contribs)
1) The precise use of the term "international community"
2) "[…] framework for further regulation, rather than being specific regulations itself, also doesn't come across correctly to me."'
3) OST article seems to imply that anything not specifically permitted by international law is prohibited. […] I don't think that's the case.
The first sentence of the second paragraph includes an in-line "Needs update" tag, with the explanation that the date near the tag has passed - but there is no date near the tag. Since the tag was put there in September 2020, can I just remove it? -- JDspeeder1 ( talk) 13:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Moon Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The diagram shows the USA as Signed & Ratified but this doesn't match with the "Ratified" section
The article doesn't say what the Moon Treaty IS -- which is a bare minimum even for a stub. The links to Outer Space Treaty and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea don't substitute, and in any case they still aren't enough to figure out what the MT is. Thx, "alyosha" (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the conventional understanding of what this treaty is/was intended to cover? All bodies that are captive and remain within the gravitational influence of our sun? That would include all eight other planets, Kuiper Belt Objects, satellites, the asteroids and comets. It would then not include objects even as close as Proxima Centauri if such are discovered that close. Or does the treaty envision covering the newly-discovered exo-planets that are even hundreds of light years away?
In other words, does the treaty only cover celestial objects that it can be reasonably foreseen will be reached by manned spacecraft, with return journeys, and with the ability of radio communications? Objects as far away as Proxima Centauri and further do not fall into this category as it requires theoretical FTL, and communications, if possible (requiring immense power), would take decades.
GBC 19:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In the article, Lebanon is mentioned as having ratified the treaty, but this fact isn't reflected in the map. Could someone correct it? Eklipse ( talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly,
the treaty is only signed by France, Guatemala, India and Romania.
And ratified by Australia, Belgium, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan,
Peru, Kazakhstan, Austria, Chile, Morocco, The Netherlands,
The Philippines and Uruguay
So, India should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.
See this
databes
Tristan Laurillard (
talk)
20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Who wrote this treaty? I didn't see any information about which entity crafted it, or the history of the treaty, for that matter. 75.45.244.204 ( talk) 07:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
First, this article is about the the Moon Treaty, not the Outer Space Treaty. Let's not confuse the issue by saying what the OST covers in the article. Leave that for the article on the OST (which has also been altered in a non-neutral manner.)
Second, the recently changed description is not neutral. Some commentators have said the OST places no restrictions on commercial use of space, including mining and other resource exploitation. It simply prohibits nations from claiming territory and (by implication) enforcing any private claims to real estate. That's different from saying you can't bring back the rocks and sell them. Any mention of this issue should discuss both sides of the discussion. Or we can just say that a controversy exists. Fcrary ( talk) 23:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The Moon Treaty is a follow up of the Outer Space Treaty. The controversy exists on both treaties, and I do not promote either side of the controversy. The Outer Space Treaty says nothing about mining so any interpretation against/pro is POV, so yes, there is a controversy. Next, unlike the OST, the Moon Treaty does seem to have a clause allowing exploitation IF done by an international regime, which has not yet been presented to the UN for amendment. I have been deleting extreme claims, I am fixing the POV to reflect the current international status. What do you assess that is non-neutral? Rowan Forest ( talk) 23:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I'm still not comfortable with is the use of "international community". Technically, any international treaty only applies to the countries which are a party to it. That means the "community" in question is just 18 countries. And, since 17 of them can't launch anything into space, that's hardly a spacefaring "community". To me, at least, "international community" implies all, or at least a large majority, of nations. Some of the wording about being a framework for further regulation, rather than being specific regulations itself, also doesn't come across correctly to me. It seems to imply that, if specific regulations are agreed to, then they would be binding for the all nations. In practice, they'd only apply to the 18 nations in question and any others which subsequently ratified the Moon Treaty.
Since this is going on in parallel with edits to the Outer Space Treaty article, I'm just put my related comments here. On the subject of extraterrestrial resources, OST article seems to imply that anything not specifically permitted by international law is prohibited. Or that a number of cited sources believe this, with a brief comment that there is some controversy. I don't think that's the case. One of the cited references uses fishing in international waters as allowed resource exploitation in unclaimed territory. But then it shoots the idea down on the next slide, by noting that fishing in international waters is subject to a large number of rules and regulations. While true, that's circular: Those rules and regulations are a direct result of specific treaties. Without the treaties, or with vague ones, those rules and regulations would not exist. A better example might be dumping trash off a ship. That was completely legal under international law until the London Convention of 1972. By analogy, the only widely ratified, international treaty on extraterrestrial activities is the OST, and it's extremely vague on the subject of resource exploitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary ( talk • contribs)
1) The precise use of the term "international community"
2) "[…] framework for further regulation, rather than being specific regulations itself, also doesn't come across correctly to me."'
3) OST article seems to imply that anything not specifically permitted by international law is prohibited. […] I don't think that's the case.
The first sentence of the second paragraph includes an in-line "Needs update" tag, with the explanation that the date near the tag has passed - but there is no date near the tag. Since the tag was put there in September 2020, can I just remove it? -- JDspeeder1 ( talk) 13:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)