Legal issues regarding human expansion into the Solar System

[Alien Space Bats]

The later paragraphs in this post represent something of a sidetrack, albeit one that I hope will be enlightening for some of you.

---

I suspect we'll see the nation-state become the planet-state. Multi-planetary nations won't really be a thing, though some vague notion of a human empire may come around with a set up similar to NATO.

I'm of the opinion that it won't be centred around earth. Probably mars or somewhere else, because of the aforementioned problems in trying to glue together hundreds of radically different systems of law and culture and such, compared to simply landing on mars and declaring that it's all One Nation, and always shall be.

<donning best hard sci-fi hat and then tuning dials for maximum soft sci-fi reception>

Prior to the spread of human civilization beyond the Solar system, I believe that the building block of human political and social organization beyond Earth orbit (or at most, the Earth-Moon subsystem) will be the individual habitat or facility — IOW, the base, station, or colony. In essence, everything beyond Earth itself (or [again] at most the Earth-Moon subsystem) will be the futuristic equivalent of the city-state of Classical times. There is a sound basis for this in the current treaties themselves, as I will (eventually) explain, and it is in many ways the most natural way for politics and society to be organized in the PMT future across the would-be "High Frontier".

Which brings us to human political and social organization once humanity expands beyond our Solar system.

The two big issues for interstellar exploration and colonization are energy and time. Energy is a problem because of the massive amounts of power required to accelerate a starship to even a modest fraction of light-speed, and time is a problem because even at light-speed voyages will take years. But if the means can be found to attain velocities of at least .9c (i.e., 90% of the speed of light in a vacuum), then time dilation begins to come into play — and time dilation works in a traveller's FAVOR.

Here's how that works: A voyage from Sol to Proxima Centauri, the closest star to Earth, at .01c (i.e., 1% of the speed of light in a vacuum) would take at least 424 years, 3 months, and 18 days, not allowing for acceleration or deceleration. At .1c (i.e., 10% of the speed of light in a vacuum), travel time drops to 42 years, 5 months, and 5 days, again not allowing for acceleration or deceleration. These are very long voyages, and the ability of both crewmen and equipment to make them without suffering some kind of catastrophic failure seem highly questionable.

But now let's imagine that we find a way to accelerate a starship to .9c (i.e., 90% of the speed of light in a vacuum). Ignoring time lost in accelerating and decelerating, such a starship could reach Proxima Centauri in 4 years, 8 months, and 17 days. More importantly, however, is this: Relativistic effects (and specifically, time dilation) would reduce the APPARENT length of the voyage from the viewpoint of the vessel and its crew to just 2 years and 21 days. That's much closer to falling within the range of possible human voyages, both from the standpoint of equipment capabilities and human toleration.

And at .99c (i.e., 99% of the speed of light in a vacuum), things get even better. Ignoring time lost in accelerating and decelerating, a starship traveling at .99c could reach Proxima Centauri in 4 years, 3 months, and 13 days; but thanks to time dilation, that voyage would appear to take only 7 months and 8 days (!) from the standpoint of the crew and the vessel. Accelerate the starship up to .999c (i.e., 99.9% of the speed of light in a vacuum) and the ship makes the voyage in 4 years, 2 months, and 29 days (i.e., roughly two weeks sooner) from the perspective of an Earthbound observer (or one on Proxima Centauri, for that matter); take time dilation into account, however, and the vessel and crew experience only 2 months and 8 days flight time, significantly less than even at .99c.

Finally, at .999999c (i.e., 99.9999% of the speed of light in a vacuum), the voyage still takes 4 years, 2 months, and 28 days from an Earthbound observer's perspective (i.e., one day less than at .99c); but from the standpoint of the ship and its crew, the voyage takes slightly more than 2 hours (2h 4m, to be exact) — less than half as long as a typical commercial airline flight across the North American continent. Warp drive might not be possible; but from the perspective of a relativistic starship crew, what difference does that make? It's all the same.

The point here is that we don't need to presume the ability to "break the light barrier" to imagine interstellar trade and travel. What we DO need are ridiculously powerful engines harnessing incredible amounts of energy combined extremely effective systems for sweeping dust and debris out from ahead of any would-be relativistic starship; if we have that, we can colonize the stars.

The thing is, that doesn't change the fact that it STILL takes years for ships to travel interstellar distances. The fact that relative time runs slower on the ship making the voyage is wonderful (from the standpoint of making said voyage both feasible and bearable), but it doesn't change the fact that nothing subluminal can make it from Sol to Proxima Centauri in under 4 years, 2 months, and 28 days (or, rather, 4 years, 2 months, 27 days, and 21 hours [for those of you out there who insist on extreme precision in such matters]).

All of which means that — on a PRACTICAL basis — interstellar governance and social interaction are extremely problematic. If Earth were to establish a colony within the Proxima Centauri system (or, more practically, within the Alpha Centauri system, slightly further away at 4.367 light-years distance), merely passing instructions or information back and forth would take YEARS in spite of the effects of time dilation. No order or decree from the home world could be recieved in less than 4 years, 2 months, and 28 days (or 4 years, 4 months, and 7 days in the case of Alpha Centauri), and acknowledgement of reciept (let alone acknowledgement of COMPLIANCE) couldn't get back to Earth in under 8 years, 5 months, and 25 days (or 8 years, 8 months, and 25 days in the case of Alpha Centauri).

The mere idea of trying to govern one star system from another under such circumstances is nothing short of ridiculous.

So in any relativistic interstellar future, government will AT MOST be organized along SYSTEM lines; the largest governments out there will govern individual star systems and all of their inhabitants. Cultures COULD (at least in theory) extend across multiple close star systems, but only with extreme local variations (think of how fads take time to percolate from major population centers like New York or Los Angeles to small towns in the American hinterland, and now multiply this phenomenon by an order of magnitude). "Culture groups" of roughly similar systems won't extend much more than a dozen light years in any direction, which means that each will at most encompass a dozen (or fewer) star systems, including marginal systems largely bereft of worlds capable of supporting large colonies; this means that each of these "culture groups" will probably be centered on one (or at most two) closely connected "core" systems (which will, between them, still exhibit notable differences in fashion and cultural practice), with the lesser outlying worlds (i.e., the "hardscrabble frontier" or "sticks") all having a "backwater" or "retro" flavor when compared to the "trendy" core. Travel 20-30 light-years in any direction (a relativistic journey of 1 year and 4 months [or so] at .999c, but just 15½ days at .999999c), and you'll find yourself in a totally different "culture group" that will likely either feel like another country altogether — or the like the country you just left, but in the midst of a different (and alternate) historical era.

And travel 150 light-years (a 6 year, 8 months, and 18 days voyage at .999c; but just 2 months and 17 days [or so] at .999999c), and you'll be living among people whose societies have drifted apart through literally HUNDREDS of years of differential cultural evolution. Their languages will have drifted apart; their religions will have drifted apart, and their customs and political practices will have drifted part, to the point where (at the very least) it will feel as though you're travelled from one European or Asian country to another; certain things will feel the same, but many will be different (and some things radically so).

But here's the REALLY interesting thing: If interstellar travel is relatively common, then there will exist yet another distinct culture — or a "superculture", if you prefer. This will be "ship culture", and it will consist of the shared culture and common experience of those people who live on starships, travelling from one place to another for various purposes. Because these people will all be aging VERY slowly (at only 4.4% of the speed on the rest of the universe if they travel at .999c, and at only something like 0.14% of the speed of the rest of the universe at .999999c), they will end up having a "throwback" culture compared to everybody else, to the point where (after just a few centuries) they'll seem archaic or even ancient when compared to everyone else. Their TECHNOLOGY won't be outdated, of course (because they'll be able to acquire and adopt the latest scientific breakthroughs at each stop they make on their lifelong journey across the cosmos), but their CULTURE most definitely will be. They'll be living impossibly long lives compared with everybody else (lives in excess of 2000 years if they travel at .999c, and in excess of 70,000 years[!] if they travel at .999999c). "Ship people" would likely operate outside of any wider government affiliation, observing local law at each stop but otherwise governing themselves. In order to avoid the loss of connections of friendship and affection, these "ship people" would bring their own families with them and likely only form close attachments to other "ship people", with whom they'd interact by remote communication or whenever they were (rarely) doing business in the same system at the same (relative) time.

It's not the usual interstellar sci-fi future, but it's a future that has potential as far as writing compelling works of literary fiction. Hopefully, what I've offered here will inspire some of the more creative denizens of NSG to go in that direction in some of their offerings.

C-ship's pages on Time Dilation

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm of the opinion that united government will only happen after we've colonized other planets, and it'll be as a result of identity and otherization, as well as economics.

Imagine Belgium, or Sweden or something trying to compete with a fully populated Martian Republic.
That republic would immediately become the superpower of humanity, it's regulations and rules would force other countries to tailor their products toward satisfying it and such, it's diplomatic clout would be huge.

As a result of that I think we'd see moves for a united earth government, though I suspect the idiosyncrasies and such will leave it horrifically inefficient for quite some time until the rules and bureaucracies become standardized.
Especially when you consider snobbishness and good old fashioned nonsense thinking, people will feel like Earth should be the centre of humanity for some vague notion of Homeworld or whatever, and will feel peeved at the mars republic being the clear frontrunner.

Perhaps that will not occur until we have a few planets colonized, a few planetary nations to set the trend.

I actually think that the nation-state will still survive well into the future. I'm not convinced that massive supernational states really make any sense, either economically or culturally.

I mean, in the present day we're seeing the adverse consequences of overzealous unification efforts in Europe. Can anyone doubt that Greece would have been far better off had it kept its own currency (and thus maintained the power to set its own macroeconomic policies), rather than joining the eurozone? Nation-states make sense, just as national currencies make sense: The existence of the former allows for the maintenance of political institutions that function in close accordance with local (read "cultural" notions of consensus and propriety), while the latter allow local economies to tweak their own internal performance and external trade relations in such a way as to satisfy local views regarding how work, markets, and society ought to interact.

Universal currencies imply common values with regards to matters of production, consumption, work, and savings. If established in the absence of such common values, the (economically) stronger culture will invariably force the weaker to accept its values, whether the weaker culture wants them or not. The German-dominated eurozone is doing this today: It is challenging Greek ideas about work and the workplace, retirement, community, and the sharing of resources by essentially making the Greeks beholden to German ideas about how such things ought to interact. In a sense, this has placed a strain on Greece that is similar to that which Greece would experience were it to have been conquered by Germany and transformed into a German colony (a state of affairs that is bad for everyone, considering how sensitive Germans (and their neighbors) are to the whole idea of Germany conquering other European countries and running them as German neo-colonies. Greece would be better off out of the arrangement, as would Germany.

Universal governments do much the same thing. It's not just the issue of rights and responsibilities, and the way such ideas are embedded into the law. We can argue about just how universal "universal" human rights actually are (and immediately get into a massive battle over the right to be free of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity); but even if we humans were to all come to an agreement over what rights everybody ought to have, different cultures have different ideas about how policy ought to be made, and these differences can't easily be overlooked.

Take the whole idea of "democracy". Even if we were to agree as a species that "democracy" is a universal good, I'm not sure that we could ever find a single optimal way to implement it species-wide without leaving some cultures feeling ill-used. China embraces the concept of "democratic centralization", which in practice isn't democratic at all; yet it COULD be implemented in such a way as to be truly democratic, if you stop and think about it. The central bureacracy collects feedback from the people, collates that data, and then presents it to the elite decision-makers at the top; these decision-makers then use that information to frame policies that enjoy public support. That WOULD be a democratic system; but it wouldn't be appropriate much outside of China.

In contrast, the English-speaking world prefers deliberative representative democracy, in which the people choose representatives who meet and, acting as their proxies, hash things out. Properly implemented, such a system could also be extremely democratic (or extremely UNDEMOCRATIC); yet it might not be comfortable to the current population of the Chinese mainland, relying as much as it does on public displays of disagreement or even outright opposition.

California-style government by referendum, direct election of a overpowered national leader (on the fascist model), or even the Iranian system of "Guardian council" of jurists and moral authorities whose sole responsibility (on paper, anyway) is to place limits upon the passions and excesses of the popular legislature and its ministers are all systems that could be made to honor the idea of "democracy" in one form or another, and ALL of them (including even the Iranian and fascist models) could be made to place government firmly under the control of the people, to serve as an instrument of the people. But many cultures would clearly have issues with some or even most of these schemes, while other cultures might find those same schemes ideal.

The point here is that maybe the best we should strive for is freedom of travel (including broad visa rights, along with the right to apply for permanent status without excessive difficulty), freedom of exchange (including wealth transfers, the movement of goods, and the interchangeability of currencies), a robust mechanism for conflict avoidance and resolution among separate nations, and some recognition of a common core of univerally accepted rights among all nations ought to be the limits of where we should go with the unification of the human race. The establishment of world governments and world currencies implies the emergence of a pervasive cosmopolitan culture, and time and again in the course of human history (from the emergence of Hellenic culture to the present day) such efforts have produced as much human misery as they've solved. Is that really where humanity should go?

---

That brings us to extraterrestrial culture. I suspect that the most urgent need of humans living beyond the confines of Earth will be to guarantee the continued provision of life support, and that this need will bend civil institutions to its requirements in a way we haven't seen elsewhere in human history. We post "keep off the grass", "no smoking", and "no hunting" signs here on Earth, and then make breaking such rules a minor offense (well, much of the time, anyway); in space, going where you shouldn't go, doing what you shouldn't do, and using more of a resource that has been allocated to your use might be such dangerous acts as to merit extreme punishments, and that suggests to me a very different approach to government that what we're accustomed to on Earth. Libertarians may dream of space as the place where they'll be able to live without "bosses", but I suspect that the rigors of living in space are going to render such dreams absurd. Instead, it may prove to be good old Earth that provides the best place for such people to live in uninterrupted peace, at least over the long haul.

No, I see government merging with facilities management on the "High Frontier"; and if I'm right, then the proper level at which government ought to function will ultimately end up being the facility, ship, or base level.

[United Dependencies]

ASB, are you secretly Tom Clancy (somehow still alive)?

[Alien Space Bats]

ASB, are you secretly Tom Clancy (somehow still alive)?

No.

[Crezilivion]

I feel like most early colonization will be done by corporations and the colonies will be owned by them. Countries with significant interests in these corporations will have jurisdiction over them.

Historically think of companies like the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson Bay Company. But who knows.

Then maybe we can have corporations be the government? ^^

[New Grestin]

I, for one, doubt that the idea of preventing national territorial claims will last. It only takes one country to start grabbing up territory for it to become counter-productive to not join in. Even if all countries held off doing so, a large enough off-Earth population would eventually lead to the administrative bodies and actions of various countries to begin looking like de-facto claims anyway.

And it shouldn't.

Hell, I'm guessing the only reason people aren't chomping at the bit to head to space is because they can't stake claims. If people could actually claim territory in space, we might actually be seeing some progress, if for no other reason than people want those juicy space resources.

I, for one, welcome the Chinese domination of Mars.

[Hyfling]

I feel like most early colonization will be done by corporations and the colonies will be owned by them. Countries with significant interests in these corporations will have jurisdiction over them.

Historically think of companies like the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson Bay Company. But who knows.

Then maybe we can have corporations be the government? ^^

Well, we kind of already have done that.

[Hyfling]

I, for one, doubt that the idea of preventing national territorial claims will last. It only takes one country to start grabbing up territory for it to become counter-productive to not join in. Even if all countries held off doing so, a large enough off-Earth population would eventually lead to the administrative bodies and actions of various countries to begin looking like de-facto claims anyway.

And it shouldn't.

Hell, I'm guessing the only reason people aren't chomping at the bit to head to space is because they can't stake claims. If people could actually claim territory in space, we might actually be seeing some progress, if for no other reason than people want those juicy space resources.

I, for one, welcome the Chinese domination of Mars.

Are you serious?

A barren desert planet made of iron ore? That's Australia's terf! Assuming we ever get a space agency

[Overused Memes]

Space visas sound nice. absolutely haram

[New Grestin]

And it shouldn't.

Hell, I'm guessing the only reason people aren't chomping at the bit to head to space is because they can't stake claims. If people could actually claim territory in space, we might actually be seeing some progress, if for no other reason than people want those juicy space resources.

I, for one, welcome the Chinese domination of Mars.

Are you serious?

A planet made of iron ore? That's Australia's terf! Assuming we ever get a space agency :p

"Oiy, this is Crocdile Hunter 1, we are approaching the surface. I've, uh, lost my can of Fosters and the Kangaroos are a bit feisty, mate, but we should be right good."

[Overused Memes]

Are you serious?

A planet made of iron ore? That's Australia's terf! Assuming we ever get a space agency

"Oiy, this is Crocdile Hunter 1, we are approaching the surface. I've, uh, lost my can of Fosters and the Kangaroos are a bit feisty, mate, but we should be right good."

Mind if I sig that?

[New Grestin]

"Oiy, this is Crocdile Hunter 1, we are approaching the surface. I've, uh, lost my can of Fosters and the Kangaroos are a bit feisty, mate, but we should be right good."

Mind if I sig that?

Almost two years and I've never actually had someone ask me that. Sure, whatever floats yer boat.

[Overused Memes]

Mind if I sig that?

Almost two years and I've never actually had someone ask me that. Sure, whatever floats yer boat.

Thanks.

Mars.

[Crezilivion]

Then maybe we can have corporations be the government? ^^

Well, we kind of already have done that.

Yeah but it isn't modern, they went bankrupt. I want a modern one. Space would be a good opportunity for that.

[Overused Memes]

Well, we kind of already have done that.

Yeah but it isn't modern, they went bankrupt. I want a modern one. Space would be a good opportunity for that.

Modern companies controlling a big blob of land? Why? WHY?

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[Hyfling]

Are you serious?

A planet made of iron ore? That's Australia's terf! Assuming we ever get a space agency

"Oiy, this is Crocdile Hunter 1, we are approaching the surface. I've, uh, lost my can of Fosters and the Kangaroos are a bit feisty, mate, but we should be right good."

Although no true Australian would ever drink Fosters...

[New Grestin]

"Oiy, this is Crocdile Hunter 1, we are approaching the surface. I've, uh, lost my can of Fosters and the Kangaroos are a bit feisty, mate, but we should be right good."

:rofl:

Although no true Australian would ever drink Fosters...

I don't think anyone actually drinks Fosters. I'm pretty sure they just buy it and leave it in the fridge long enough for some poor, unfortunate bastard to find it.

That said, being drunk and in space sounds awesome. NASA? ESA? Fucking get on it. I wasn't born in the future to not get hammered in zero gravity like some kind of alcoholic Issac Clarke. Chop Chop.

[The Conez Imperium]

Are you serious?

A planet made of iron ore? That's Australia's terf! Assuming we ever get a space agency

"Oiy, this is Crocdile Hunter 1, we are approaching the surface. I've, uh, lost my can of Fosters and the Kangaroos are a bit feisty, mate, but we should be right good."

Fosters -.-

[Crezilivion]

Yeah but it isn't modern, they went bankrupt. I want a modern one. Space would be a good opportunity for that.

Modern companies controlling a big blob of land? Why? WHY?

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

It's really hard to do worse than the government is doing, that's why.

[Hyfling]

Although no true Australian would ever drink Fosters...

I don't think anyone actually drinks Fosters. I'm pretty sure they just buy it and leave it in the fridge long enough for some poor, unfortunate bastard to find it.

That said, being drunk and in space sounds awesome. NASA? ESA? Fucking get on it. I wasn't born in the future to not get hammered in zero gravity like some kind of alcoholic Issac Clarke. Chop Chop.

Well, we just make that swill for laughs then stick it on the ships bound for Europe and the US.

What you guys do with it after that is none of our concern.

[The Orson Empire]

The UN ban interplanetary territorial claims has hobbled space exploration IMO.

Space exploration will take off for the same reason overseas exploration of Earth did, for profit.

The Outer Space Treaty only prevents governments from claiming territory in space. It does not prevent individuals or companies from claiming territory though, so private space companies may be the future of space exploration.

Even still, there's no way this ban will last. The colonization of the Moon and other planets is likely inevitable, as is the militarization of space.

[Reddogkeno101]

In other words, never.

Aye. The League of Nations failed because trying to unite everyone under a centralized league seems to be at odds with humanity's will for freedom, which seems to include the freedom to preserve who we are in spite of others.

Actually it failed because America wasn't involved and the powers involved (Britain and France) were interested in only themselves.

I think we should have a united government before we start to journey into the heavens.

I agree. If we're going out there, we need to do it on a pretty united Front. Even if it's a United Western World, that'd work too.

Not next year
Nor the year after that
But in the not too distant future,
Mankind will begin to colonize the rest of our Solar System.


This thread is to discuss the legal issues surrounding the various aspects of this.


One issue of fairly obvious import is the ownership of other bodies or regions of them.
Currently, all countries with significant space capabilities are parties to the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty forbids any of them from appropriating any other bodies in space. It does not forbid any private entities from making such claims.


Another issue is that of weapons beyond Earth. The Outer Space Treaty addresses this by banning weapons from being stationed beyond Earth. This would obviously make dealing with criminal actions or a military attack quite challenging.

There are many other legal issues which could obviously apply. What do you think of current law? What do you think the laws SHOULD be? What issues do you think will be important?


I, for one, doubt that the idea of preventing national territorial claims will last. It only takes one country to start grabbing up territory for it to become counter-productive to not join in. Even if all countries held off doing so, a large enough off-Earth population would eventually lead to the administrative bodies and actions of various countries to begin looking like de-facto claims anyway.

Well let's get a more centralised effort into getting up there and we'll get working pretty quick. Move military budgets into space budgets and we'll be going places.

1. Neither League of Nations or the UN have ever attempted or sought to establish a world government.
2. A single government under a global constitution would do far more to preserve freedom then the global anarchy we have today.

A single worldwide government would fall into civil war the moment it was made.

I'm not sharing my government with people who believe stoning is a good punishment.

You probably already do; you just aren't aware of it. Their presence would just be more prevalent really.

I think we should have a united government before we start to journey into the heavens.

But that means no space battles.

You monster.

Or does it...
this does call for that history channel aliens guy.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

We'll just keep doing this out in space. How could it possibly go wrong? >_>

"Do you have a flag?"

"We don't need a bloody flag. Its our planet, you bastards!"

"No flag, no planet. You can't have one."

[Waideland]

Legal issues are pretty much non-issues when it comes to space. For starters, space is really vast. There's little that you could claim out there that someone else couldn't find an identical resource far from you to make their own claim. In the case of terrestrial bodies, the difficulty of colonizing or extracting resources pretty much precludes fighting over them. It will be a very long time before it becomes so cheap and easy to extract resources from space that it's easier to send guys with guns and missiles to steal from other space farers rather than establishing your own base wherever they aren't. TBH, I don't see space colonization turning out much different than colonialism on Earth, minus all the pesky indigenous people. In this age of technological big brother(fascist) governments, it seems people have forgotten that disputes were somehow usually settled without bodies hitting the floor, even when there wasn't a cop and a ten bureaucrats on every street corner.

The only real issue with space-based weapons are ones being deployed in Earth's orbit to be used on the planet itself, such as rail guns, nukes, and lasers. The odds of someone building a rail gun the size of a football field in orbit for the purpose of intimidating or destroying other countries on Earth is a much greater and more realistic threat than space marines clashing over mining rights on Europa. We could probably do it right now if we wanted to spend 100 trillion dollars, which means North Korea probably will do it 100 years from now.

[CTALNH]

I feel like most early colonization will be done by corporations and the colonies will be owned by them. Countries with significant interests in these corporations will have jurisdiction over them.

Historically think of companies like the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson Bay Company. But who knows.

Weyland-Yutani here we come.