|WikiProject Spaceflight||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class)|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the Spring 2011 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
Early discussion topics
- In general, it is really sloppy and poorly-written. -Elmer Clark 07:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the article contained many historical and factual inaccuracies, which I endeavored to correct. User: Wayne White 17:44, 10 August 2006
- Changed a little bit of grammar, added some links, broke into sections. Need to find a good picture, not sure what though - maybe one of the U.N. meeting of the Outer Space Treaty? Or just U.N. logo/headquarters, somethign along those lines. Or possibly a picture of a transcript of some space law. Each section may be renamed, I just used the most general beginning for each. I think it's improved over the original article. If enough energy goes into it, it could become a featured article. --Exodio 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to put some time in expanding and correcting this article - I'm a space lawyer by education - but I have never before edited a wikipedia article. So if there are any volunteers to mentor me, I'd be very pleased. There is always the considerable possibility that this ends up in my already endless list of todos. BatistPaklons 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Moved from article
This probably could have been a rvv edit, but just in case..
Actually, although some of the military weaponry discussed (namely, GIANT MOON LASERS) are exaggerated, historically this is largely true. I do question however whether this belongs under Space Law. Perhaps this should be expanded to the legality of military action in space. --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Legality of Giant Moon Lasers
The legal debate over Giant Moon Lasers started in the early 1970's during the Cold War. Moon lasers were believed to be a feasible threat at the time, and thus were taken quite seriously. As few agreements were yet to be made in regards to Space Law, none knew what jurisdiction the moon fell under. This lead to numerous legal disputes over usage of the moon for many means including natural resources, and more importantly, military purposes. Both the United States and Soviet government believed the other had schematics for a Giant Moon Laser, however both governments lasers were in purely developmental stages. Due to lack of progress by both governments the threat of Giant Moon Lasers quickly subsided in favor of nuclear weaponry. Although progress was halted during the later years of the cold war, both governments and private companies have recently resumed development on Giant Moon Lasers.
I just did a major slice-and-dice on this article, please all check it out and see what you think. I haven't changed any content beyond some rewording, except added a sentence on re-organizing the intro section. Also some treaty inception dates were lost when I merged up Multilateral treaties, in favour of the dates in International treaties. Mostly wikify, space out, un-redundify (new word c. Franamax). I tried to keep the edits separate so each step is more clear.
Space patent law
A very thorough and informative essay has just been published in The Space Review: Patent rights and flags of convenience in outer space, by Matthew J. Kleiman, February 7, 2011. I read it today and it advanced my understanding greatly. I notice that there is nothing in the current version of the Wikipedia article on the topic of patents at all.
But this matter of law will only get more interesting as we move beyond the ISS—which has a unique special arrangement on patents negotiated into the 1998 "intergovernmental agreement concerning cooperation on the International Space Station"—and Bigelow Aerospace opens up it's new private Commercial Space Station in 2014 with clients from seven different nations, and thus, seven different patent regimes, on board.
Make sure you stay consistent throughout your article with your abbreviation punctuation. Some places you have United Nations as just "UN" and other places as "U.N." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lippmare (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
So our infamous law schools are the ones to declare space ownership?
The article notes numerous 'degrees' being given out in this subject - by LAW schools that make LAWYERS. The article also points out that this lawyer "education" is supported by numerous PRIVATE companies in space and telecommunications.
Disclosure: I am in the "space is a public world-heritage asset" camp mentioned in the article.
It seems clear that private companies are planning to take world-heritage property for their own profits, and that they are "creating" the new legal system starting right in the schools. I suggest that law is not supposed to be made by paid-for future lawyers who will then tell us it is not our property!Clarksmom (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? If not, I will close this thread as soapboxing. Franamax (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
ownership rights for empty space
i made a note in the 'space tourism' section that if private space hotels and stations are put up, they will be 'occupying' public property. this seems to warrant its own mention here in the space law article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)