true, I did not know there was a ledger that the movie was based on, and I credibly wouldn ’ t have read it flush if I did. What I found is the latest space-related movie has a adequate story-line, dependable special effects and decent act, particularly if you ’ re a fan of sarcasm. however, there was one view in particular that was unexpected and get my attention and simultaneously drew my anger as it dealt with a less than accurate application of space jurisprudence. After making my wrath known in a Tweet, I thought it prudent to address the outer space law represented and correct the movies misconceptions .
The scene in question consisted of this narrative by the maroon Mark Watney :
log ENTRY : sol 381
I ’ ve been thinking about laws on Mars. Yeah, I know, it ’ s a dazed matter to think about, but I have a fortune of release time. There ’ sulfur an external treaty saying no area can lay title to anything that ’ s not on Earth. And by another treaty, if you ’ ra not in any state ’ second district, nautical law applies. so Mars is “ international waters. ” NASA is an american unmilitary organization, and it owns the Hab. So while I ’ thousand in the Hab, American jurisprudence applies. arsenic soon as I step outside, I ’ meter in international waters. then when I get in the rover, I ’ m back to American jurisprudence. hera ’ s the cool part : I will finally go to Schiaparelli and commandeer the Ares 4 lander. cipher explicitly gave me license to do this, and they can ’ t until I ’ thousand aboard Ares 4 and operating the comm system. After I dining table Ares 4, before talking to NASA, I will take control of a craft in international waters without license. That makes me a plagiarist ! A space pirate !
With that, a parse of the scene ’ s distance law hits and misses follows :
Watney :
There ’ s an external treaty saying no country can lay claim to anything that ’ s not on Earth .
CORRECT:
Article II of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states :
Outer distance, including the moonlight and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any early means .
Watney is basically right. Under the Outer Space Treaty, no nation can make a sovereign territorial claim to a celestial body. Beyond the meaning for The Martian, this is a real offspring with the Apollo land sites on the Moon because the sites contain footprints of Apollo astronauts that hold archaeological and historic significance. Because of Article II, the United States can not forbid other nations or even individual entities from venturing into and disturbing the sites .
Watney:
And by another treaty, if you ’ rhenium not in any area ’ sulfur territory, maritime jurisprudence applies. so Mars is “ external waters .
INCORRECT:
first base, there is no “ other treaty ” that expresses the principle “ if you ’ ra not in any area ’ randomness territory, maritime law applies. ” The principle Watney falsely expressed is the customary rule of release access and passage through outer space. significantly, this international norm was not created by a formal treaty like the Outer Space Treaty or its offspring but through customary international law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals defines customary external law in United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245, 1252 ( 11th Cir. 2012 ) …
….as international obligations arising from established express commit, as opposed to obligations arising from formal written international treaties. It consists of two components. First, there must be a cosmopolitan and consistent practice of states. This does not mean that the practice must be universally followed ; rather, it should reflect wide acceptance among the states particularly involved in the relevant natural process. irregular, there must be a common sense of legal duty, or opinio juris sive necessitatis. In other words, a practice that is broadly followed but which states feel legally free to disregard does not contribute to customary law ; alternatively, there must be a sense of legal obligation to the international community. States must follow the practice because they believe it is required by international jurisprudence, not merely because that they think it is a good idea, or politically utilitarian, or differently desirable .
interestingly, the event that helped create this customary norm is the launch of Sputnik 1, which celebrates its 58th anniversary two days after The martian opened in theaters. The launching of Sputnik 1 is a significant consequence in that it put to rest the controversy of whether nations owned the area above their district to include extinct space. This was a frequent call by countries, including the Soviet Union, before the plunge of Sputnik, but after the establish the Soviet Union and others relented on this claim. notably, Ecuador and some other countries located along the equator still hold on to the premise they own the space above their territory, including the space that comprises geosynchronous space and the valuable geosynchronous satellite slots .
second, nautical police is not a gap-filler for quad law. true, some principles of maritime law are similar to distance law, but digression from any similarities they are two clear-cut areas of law, which have their own legal rights, duties and prohibitions. If there is any other planetary section of external law that could be considered a gap-filler for space law, it would be the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. true, the declaration ‘ maritime law applies ‘ was irritating, and it should have been easy to let it go because Watney was only a botanist ( even though he was the best botanist on Mars ) ; he was not a space law technical. however, the “ nautical law ” mistake was repeated by the Mars Mission Director a few scenes subsequently .
Watney :
NASA is an american unmilitary constitution, and it owns the Hab .
PARTIALLY CORRECT:
Watney ’ s statement appears to give emphasis to the eminence between a military administration and a “ non-military ” organization. This is inaccurate because the real number differentiation in the Outer Space Treaty is between government and non-government. Take for exemplify the first conviction of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty :
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear external responsibility for national activities in out distance, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty .
consequently, a more accurate statement would have been “ NASA is a government agency… ” This would reflect the position of the Outer Space Treaty with regards to NASA ’ second role, i.e. a government representation and not a non-military organization. furthermore, the classification of NASA as a non-military organization by Watney appears to suggest military activities are prohibited by external space jurisprudence. This is incorrect. Article IV, Paragraph 2 of the Outer Space Treaty deals with this issue. specifically, the first prison term states :
The Moon and early celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty entirely for passive purposes. The constitution of military bases, installations and fortifications, the examination of any type of weapons and the demeanor of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden .
This demonstrates the focus of the Outer Space Treaty is not to exclude military and its personnel from out quad but to exclude non-peaceful activities. This is exemplified in the second conviction of Article IV, Paragraph 2 whereby :
The habit of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or adeptness necessity for passive exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall besides not be prohibited .
This is borne out by the movie itself because the commander of the mission is military as is the pilot program of the Hermes spacecraft. Whether the distinction between military and non-military was a fake public address system or an designed pronouncement is ill-defined, but regardless, Watney ’ s instruction misrepresents the current body of international space law .
Beyond the issue of the military, Watney continues in this sentence to assert NASA owns the Hab. This is basically decline .
Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty states :
A State Party to the Treaty on whose register an object launched into forbidden outer space is carried shall retain legal power and dominance over such object, and over any personnel thence, while in knocked out outer space or on a celestial body. possession of objects launched into forbidden outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their part parts, is not affected by their presence in knocked out outer space or on a celestial body or by their revert to the Earth. such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose register they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, supply name data prior to their return .
specifically, the first sentence of Article VIII bears out Watney ’ s call that NASA, and by extension the United States, owns the Hab. The Ares III mission appears to be a multi-nation mission, which means there are multiple launching states, e.g. the nation or nations that launched or procured the launch of the Hab. Despite this, the Registration Convention of 1975, which is an extension of Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, allows for one nation in a multi-national situation to register the Hab, which validates Watney ’ mho instruction .
article II ( 1 ) of the Registration Convention states :
When a space object is launched into earth orbit beyond, the launch State shall register the space object by means of an entrance in an appropriate register which it shall maintain. Each launching State shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the institution of such a register .
article II ( 2 ) elaborates on when there are multiple nations involved in launching a space object :
Where there are two or more plunge States in esteem of any such space object, they shall jointly determine which one of them shall register the object in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, wear in mind the provisions of Article VIII of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, and without prejudice to appropriate agreements concluded or to be concluded among the launching States on jurisdiction and manipulate over the space object and over any personnel thence .
We can presume the Ares III mission is multi-national, and it was jointly agreed the United States and by implication NASA would register the Hab. furthermore, we can presume that per Article II ( 2 ), it was agreed that NASA would have see of the Hab, the wanderer and any other distance object launched as part of the Ares III mission. consequently, Watney ’ s statement NASA “ owns ” the Hab is an accurate assessment under international space law.
Read more: How Maritime Law Works
Watney:
indeed while I ’ m in the Hab, American jurisprudence applies. adenine soon as I step outside, I ’ molarity in external waters. then when I get in the rover, I ’ thousand back to American jurisprudence .
PARTIALLY CORRECT
With regard to “ international waters ”, as previously mentioned, nautical law does not supplement the Outer Space Treaty or any other part of international space law whether it be based on treaty or custom. conversely, the customary principle of free access and transit of extinct quad applies to Watney ’ south excursions across the martian coat. aside from this, the closest terrestrial doctrine of analogy to the legal impression of Watney ’ s transit of the coat of Mars can be found in the first conviction of Article IV ( 2 ) of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 :
No acts or activities taking home while the confront Treaty is in pull shall constitute a basis for asserting or supporting or denying a claim to territorial reign in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica .
frankincense, when Watney transits between the Hab and the wanderer and frailty versa he is exercising his right of unblock passage under customary international police without creating any claims to territorial reign of the airfoil he has traversed. In other words, Watney exercises the accustomed right of release passage when he transits across the martian surface in the rover, which is presumably registered to and discipline to the legal power and control of the United States under Article VIII, without creating or asserting territorial sovereignty for the United States .
More to the point, Watney ’ s statement american jurisprudence applies to him when he is in the Hab and in the rover is lone partially correct. His instruction suggests Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty and Article II of the Registration are controlling when he is within either of these register outer space objects. This is correct, but adverse to Watney ’ sulfur affirmation, American law controls all his activities regardless of whether he is in the Hab, in the wanderer or on the surface. While registration of the Hab and wanderer are contribution of the controlling law equality, the overarch legal principle is found in Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty whereby :
A State Party to the Treaty on whose register an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain legal power and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. .
This prison term imposes a legal right and duty for a state to exercise authority and dominance of its personnel while in out space or on a celestial body such as Mars whether those activities are performed by a government means or a private entity. This means the United States has continuing international legal province under Article VI for Watney ’ south activities on Mars and continuing legal power over Watney, who is a politics employee of NASA, per Article VIII. By implication this means Watney is subject to american law for any natural process he performs on Mars whether he performs those activities in the Hab, in the Rover or while on the martian surface. additionally, all the members of the Ares III mission could be subject to the legal power of the United States because the mission appears to be a NASA mission and not a multi-agency mission. Consider the third base conviction of Article VI :
When activities are carried on in outer quad, including the Moon and early celestial bodies, by an international organization, province for conformity with this Treaty shall be borne both by the external administration and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization .
The key here is Article VI considers “ external organizations ” and not individuals of differing nationalities. consequently, since it ’ randomness been established the Hab and the Rover have been registered by NASA, which is a domestic space means, and it appears NASA is running the mission, the international members of the Ares III mission could be the province of the United States and by extension subject to the continuing jurisdiction of United States Under Article VIII, including its laws. This presumes no other agreement regarding legal power was made prior to the mission that would delineate the application of differing national laws to the multi-national team. notably, the return of legal power has been addressed with the International Space Station via a treaty among the participating nations .
Watney:
here ’ s the cool character : I will finally go to Schiaparelli and commandeer the Ares 4 lander. cipher explicitly gave me license to do this, and they can ’ triiodothyronine until I ’ thousand aboard Ares 4 and operating the comm system. After I board Ares 4, before talking to NASA, I will take master of a trade in external waters without license. That makes me a plagiarist ! A space pirate !
INCORRECT:
There are three strikes against Watney ’ second plagiarist aspirations :
first base, since it is established Watney is discipline to the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws per Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, federal law and specifically the United States Code applies to his claim as a pirate. In finical, 18 U.S.C. § 1652 states :
Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States, or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretension of agency from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life .
Watney is intelligibly a citizen of the United States, but the key stipulate in 18 U.S.C. § 1652 that defeats Watney ’ s claim to coolness is the necessity for the hurt acts to be committed “ on the high seas “. Watney is without question not on the eminent seas, and as previously shown, maritime law does not supplement or substitute space law. Beyond this, there is no legal definition in the U.S. Code or external law for a “ space pirate ” that would fulfill Watney ’ s desire. strike 1 .
adjacent, Watney claims he lacks authorization to travel to the Ares IV landing web site. This holds some deserve from a rigorous rendition of Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty ; however, at this charge Watney has no communications with NASA and implicit in that lack of communication is the continuing authority to do any he decides is necessity to survive, including traveling to the Ares IV landing locate. furthermore, the responsibility of the United States under Article VI and jurisdiction of the United States over Watney ’ south activities under Article VIII is not abrogated while NASA thought him abruptly or when incommunicado. thus, Watney ’ s plan to travel to the Ares IV landing locate without express authority does not put him in legal limbo and support his claim to fame as a “ outer space pirate ”. strike 2 .
The third-strike against Watney ’ s space piracy ambitions comes in two parts. First, Watney ’ s pirate-plan to enter and “ commandeer ” the Ares IV return-vehicle without NASA ’ s license falls categoric. It has been established Watney is not in the legal equivalent of “ external waters ” but more importantly he is not on “ the high seas ” as required under 18 U.S.C. § 1652 .
Second, even if Watney ’ randomness site on Mars made him the legal rogue he purported to be, the Outer Space Treaty would defeat his plagiarism ambition. First, the Ares IV faculty is registered to the United States via NASA under Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty and Article II ( 2 ) of the Registration Convention. Therefore, Watney ’ randomness entering into and habit of the Ares IV module would have the lapp legal consequence of entering into the rover or the Hab. furthermore, Watney is still under the jurisdiction of the United States via NASA under Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty and implicitly has the right to enter the Ares IV return-vehicle, which means he can not commandeer or otherwise acquire the Ares IV return-vehicle by other means of trickery .
On the other hand, there is the possibility the Ares IV deputation is registered to another of the participating nations, but that would not help Watney ’ s character to be a space commandeer. Article V, Paragraph 2 of the Outer Space Treaty creates an international legal duty, whereby :
In carrying on activities in out space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one State Party shall render all possible aid to the astronauts of other States Parties .
obviously, the Ares IV contains no astronauts from another nation to assist Watney, but the presence of a extraneous registered return-vehicle could be interpreted as a fulfillment of the legal duty under Article V if not literally then in intent to render all potential aid to a strand american english astronaut on Mars. frankincense, it can be argued the handiness of the unman Ares IV return-vehicle implicates a legal duty under Article V to the marooned Watney, which dashes his swashbuckling ambitions. hit 3 .
All-in all, The Martian was entertaining and one would wonder whether taking the fourth dimension and feat to analyze one scene related to space law reflects Watney ’ s opening thought in this scene :
“ Yeah, I know, it ’ s a stupid thing to think about, but I have a distribute of free fourth dimension. ”
apart from the measure of free time ( I ’ m heed to the Broncos game in the background ), it is not a unintelligent thing to take the time to parse out this scene and identify, hash out and correct the space law the movie attempted to use. As admonished by a follower on Twitter, I should have precisely enjoyed the movie, but what constitutes enjoying the movie is a immanent exercise. To take the clock time to identify and address the space law missteps is not entirely about addressing a positron emission tomography peeve ; it is about correcting misconceptions about space law so they will not be accepted as fact .
The Martian will make substantial money at the box-office, but more importantly for better or for worse it will be touted to build sake in the space course of study and beget enthusiasm for a deputation to Mars and manned space fledge in general. In that respect, it is critical the realities of The Martian are highlighted and where those highlights are wrong they be corrected. Ensuring the proper principles of the growing but crucial battlefield of distance law are not misrepresented is not entirely worthwhile but necessary as space law comes out of obscurity and is jab onto theater screens for public pulmonary tuberculosis .
Share this:
Like this:
Like