send larger groups of humans into space for longer periods of time, Mars colonization faces
an increasingly probable future.photo-gameMiles
LEX ARES: THE CASE OF COLONIZING MARS.
“Elon Musk announces his plan to colonise Mars and save Humanity.”
Or so read a WIRED post by Nick Stonton in 2016. Musk, outlining SpaceX’s stratagem involving Heavy but reusable rockets, carbon fiber fuel tanks, intentions of promoting Tesla and other ironically named cutting-edge technology, to civilize, and in time colonize, Mars.
Stonton compared him to Tony Stark, but there are only so many differences between Tony and Lex Luthor.
As national space agencies and private aerospace corporations develop the technology to send larger groups of humans into space for longer periods of time, Mars colonization faces an increasingly probable future. Rising interest in Mars colonization from both private and public sectors necessitates a renewed discussion about sovereignty in space. Specifically, the OST or the Outer Space Treaty, explicitly states that “outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means,” a requirement known as the non-appropriation principle of the OST. Current colonization proposals from organizations such as SpaceX and Mars One, may be inconsistent with these principles of the OST, but the continuous depletion of resources on earth on one hand and population explosion and therefore shortage of living space (Bruhns and Haqq-Misra at the Space Policy forum have given empirical proofs that humans have explored and exploited nearly all available land on Earth in less than 10,000 years, and we expect a much faster trajectory for planetary colonization due to the rapid pace of technological advances) has made colonization inevitable and therefore restricting sovereignty may pose as many as or more problems than allowing it.
Many nations declined to sign the Moon Treaty of 1979, objecting to the establishment of “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.” The formation of a powerful centralized body is one of the primary reasons that the Moon Treaty has not been ratified by any space-faring nations. Visions of central entities such as a World Space Agency or an Interplanetary Authority for future space exploration may be met with similar resistance, while centralized authority in the space environment could also foster abuses of power that curtail civil liberties. The unpopularity of new central authority is an important lesson to keep in mind for any successful model that applies to Mars governance, as any strong central authority is likely to be rejected by parties that have nothing to gain by giving up their autonomy.
In order to accept the inevitable and staunch the potential harms of selective countries “colonizing planets” on behalf of the Earth, we propose a model for colonization that will preserve large swaths of Mars for scientific, aesthetic, historical, cultural, environmental, spiritual, and a variety of other purposes as well as allow human settlement with economic and commercial goals to occur. With this sentiment as the basis, a model based upon bounded first possession by landfall with large-scale planetary parks for the settlement of Mars. This will allow for the inevitable colonization but avoid competing sovereignty claims as well as preserve critical regions for both science and overall preservation. This Bounded Possession Planetary Parks model could be a balanced compromise between scientific exclusivity, national sovereignty, and corporate control of Mars. The international community, coordinated through a body such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) or the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), could be made responsible for establishing the rules of using these parks, and whether some parks will be reserved for solely preservationist purposes while others are open to scientific exploration. In this way, we can hope to establish internationally recognized park locations and the rules that are needed to maintain them and preserve Mars for diverse interests, from scientific to cultural. Also, comprehensive approval of the global community will mitigate the need for further legal action to create these parks and minimize any conflict. Presenting a unified front of diverse international interests will provide a compelling reasoning behind reserving large swaths of land on Mars for non-commercial use.
-Co-authored with Ritwik P Srivastava, student, NLIU Bhopal-
