| Summary/Abstract |
The paper examines the intention of the drafters of the Outer Space Treaty regime to advance from the principle of “common province of mankind” and adopt “Common Heritage of Mankind”. In this context, the drafting history of the Moon Agreement, which helps discern the meanings ascribed to Common Heritage of Mankind by various countries, is considered. Moreover, the usage of the term in other realms, such as the deep seabed regime and Antarctica, is essential to understand the concept. The introduction of Common Heritage of Mankind in the United Nations Law of the Sea led to various industrialized developed countries, including the United States, to oppose the law. Hence, the approach was diluted to ensure it converts into a more liberal condition that does not enforce strict mandates on parties to the Law of the Sea. A similar view of states exists with respect to the Moon Agreement resulting to date in only 17 ratifications by states with no spacefaring states among them. Consequently, most states argue that the Common Heritage of Mankind principle in the Moon Agreement is not applicable due to not being party to the agreement. It is also argued that since there is no state practice suggesting opinion juris regarding Common Heritage of Mankind, it is not part of customary international law. The non-inclusion of the principle as a customary norm makes the relevance of Common Heritage of Mankind in the present world debatable and uncertain.
|