International law, the (space) commons, and how they're made | PhD @NCLLawSchool | 🇺🇸🇳🇱🏳️🌈 | 🔊: krɪs van aɪk | he/him Mostly active elsewhere now.
- Tweets11.5K
- Following3K
- Followers3.1K
- Likes32.1K
ALT The exclusive making of space law Cris van Eijk Newcastle Law School Abstract: The commons are defined by non-excludability – the idea that none can exclude another from access or use. Likewise, space lawyers portray their discipline’s origin story as uniquely egalitarian and inclusive, in part because of how it was made. The 1963 Principles Declaration and 1967 Outer Space Treaty were drafted by a committee of 28 states that decided by consensus – the first permanent UN body to do so. They worked in the midst of significant colonial and Cold War tensions to form a body of law which implicated the interests of every state. This article argues that the lawmaking which made space ‘common’ was made possible by excluding the Third World. It uses historical sources from 18 archives to shed new light on the process of making space law from 1957 to 1967... These factors had broad impacts on the drafting committee’s membership, attendance, decision-making procedure, and final products..."
![Excerpt from ICJ Advisory Opinion, paras 158-159, with part of para 159 highlighted: "[159.] Regardless of the circumstances in which the occupation was brought about, the fact of the occupation alone cannot confer sovereign title to the occupying Power. Consequently, conduct by the occupying Power that displays an intent to exercise permanent control over the occupied territory may indicate an act of annexation."](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GejMlyAXgAACfXz.jpg?name=orig)
ALT Excerpt from ICJ Advisory Opinion, paras 158-159, with part of para 159 highlighted: "[159.] Regardless of the circumstances in which the occupation was brought about, the fact of the occupation alone cannot confer sovereign title to the occupying Power. Consequently, conduct by the occupying Power that displays an intent to exercise permanent control over the occupied territory may indicate an act of annexation."
ALT Excerpt from Amicus Curiae Brief by Adil Haque to the ICC PTC: "8. As the International Court of Justice explains, Oslo II is an agreement between an occupying power and authorities of an occupied territory under the Fourth Geneva Convention... It neither expands Israel’s inherent jurisdiction nor limits Palestine’s inherent jurisdiction under general international law. It is not a treaty binding on the State of Palestine, since ‘an occupation involves, by its very nature, a continued use of force in foreign territory’, and a treaty procured by the use of force is void... Its derivative legal status is established and strictly limited by the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is legally binding only in the limited sense that protected persons shall continue to benefit from it until Israel brings its occupation to an end. It can neither deprive the local population of protection nor deny their right to self-determination, including their right to an independent and sovereign state..."