Artemis Accord: An Affront or Extension of Space and Celestial Bodies as Common Heritage.

Abstract

A man walked into a notary public office at Pittsburgh in 1936 and declared that all the property known as planet, islands-of-space and other matter, supposedly known as A.D Lindsay Archapellago, to belong to him. In 1976, Kenya, Colombia, Uganda, Ecuador, Indonesia, Brazil, Zaire and Congo through a Bogoto Declaration, and while perceiving outer space to begin after the geostationary orbit, claimed ownership and sovereignty over the geostationary orbit (GSO) part of Outer Space above their territory at a distance of 35,871km (i.e.22,300 miles) from the earth surface. This is done pursuant to the United Nations Charter on Economic Rights and Duties of States Resolution 3281 (XXIV). Again, 20th July 1969 marked the beginning of raising and displaying American flag on the Moon with Apollo 11 by Neil Armstrong. Res Communis as a popular concept of Outer space regimes is regularly threatened by acts of man, many of which are through series of Instruments or Agreements with intent, quite inconsistent with the provision of the Outer Space Treaty 1967. Currently, the most controversial threat, despite its claim to affirming the importance of complying with the Outer Space Treaty 1967, is the Artemis Accord, steered and championed by the United States. It is the intention of this paper to analyse and examine the provisions of the Artemis accord vis-à-vis the Outer Space Treaty on the acclaimed compliance to determine if it is indeed in compliance or an affront to the principles already enshrined in the Outer Space Treaty concerning exploration and exploitation of Outer space, the Moon and its celestial bodies