By Adam D.A. Manning
This article first appeared in the Winter 2016 edition of Astrosociological Insights, the newsletter of the Astrosociological Research Institute. You can find this edition, along with others, here:
http://www.astrosociology.org/vlibrary.html#VL_Newsletter
This paper was presented at The Outer Space Treaty Symposium at the British Interplanetary Society in October 2017.
One of the fascinations of Star Trek is that, right from the start, it portrays a coherent and consistent background to the interstellar adventures of the characters. Their missions are set in the broadly brushed yet intriguing setting of Starfleet and the United Federation of Planets. One frequent element of the setting that is portrayed is the law and it is surprising that Star Trek, a science fiction TV show for a mainstream audience, includes the law as often as it does. In common with other dramas, Star Trek uses legal principles and disputes to bring characters into conflict or add tension to the plot.
The most prominent law that Star Trek presents to its audience is the Prime Directive. This guiding principle states that Starfleet officers must not interfere with or alter any alien civilisations below the technological level of interstellar flight, no matter how good their reasons for doing so or well-intentioned they might be. (1)
The beginnings of the Prime Directive are explored in episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise (“STE”). In Dear Doctor, Captain Archer faces an agonising decision in which the lives of millions are at stake. Eventually he decides that if he interferes, this would contravene their underlying mission of peaceful communication and exploration. They were not travelling through space to “play God”, he decides.
Later, in terms of Star Trek chronology, episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series (“TOS”) give an idea of how serious the results of breaching the directive can be. For example, Patterns of Force depicts an alien world distorted by the teachings of a Starfleet history professor into becoming an almost exact copy of Nazi Germany, with appropriately catastrophic consequences.
In the episode The Omega Glory, Captain Kirk explains that adherence to the Prime Directive is so vital that a Captain should be prepared to sacrifice his own life and possibly even that of his crew to ensure it is upheld. Notoriously though, the principle is more often honoured in the breach than the observance, especially in TOS.
In Star Trek: The Next Generation (“TNG”) and later Star Trek shows, the Prime Directive is taken more seriously. In Symbiosis, Captain Picard comments that it is more than just a set of rules, “it is a philosophy”, and a very correct one too.
The stronger application given to the Prime Directive ensures the heightening of the moral dilemmas the Starfleet crews have to contend with. One of the most shocking examples of the ramifications of the Prime Directive is in the TNG episode Homeward, in which Captain Picard orders that they must do nothing to save an entire civilisation doomed by a planetary atmospheric collapse.
The Prime Directive is the most fully developed legal principle that Star Trek, in all its TV shows, presents and the episodes in which it features usually depicts a novel twist on its application. This has lead to an intricate series of exceptions and modifications in different situations. In the Star Trek: Voyager episode Infinite Regress, we are told it has 47 sub-orders.
It first appeared in TOS and it is interesting to consider its origins during the time TOS was created and broadcast. This was a time of almost revolutionary protest amongst the young in the USA, particularly with regard to the Vietnam War. It is not difficult to conclude that the Prime Directive might have been in part inspired by the hope that non-interference was a more preferable and ethical policy than the unrelenting agony of the Vietnam conflict.
More broadly, it can also be seen as reflecting underlying American historical concerns, such as an opposition to colonialism and imperialism and unease with interference in foreign affairs generally, such as the isolationism of the USA prior to entry into World War Two.
Environmentalism as a movement grew substantially in the sixties, in part due to the accelerating space program and its images of the Earth as a fragile, natural world without borders. The Prime Directive can be viewed as having an ecological aspect to it as well. The less technologically advanced cultures that Starfleet discovers and the worlds they inhabit can be taken as natural species in ecosystems that are to be respected and valued for their own sake. These parts of the galaxy are to be left alone and not subjugated, colonised or exploited. Instead they are to be left to develop naturally, albeit allowing for some limited scientific monitoring.
As a life long Star Trek fan and someone interested in Space Law, it has been exciting to compare the Prime Directive and the parts of Space Law concerning the ownership and exploitation of the rest of the universe beyond Earth. The most important source of Space Law dealing with these matters is the Outer Space Treaty, enacted by the United Nations in 1967. (2)
What is immediately noticeable here is that TOS, the first Star Trek show, and the Outer Space Treaty were both developed and then came into existence at roughly the same time.
Like the Antarctica Treaty system that came into force in 1959, the Outer Space Treaty is most importantly a disarmament treaty, outlawing the placing of weapons of mass destruction in outer space. The preamble of the Treaty requires that the exploration of space must be for peaceful purposes, which reminds us of the earnestness of Captain Archer in STE that this be so.
Article 1 of the Treaty states that the exploration and use of outer space is the province of all mankind. Article 2 develops this further, stating that Outer Space (which includes the Moon and the planets) cannot be subject to national appropriation by a claim of sovereignty, including by means of use or occupation. Article 9 of the Treaty requires that nation states will avoid harmful contamination of the Moon, the planets and other parts of outer space when exploring them.
These themes of the peaceful exploration of space, the lack of ownership or property rights in space and the requirement to avoid harmful contamination combine to remind the more imaginative Space law student of Star Trek’s Prime Directive. This is strengthened when we go on to consider the Moon Agreement of 1979, which sought to expand on a number of the principles listed in the Outer Space Treaty. (3)
Articles 2 and 3 of the Moon Agreement reiterate the requirement that all activities in space are to be carried out in the interests of maintaining peace and for using space for peaceful purposes. Article 7 repeats the requirement on state parties to take measures to prevent the disruption of the Moon and other celestial bodies by avoiding the introduction of adverse changes or harmful contamination.
Interestingly, Article 7 goes onto say that state parties shall report any areas on the Moon or other celestial bodies that are of particular scientific interest. This could lead to the designation of such areas as scientific preserves, which will receive special protective arrangements by the United Nations.
The prohibition of any claim of sovereignty or ownership found in the Outer Space Treaty is echoed in Article 11 of the Moon Agreement. This important provision begins by stipulating that the Moon (which is defined to mean the Moon and all other celestial bodies and areas in outer space) and its natural resources are “the common heritage of mankind”. This phrase denotes outer space as being a realm that cannot be appropriated by acts of ownership.
Further provisions of Article 11 list additional elements of the principle of the common heritage of mankind. Paragraph 3 of Article 11 states that neither the surface, the sub-surface nor any part or any of the natural resources in place shall become the property of any state, non-governmental entity or any natural person. So, not only is the ownership of land prohibited, so is the ownership of the physical constituents of that land.
This total prohibition on any form of ownership is mitigated by the rest of article 11’s delineation of an “international regime” which seeks to moderate and restrain the exploitation of extraterrestrial natural resources to ensure the common heritage principle is applied. The purposes of this regime include ensuring the orderly and safe development of the natural resources of outer space and the expansion of opportunities in their use.
The final purpose set out for this international regime is that it shall include an equitable sharing by all state parties in the benefits derived from these resources. This is to ensure that the interest and needs of developing countries (which may not be space faring nations) are given special consideration.
Whilst the Moon Agreement can be viewed as a failed treaty as it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries, it provides an explication of the Outer Space Treaty’s initial outline of the common heritage principle to space. The Moon Agreement has been adopted by the United Nations and, arguably, still represents an important source of legal principles. The United Nations remains the body that the world's nation states have accepted has the competence to legislate on matters involving Outer Space from the perspective of international law and, accordingly, as legislation emanating from the UN, the Moon Agreement remains of importance despite the failure to ratify by a sufficient number of states.
Although some of the details are different, there can be no doubt that there is a thematic similarity between Star Trek’s Prime Directive and Space Law’s common heritage principle. Both ensure that an area of concern shall have special protection and consideration. In Star Trek this area of concern is those parts of the galaxy that are not inhabited by an advanced technological culture capable of warp flight.
The Outer Space Treaty is of much broader scope. It applies to all areas of the universe beyond the Earth itself. The common theme between the two is that the area of concern is those parts of the universe that are not already occupied by a sufficiently advanced technological society; that is they are a wilderness that must be preserved, a state of nature that must be allowed to continue, by and large.
One of the most attractive aspects of Star Trek, and perhaps one of the reasons is that its appeal has lasted so long, is the optimistic, hopeful future it portrays. It is possible to suggest that the future depicted in Star Trek remains the most popular depiction of our future, especially when considering hopeful, optimistic visions. The Prime Directive is an element of this, as it suggests a more advanced culture that has learned from historical traumas and seeks to act more wisely, with more restraint so as to avoid repeating mistakes of the past.
The common heritage principle plays a similar role in Space Law. It calls upon citizens to look beyond their local, national interests and consider not only all of humanity at present but the interests of future generations to come.
The drafters of the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement sought to avoid a scenario referred to by economists as “the tragedy of the commons”. An illustration of this, considered in the nineteenth century, involves an area of common land on which cattle may graze. Each herder, acting rationally, would be inclined to add additional cattle to their herd to gain more from grazing on the land. If all the herders do this, in time the land involved would be over-exploited, to the detriment of all. This point is of general application in a wide range of contexts, including the oceans, the atmosphere, the seabed and so forth.
It is very far sighted to assign this principle to the realm of outer space. So far, our Solar System (apart from the Earth) is effectively free from exploitation and, in practical terms, an enormous volume. It will take human civilisations centuries to have reached the end point of its exploitation. Yet we are only at the start of this process and no one can correctly predict how quickly technology might advance.
The central problem for Space Law as it applies to extraterrestrial resources is that it is an unfinished legal regime. As the Moon Agreement was not ratified, the international regime set out in Article 11 was not developed in any more detail or applied in practice. What we need is an equivalent to the Prime Directive’s 47 sub-orders! This will take the implementation of the common heritage principle further forward. An example of how this might proceed in practice can be found with the law relating to the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed, as administered by the International Seabed Authority.
My excitement in learning more about Space Law, as a Star Trek fan, has been discovering just how much of the Prime Directive’s farsighted wisdom we already have, bound up in the common heritage principle. As advocates for the settlement of space, we look forward to the greater extension of human society beyond Earth. As this happens, it will be fascinating to see, and even be part of, how the legal regime for Outer Space develops from the initial principles we currently have into a more detailed and working, practical system.
The most prominent law that Star Trek presents to its audience is the Prime Directive. This guiding principle states that Starfleet officers must not interfere with or alter any alien civilisations below the technological level of interstellar flight, no matter how good their reasons for doing so or well-intentioned they might be. (1)
The beginnings of the Prime Directive are explored in episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise (“STE”). In Dear Doctor, Captain Archer faces an agonising decision in which the lives of millions are at stake. Eventually he decides that if he interferes, this would contravene their underlying mission of peaceful communication and exploration. They were not travelling through space to “play God”, he decides.
In the episode The Omega Glory, Captain Kirk explains that adherence to the Prime Directive is so vital that a Captain should be prepared to sacrifice his own life and possibly even that of his crew to ensure it is upheld. Notoriously though, the principle is more often honoured in the breach than the observance, especially in TOS.
In Star Trek: The Next Generation (“TNG”) and later Star Trek shows, the Prime Directive is taken more seriously. In Symbiosis, Captain Picard comments that it is more than just a set of rules, “it is a philosophy”, and a very correct one too.
The Prime Directive is the most fully developed legal principle that Star Trek, in all its TV shows, presents and the episodes in which it features usually depicts a novel twist on its application. This has lead to an intricate series of exceptions and modifications in different situations. In the Star Trek: Voyager episode Infinite Regress, we are told it has 47 sub-orders.
It first appeared in TOS and it is interesting to consider its origins during the time TOS was created and broadcast. This was a time of almost revolutionary protest amongst the young in the USA, particularly with regard to the Vietnam War. It is not difficult to conclude that the Prime Directive might have been in part inspired by the hope that non-interference was a more preferable and ethical policy than the unrelenting agony of the Vietnam conflict.
More broadly, it can also be seen as reflecting underlying American historical concerns, such as an opposition to colonialism and imperialism and unease with interference in foreign affairs generally, such as the isolationism of the USA prior to entry into World War Two.
Environmentalism as a movement grew substantially in the sixties, in part due to the accelerating space program and its images of the Earth as a fragile, natural world without borders. The Prime Directive can be viewed as having an ecological aspect to it as well. The less technologically advanced cultures that Starfleet discovers and the worlds they inhabit can be taken as natural species in ecosystems that are to be respected and valued for their own sake. These parts of the galaxy are to be left alone and not subjugated, colonised or exploited. Instead they are to be left to develop naturally, albeit allowing for some limited scientific monitoring.
As a life long Star Trek fan and someone interested in Space Law, it has been exciting to compare the Prime Directive and the parts of Space Law concerning the ownership and exploitation of the rest of the universe beyond Earth. The most important source of Space Law dealing with these matters is the Outer Space Treaty, enacted by the United Nations in 1967. (2)
What is immediately noticeable here is that TOS, the first Star Trek show, and the Outer Space Treaty were both developed and then came into existence at roughly the same time.
Like the Antarctica Treaty system that came into force in 1959, the Outer Space Treaty is most importantly a disarmament treaty, outlawing the placing of weapons of mass destruction in outer space. The preamble of the Treaty requires that the exploration of space must be for peaceful purposes, which reminds us of the earnestness of Captain Archer in STE that this be so.
Article 1 of the Treaty states that the exploration and use of outer space is the province of all mankind. Article 2 develops this further, stating that Outer Space (which includes the Moon and the planets) cannot be subject to national appropriation by a claim of sovereignty, including by means of use or occupation. Article 9 of the Treaty requires that nation states will avoid harmful contamination of the Moon, the planets and other parts of outer space when exploring them.
These themes of the peaceful exploration of space, the lack of ownership or property rights in space and the requirement to avoid harmful contamination combine to remind the more imaginative Space law student of Star Trek’s Prime Directive. This is strengthened when we go on to consider the Moon Agreement of 1979, which sought to expand on a number of the principles listed in the Outer Space Treaty. (3)
Articles 2 and 3 of the Moon Agreement reiterate the requirement that all activities in space are to be carried out in the interests of maintaining peace and for using space for peaceful purposes. Article 7 repeats the requirement on state parties to take measures to prevent the disruption of the Moon and other celestial bodies by avoiding the introduction of adverse changes or harmful contamination.
Interestingly, Article 7 goes onto say that state parties shall report any areas on the Moon or other celestial bodies that are of particular scientific interest. This could lead to the designation of such areas as scientific preserves, which will receive special protective arrangements by the United Nations.
The prohibition of any claim of sovereignty or ownership found in the Outer Space Treaty is echoed in Article 11 of the Moon Agreement. This important provision begins by stipulating that the Moon (which is defined to mean the Moon and all other celestial bodies and areas in outer space) and its natural resources are “the common heritage of mankind”. This phrase denotes outer space as being a realm that cannot be appropriated by acts of ownership.
Further provisions of Article 11 list additional elements of the principle of the common heritage of mankind. Paragraph 3 of Article 11 states that neither the surface, the sub-surface nor any part or any of the natural resources in place shall become the property of any state, non-governmental entity or any natural person. So, not only is the ownership of land prohibited, so is the ownership of the physical constituents of that land.
This total prohibition on any form of ownership is mitigated by the rest of article 11’s delineation of an “international regime” which seeks to moderate and restrain the exploitation of extraterrestrial natural resources to ensure the common heritage principle is applied. The purposes of this regime include ensuring the orderly and safe development of the natural resources of outer space and the expansion of opportunities in their use.
The final purpose set out for this international regime is that it shall include an equitable sharing by all state parties in the benefits derived from these resources. This is to ensure that the interest and needs of developing countries (which may not be space faring nations) are given special consideration.
Whilst the Moon Agreement can be viewed as a failed treaty as it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries, it provides an explication of the Outer Space Treaty’s initial outline of the common heritage principle to space. The Moon Agreement has been adopted by the United Nations and, arguably, still represents an important source of legal principles. The United Nations remains the body that the world's nation states have accepted has the competence to legislate on matters involving Outer Space from the perspective of international law and, accordingly, as legislation emanating from the UN, the Moon Agreement remains of importance despite the failure to ratify by a sufficient number of states.
Although some of the details are different, there can be no doubt that there is a thematic similarity between Star Trek’s Prime Directive and Space Law’s common heritage principle. Both ensure that an area of concern shall have special protection and consideration. In Star Trek this area of concern is those parts of the galaxy that are not inhabited by an advanced technological culture capable of warp flight.
The Outer Space Treaty is of much broader scope. It applies to all areas of the universe beyond the Earth itself. The common theme between the two is that the area of concern is those parts of the universe that are not already occupied by a sufficiently advanced technological society; that is they are a wilderness that must be preserved, a state of nature that must be allowed to continue, by and large.
One of the most attractive aspects of Star Trek, and perhaps one of the reasons is that its appeal has lasted so long, is the optimistic, hopeful future it portrays. It is possible to suggest that the future depicted in Star Trek remains the most popular depiction of our future, especially when considering hopeful, optimistic visions. The Prime Directive is an element of this, as it suggests a more advanced culture that has learned from historical traumas and seeks to act more wisely, with more restraint so as to avoid repeating mistakes of the past.
The common heritage principle plays a similar role in Space Law. It calls upon citizens to look beyond their local, national interests and consider not only all of humanity at present but the interests of future generations to come.
The drafters of the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement sought to avoid a scenario referred to by economists as “the tragedy of the commons”. An illustration of this, considered in the nineteenth century, involves an area of common land on which cattle may graze. Each herder, acting rationally, would be inclined to add additional cattle to their herd to gain more from grazing on the land. If all the herders do this, in time the land involved would be over-exploited, to the detriment of all. This point is of general application in a wide range of contexts, including the oceans, the atmosphere, the seabed and so forth.
It is very far sighted to assign this principle to the realm of outer space. So far, our Solar System (apart from the Earth) is effectively free from exploitation and, in practical terms, an enormous volume. It will take human civilisations centuries to have reached the end point of its exploitation. Yet we are only at the start of this process and no one can correctly predict how quickly technology might advance.
The central problem for Space Law as it applies to extraterrestrial resources is that it is an unfinished legal regime. As the Moon Agreement was not ratified, the international regime set out in Article 11 was not developed in any more detail or applied in practice. What we need is an equivalent to the Prime Directive’s 47 sub-orders! This will take the implementation of the common heritage principle further forward. An example of how this might proceed in practice can be found with the law relating to the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabed, as administered by the International Seabed Authority.
My excitement in learning more about Space Law, as a Star Trek fan, has been discovering just how much of the Prime Directive’s farsighted wisdom we already have, bound up in the common heritage principle. As advocates for the settlement of space, we look forward to the greater extension of human society beyond Earth. As this happens, it will be fascinating to see, and even be part of, how the legal regime for Outer Space develops from the initial principles we currently have into a more detailed and working, practical system.
FOOTNOTES
(1) For a detailed exposition of the Prime Directive, please refer to the
Memory Alpha website’s article, Prime Directive at http://memory-
alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Directive
(2)
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introoute
rspacetreaty.html
(3)
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoo
n-agreement.html
