Space: The Final Deregulatory Frontier

Ted Cruz is considering whether to loosen international obligations he worries could weigh down the U.S. outer-space industry. But experts warn of geopolitical blowback.

A 1/5 scale model size of NASA's solar-powered Juno spacecraft at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. on July 1, 2016.
AP Photo/Richard Vogel
May 23, 2017, 8 p.m.

As Re­pub­lic­an law­makers fe­ver­ishly work to roll back fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions, Sen. Ted Cruz is already look­ing bey­ond our world for rules to loosen or elim­in­ate.

Po­ten­tially in Cruz’s crosshairs are por­tions of the Out­er Space Treaty, a 50-year-old pact hammered out between the United States and the So­viet Uni­on dur­ing the height of the Cold War. With 106 sov­er­eign na­tions signed onto the treaty—which, among oth­er things, pre­vents the place­ment of nuc­le­ar weapons in space—the ac­cord is con­sidered sac­rosanct by many space-policy ex­perts.

That didn’t stop Cruz, the chair­man of the Sen­ate Space, Sci­ence, and Com­pet­it­ive­ness Sub­com­mit­tee, from hold­ing a hear­ing Tues­day to ex­am­ine wheth­er the United States should seek to amend or with­draw from the treaty to pro­mote a “light-touch” reg­u­lat­ory re­gime for the Amer­ic­an space in­dustry. Two treaty art­icles in par­tic­u­lar—one pre­vent­ing the sov­er­eign own­er­ship of ce­les­ti­al bod­ies and an­oth­er man­dat­ing the “au­thor­iz­a­tion and con­tinu­ing su­per­vi­sion” of non­gov­ern­ment­al or­gan­iz­a­tions in space—seemed par­tic­u­larly ripe for in­vest­ig­a­tion.

The sen­at­or pre­vi­ously ex­pressed a bi­as to­ward chan­ging the treaty, telling an At­lantic audi­ence last week that he hoped to gin up bi­par­tis­an sup­port in Con­gress for “mod­ern­iz[ing] it to cre­ate in­cent­ives for con­tin­ued in­vest­ment.” But after hear­ing from a united front of sev­en pan­el­ists Tues­day—each of whom ad­vised against the rene­go­ti­ation of or with­draw­al from the treaty—Cruz struck a dif­fer­ent tone.

“There was con­sensus among the wit­nesses that rene­go­ti­at­ing the treaty was not ne­ces­sary—that there was suf­fi­cient flex­ib­il­ity with­in the terms of the treaty to al­low Con­gress to le­gis­late, and le­gis­late a re­gime that would cre­ate a light-touch reg­u­lat­ory en­vir­on­ment,” the sen­at­or told re­port­ers after the hear­ing. “It was strik­ing, the con­sensus across those pan­els in that re­gard. And I think that points to a pos­it­ive and pro­duct­ive dir­ec­tion for the com­mit­tee to pro­ceed.”

“Light-touch reg­u­la­tion is—I be­lieve, and as the wit­nesses test­i­fied—con­sist­ent with the text of the treaty,” Cruz later ad­ded.

That doesn’t mean the Out­er Space Treaty is en­tirely off of Cruz’s chop­ping block. Some ex­perts have raised the pos­sib­il­ity that the pact also pro­hib­its the private own­er­ship of land on ce­les­ti­al bod­ies. And Cruz—who dur­ing the hear­ing mused wheth­er the U.S. gov­ern­ment should provide “40 miles and a lun­ar lander” to in­trep­id pi­on­eers seek­ing to col­on­ize the sol­ar sys­tems—seemed to sug­gest that pro­vi­sion may need amend­ing in the fu­ture.

“I think prop­erty rights will be an im­port­ant part of how we en­sure max­im­um in­cent­ives to ex­plore that fron­ti­er,” he told re­port­ers after the hear­ing. “How we do so, either con­sist­ent with the treaty lan­guage, or how we do so through modi­fy­ing the treaty lan­guage, re­mains an open ques­tion that we need to con­tin­ue to de­bate or dis­cov­er.”

Ex­perts—both those on the con­gres­sion­al pan­els and those who spoke to Na­tion­al Journ­al—were adam­antly op­posed to re­open­ing the Out­er Space Treaty. Since the pact only man­dates some form of private space reg­u­la­tion, they say there is broad flex­ib­il­ity for the United States to in­ter­pret the text in a way that al­lows for an ex­tremely light reg­u­lat­ory frame­work.

“It’s a total phantom; it’s a fal­lacy,” Mark Sundahl, a space-law ex­pert, said of the con­tro­versy over the treaty’s “au­thor­ize and su­per­vise” re­quire­ment. Seek­ing to amend that por­tion of the treaty, Sundahl and oth­ers warn, could back­fire if oth­er na­tions try to cre­ate even more oner­ous rules—or de­term­ine they’re free to ig­nore oth­er por­tions of the treaty, such as those de­signed to pre­vent the mil­it­ar­iz­a­tion of space.

Oth­ers warn that a glob­al back­lash could oc­cur even if the United States re­mains with­in the treaty but in­ter­prets its reg­u­lat­ory ob­lig­a­tions in the light­est way pos­sible. By ad­opt­ing a frame­work that fails to place even lim­ited rules on space­far­ing com­pan­ies, space-law ex­pert Mi­chael List­ner said, the United States would upend in­ter­na­tion­al norms and push rival powers to con­sider un­shack­ling their own com­pan­ies.

“It’s go­ing to cause con­fu­sion,” List­ner told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “And it might per­suade Rus­sia or China to take more and more loose in­ter­pret­a­tions of the treaty as well. So it’s kind of a dom­ino ef­fect.”

Cruz’s tar­get­ing of the Out­er Space Treaty is part of a broad­er push by con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans to roll back reg­u­la­tions in out­er space. On March 8, the House Sci­ence Sub­com­mit­tee on Space took aim at an April 2016 Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­port that re­com­men­ded ful­filling the treaty’s ob­lig­a­tion to reg­u­late private space firms through a “mis­sion au­thor­iz­a­tion” ap­proach over­seen by fed­er­al agen­cies.

Rep. Bri­an Babin, the sub­com­mit­tee’s chair­man, said he had “ser­i­ous re­ser­va­tions” about the pro­pos­al, which he called “well-in­ten­tioned” but “ill-con­ceived.” And Sci­ence Com­mit­tee Chair­man Lamar Smith said a gen­er­al “crisis of over­reg­u­la­tion” was be­hind his de­cision to op­pose the pri­or ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­com­mend­a­tions.

“In­stead of pre­sum­ing that ex­pans­ive new agency reg­u­lat­ory powers are needed, the con­ver­sa­tion is shift­ing to how to min­im­ize agency reg­u­la­tion and avoid it al­to­geth­er,” Smith said.

Frans von der Dunk, a pro­fess­or of space law at the Uni­versity of Neb­raska Col­lege of Law, thinks that line of reas­on­ing goes a long way to ex­plain­ing angst in Wash­ing­ton over the Out­er Space Treaty and oth­er ele­ments of space reg­u­la­tion.

“I don’t see any ob­ject­ive reas­on why the situ­ation—in terms of the United States’s abil­ity to keep con­trol of what’s go­ing on—I don’t see any new reas­on why that has changed over the last year,” von der Dunk told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “The only ma­jor change on the is­sue is, ob­vi­ously, the fact that now we have a new ad­min­is­tra­tion that, in many re­spects, tries to do away with as many bur­dens as pos­sible.”

What We're Following See More »
FOR IMPROPER SPENDING, INFLUENCE
Trump Inauguration Spending Now Under Investigation
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee’s top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions."

Source:
WOULD HAVE CROSSED NATIONAL FORESTS
Federal Judges Nix Proposed Atlantic Pipeline
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a rare rebuke to energy companies in the Trump era, "a panel of federal judges has rejected permits for the Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline to cross two national forests and the Appalachian trail in Virginia, finding that the national Forest Service 'abdicated its responsibility' and kowtowed to private industry in approving the project. The harshly worded, 60-page decision issued Thursday by three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is part of a string of legal setbacks for the 600-mile pipeline. The $7 billion project, being built by a consortium of companies led by Dominion Energy, is planned to carry natural gas from West Virginia, through Virginia and into North Carolina."

Source:
PINS KHASHOGGI KILLING ON MBS
Senate Moves to End Support for Saudi War
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
REP. POLIQUIN HAD CHALLENGED THE LAW
Federal Judge Upholds Ranked-Choice Voting in Maine
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A federal judge on Thursday rejected Republican U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin’s constitutional claims against ranked-choice voting and denied the incumbent’s request for a new election against Democratic Congressman-elect Jared Golden. U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker ruled that, contrary to the arguments of Poliquin’s legal team, the U.S. Constitution does not require that whichever congressional candidates receives the most votes—or 'a plurality'—be declared the winner. Instead, Walker ruled the Constitution grants states broad discretion to run elections."

Source:
SAUDI ARABIA, ISRAEL, AND THE UAE
Mueller Probing Middle East Countries' Influence Campaigns
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Officials working under Special Counsel Robert Mueller are investigating Middle Eastern countries' attempts to influence American politics, and are set to release the findings in early 2019. "Various witnesses affiliated with the Trump campaign have been questioned about their conversations with deeply connected individuals from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Israel ... Topics in those meetings ranged from the use of social-media manipulation to help install Trump in the White House to the overthrow of the regime in Iran." Investigators are also probing meetings organized by Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, and Joel Zamel, "a self-styled Mark Zuckerberg of the national-security world with deep ties to Israeli intelligence."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login