Sacks 1

Natsuki Sacks
Mentorship
Chawkat
10 January 2020
All 26 Bibs
Andrea Sommariva (2015) Rationale, Strategies, and Economics for Exploration and Mining of
Asteroids, Astropolitics, 13:1, 25-42, DOI:10.1080/14777622.2015.1014244.

The article first begins with the science behind Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs). Although there is
an abundance of asteroids located in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, NEAs are
evidently easier to access and an overall smarter choice. There are three types of NEAs: Amors,
which enter into Mars’ orbit but not Earth’s; Apollos, which enter Earth’s orbit for longer than a
year; and Atens, which enterEarth’s orbit for shorter than a year. The author then provides that
there are 10,337 known NEAs. However, there are much fewer accessible asteroids. Accessible
asteroids are classified as those with low eccentricity and a distance equal to less than one
astronomical unit. These particular asteroids are particularly alluring because of the small change
in velocity needed to reach them. The author then discusses the monetary concerns with
asteroids, which are evidently extremely expensive to mine. There are currently two ways to
mine asteroids: move it to a lunar or stable point between the Earth and the Moon, or mine it
right where it is. The mission of mining an asteroid can take 1.5 to four years, which will have an
effect on receiving returns on investments. The author then discusses the math behind mining an
Atens asteroids, which will have a shorter mining period because it enters Earth’s orbit for a
shorter time period. The author believes that asteroid mining is in the near future; all of the
necessary technology can be created and financing missions would not require a major increase
in budgets. The mining of asteroids will soon open up to the private sector and from there, the
potential of future settlements increases drastically.

This recent article was written by Andrea Sommariva, an Associate Professor and the Director of
Research on space economy at the SDA Bocconi School of Management. He specializes in
international finance, the markets for raw materials and oil, and the development of the space
economy. Sommariva has collaborated on many projects with world-renowned astrophysicist
Giovanni Bignami. Together, they have published A Scenario for Interstellar Exploration and Its
Financing (2013) and more. Sommariva may be contacted at andrea.sommariva@sdabocconi.it.
The authors consistent inclusion of charts allows the reader to comprehend the provided
information in a more digestible manner. Additionally, the authors inclusion of equations relating
to the mining of asteroids allows for those who can understand those equations to delve deeper
into the knowledge he is conveying. Sommariva effectively provides the reader with all they
need to know about asteroid mining: he discusses the geology behind them, the economic
concerns, the economic benefits, the rationale behind asteroid mining, and future effects of
asteroid mining. The information Sommariva provides can be corroborated in many scholarly
sources, such as information regarding the geology and abundance of asteroids in The Space
 Sacks 2

Report 2014. Due to the convoluted equations and ideas he presents, his audience consists of
lawyers with extensive astrophysics knowledge, astrophysicists, corporations looking to
understand the science behind space mining, and researchers concerned with the future effects of
space mining.

Blackmar, Elizabeth. “APPROPRIATING 'THE COMMONS': THE TRAGEDY OF

PROPERTY RIGHTS DISCOURSE.” The Politics of Public Space, 2006, pp. 50–58.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the various “Commons” that have popped up around the
United States and the world. According to the author, the Commons is a place that is both open
to use and appropriated, both private property and for public use. She discusses how the concept
of property rights has evolved due to the politics surrounding public space. The traditional
American legal system has recognized three kinds of property rights: private, public, and
common property. Common property holds an individual’s right to not be excluded from the
benefits of various resources. She then discusses the history of common property, originating in
17th century England, when landlords would ensure that their poorer inhabitants had access to
enclosed common fields, marshes, pastures, and more. Further along, rich Americans decided to
invest themselves in the idea of a public space, which only created future disputes between the
government, common citizens, and rich individuals. The expansion of property rights in the 19th
century left little room for the historical sites of the Native Americans, Mexicans, etc. Public
agents took away property rights to please rich private owners. Although not explicitly stated, it
can be inferred that the author seems to believe that history will inevitably repeat itself.

This recent article was written by Elizabeth Blakmar, a Mary and David Boies Professor of
American History at Columbia University. She received a B.A. from Smith College and a PhD
from Harvard University. She can be contacted at eb16@columbia.edu. She has long specialized
in social and urban history and has published many articles, such as “Of REITS and Rights:
Absentee Ownership at the Periphery” (2005). In the beginning of the chapter, she uses tangible
examples of “Commons” spaces, which allows the reader to more deeply understand the context
of the situation she will be discussing. In these examples, she uses monetary values and
measurements to further draw the picture she is attempting to create. The information she
provides can be corroborated by numerous related sources, such as the history of “Commons”
and its utilization in public outer space in “Regulating the Space Commons: Treating Space
Debris as Abandoned Property in Violation of the Outer Space Treaty” by Chelsea Munoz-
Patchen. Blackmar’s intended audience is law students and legislators interested in the future of
international space law. Specifically, those attempting to mend the gap of private property rights
in space.

Blount, P. J. (2011, Winter). Renovating space: the future of international space law.
Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 40(1-3), 515+. Retrieved from
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A293812059/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=210292fa.
 Sacks 3

This recent article focuses on the future of international space law. It highlights the importance
of recognizing the foundation upon which international laws are built to ensure progress in
legislation instead of repeating history. The article first addresses the goal of those creating
international space law for the Cold War. International space law was initially created to prevent
drastic criminal space activity and punish countries violating the law. The Soviet launch of
Sputnik was particularly eye-opening in the sense that the Soviet Union was significantly closer
to initiating the complete destruction of a world power. Their weapons system needed to be
checked. The principles established from the Sputnik ordeal were later integrated into the Outer
Space Treaty, or the Constitution for space. The article then highlights the importance of
renovating the entire realm of space law; in the past two decades (the article was written in
2011), the geopolitical climate of international space has morphed and advanced in substantial
ways. Since the end of the Cold War, it is no longer two large countries battling each other for
technological superiority; numerous countries are now deeply involved in the utilization and
exploration of space and its celestial bodies. International space law must be additionally
revamped to accommodate for the rise in commercial actors and corporations in space. For a
majority of space law’s existence, the field has been dominated by governments. As research and
technology becomes more accessible, the number of corporations actively involved in advancing
the exploration of space will increase dramatically, and the world of international law must be
equipped to handle the potential issues that will undoubtedly arise from numerous competing
interests. Blount speaks on how soft and hard law will take place in the renovation of
international space law and explains how legislation may be expanded.

This article was published on December 22, 2011 in the Denver Journal of International Law and
Policy. It was written by P. J. Blount, an adjunct professor for the University of Mississippi’s
Program in Air and Space Law. His serves on the Board of Directors of the International Institute
of Space Law and chairs the Legal Aspects Technical Committee of the American Institute for
Aeronautics and Astronautics. He has authored numerous journal articles, book chapters, and
conference papers on space security, cyberspace governance, and more. He can be contacted at
pjblount@gmail.com. This article effectively covers all aspects of renovating space law; it
speaks on its origin and foundation, initial principles, the need for expansion, new actors in the
field and their impact, and lists and explains ways to expand the somewhat small realm of
international space law. Blount explains the specific additions that would need to be added and
why, such as the importance and impact of soft and hard law. He supports his claims by using
previous legislation and its outcomes. The information in this article can be corroborated by
numerous articles, such a Where Air Space Ends and Outer Space Begins by Stanley B.
Rosenfield and Current Status and Recent Developments in Korea’s National Space Laws by
Sang-Myon Rhee. This article was written for space law researchers, current lawmakers,
potential court cases, and those involved in space law in academia.

Braghetta, Adriana. "Diversity and regionalism in international commercial arbitration."

Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, vol. 46, no. 4, 2015, p. 1245+. Gale
 Sacks 4

General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A473630376/GPS?

u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=6b55adbc. Accessed 24 Aug. 2019.

This lecture was given by Adriana Braghetta at Stone Lecture Theatre, Auckland Law School on
October 19, 2015 for the New Zealand Law Foundation on International Dispute Resolution.
Braghetta focuses on reinforcing the strong conclusions regarding the lack of diversity and
participation from arbitrators from developing countries in international arbitral cases. The first
open discussion about arbitrators being predominantly white, male, older, and from Western
developed countries occurred in 2014 by the International Council for Commercial Arbitration’s
Miami Congress. Of the 1,000 arbitrators who attended this conference, the majority of which
belonged to the ICC, 500 participated in a personal survey broadly about diversity. A few
examples from the survey that reinforced Braghetta’s calls for action were (1) the fact that 82.4%
of the arbitrators were men, 40% of cases involving developing countries (such as those from
Africa, Latin America, or the Asia Pacific) did not interact with an arbitrator from a developing
country, and 32.2% stated that they had never had a woman on their arbitration panels. The
results may be due to parties opting for the same counsel on the basis of merit, experience, and
the “insurance policy,” meaning that if an unsatisfactory agreement was reached, the company
would have a single panel to blame it on. However, the same arbitrators being used repeatedly
and frequently may lead to low-quality decisions because the hired individuals have less time
and energy to allocate to their clients. Even the Vice President of the International Court of
Justice, Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf from Somalia, gave a speech that encouraged increased
involvement in African arbitrators by openly welcoming them, as previous events have revealed
that arbitrators coming from developing countries will be quick to turn down participation in
international arbitration if they are unwelcome by the greater community. The main problem
currently facing the ICC and the dozens of other arbitral institutions, such as the International
Centre for Dispute Resolution within the American Arbitration Association, is expanding the
pool of arbitrators sitting on the constantly growing number of cases while incorporating
diversity within the system to preserve its legacy.

Adriana Braghetta is the Co-Head of the arbitration group at LOBaptista-SVMFA in Brazil.

Previously, she was the Vice President and later the President of the Comitê Brasileiro de
Arbitragem and is a member of the ILA International Arbitration Committee, ICC Arbitration
Commission, and more. She was invited to lecture in New Zealand by Carolina Foster and Petra
Butler for a joint initiative of the University of Auckland and the Victoria University of
Wellington. In February of 2013, she wrote “Polygamy of Treaties in Arbitration - A Latin
American and MERCOSUL Perspective.” Her lecture included numerous graphs and other
visuals that effectively portrayed the statistics she was presenting. The transcript of this lecture
was published in the Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Vol. 46, Issue 4 on
December 1, 2015. The journal is academic and provides information regarding all specialities of
law on a quarterly basis. The Law Review’s Managing Editor, Paul Scott, can be reached at
paul.scott@vuw.ac.nz. Adriana Braghetta can be reached at ab@lob-svmfa.com.br. The data in
 Sacks 5

the lecture can be corroborated by various sources, such as Catherine Roger's "A Window Into
the Soul of International Arbitration: Arbitrator Selection, Transparency and Stakeholder
Interests." Braghetta’s lecture was primarily for international law students interested or
specializing in arbitration, investigators covering the ICC, or political scientists intrigued by the
inner workings of the ICC and the issues that it is attempting to amend.

Broughton E. (2005). The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review. Environmental
health : a global access science source, 4(1), 6. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-6.

This review focuses on the causes of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster in India, its impact on the
surrounding communities and national and international markets, and its aftermath. The article
begins with an abstract and follows with the history between the Indian government and the
culprit pesticide plant. The plant was built in an area ill-equipped for hazardous public health
emergencies; the factories in the area were for light industrial and commercial use. In the 70s, the
Indian government attempted to encourage foreign investment in local industry by asking the
Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) to build a factory in Bhopal for the production of Sevin, a
popular pesticide in Asia at the time. The government held a 22% stake in the company’s
subsidiary, Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) and a large percentage of the company’s
investment came from local shareholders. Eventually, the factory began producing everything
needed for the production of the pesticide instead of producing only small quantities of a few of
the less hazardous ingredients. By 1984, the company was attempting to sell its facility due to a
substantial decrease in profits as a result of widespread crop failures and famine in South Asia.
Although the company was producing pesticides significantly below the safety standards
implemented in its sister facility in Institute, West Virginia, the local government refrained from
enforcing these standards because they wanted to avoid placing additional economic stress on the
company. The gas leak immediately killed approximately 3,000 and an additional 10 to 20,000
over the following two decades. Immediately following the disaster on December 2, 1984,
American attorneys began filing lawsuits on behalf of the victims. Due to the Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster Act enacted in March 1985, all of the lawsuits were eventually put under the jurisdiction
of the Indian Supreme Court. UCC was required to pay only $470 million in compensation. If the
case had been decided in the U.S., the corporation would have been forced to pay much over its
$10 billion net worth.

Author Edward Broughton wrote this article on May 10, 2005. Although the article is considered
to be outdated, information regarding the history of the disaster is unlikely to change and the
decisions made for the lawsuits are fairly insusceptible to change. The facts of the disaster, such
as the cause, time, and place, will not change. Because the article was written 21 years after the
disaster, new findings are less likely. Broughton is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Health
Policy and Management at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at NYU,
Director of Worldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research in Oncology at Bristol-Myers
Squibb, has received his MPH from Columbia University, and has received his PhD in
 Sacks 6

International Health from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He has
authored 25+ peer-reviewed journals and chapters on public health and health economics. He can
be contacted at eb171@nyu.edu. This article effectively covers all parts of the gas leak disaster.
It includes various early and late health effects on victims, including ocular, respiratory, and
gastrointestinal symptoms, and supports Broughton’s claim of poor infrastructure leading to the
gas leak by listing the causes of this public health emergency. Broughton boosts his credibility
through his use of numbers and dates in regards to the various lawsuits he discusses. The article
additionally covers the lessons learned from the disaster and occurrences after 1984 relating to
the disaster. The information stated in Broughton’s article can be corroborated with several
credible sources, such as “The slow pursuit of justice; The Bhopal disaster” (The Economist) and
“The Bhopal disaster as a case study in double standards” by Barry Castleman and Prabir
Purkayastha. Broughton wrote this review for historians, environmental researchers, those
fighting for justice for Bhopal’s victims, and national/international lawmakers.

Christensen, Ian, et al. “NEW POLICIES NEEDED TO ADVANCE SPACE MINING.”

Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 2, 2019, p. 26+. Gale In Context: Science,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A570439702/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=8610220d. Accessed 17 Nov. 2019.

The authors address the fact that, if the human race wishes to explore and expand into space,
they must build large-scale permanent developments outside of low-Earth orbit in space. This
requires for most of the resources obtained in space to be used for in-space purposes and not to
bring back to Earth. President Trump’s administration has realized the importance of obtaining
space resources, as he issued the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to
return humans to the Moon for “exploration and utilization” in Space Policy Directive 1 on
December 11, 2017. Vice President Pence supported Trump’s statement by stating at the 34th
Space Symposium in April 2018 that American astronauts will return to the Moon and figure out
ways to utilize its resources to reach Mars. The authors also address the international tension
stemming from the Outer Space Treaty’s (OTS) provision that requires nations to obtain
“authorization and supervision” from the international community prior to national space
expeditions. However, many nations have taken the section of the OTS, which provides that all
nations may use space for exploration and exploitation, to launch numerous space resource-
related activities. The authors then shift to explaining the seemingly abundant availability of
water in space, which gives hope for future, extraterrestrial human settlements and future rocket
launches from the Moon and other planets, as water is an extremely useful propellant. It is
necessary for government to first begin funding space exploration operations before private
corporations are attracted to the market. Currently, countries such as Russia and Belgium wish to
hold off on space exploration before there is an international legal framework specifically
governing the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources. Furthermore, the Hague Working Group
has begun drafting a policy framework for this specific issue. The authors point to terrestrial
 Sacks 7

extractive industries to formulate space mining policies; specifically, lessons learned from their
endeavors.

This recent article was written by Ian Christensen et. al. Christensen directs the private sector
programs at the Secure World Foundation and has extensive experience in commercial space as a
consultant and analyst. The other authors are associated with the Colorado School of Mines. He
served for one and a half years on a NASA team focused on managing the retirement of the
Space Shuttle. He has published numerous academic papers and articles, such as “Summary of
Findings: The Terminology Challenges of Communicating Value in Space Enterprises” (2019).
He may be contacted through the Secure World Foundation. This article effectively explains the
necessity of new space policies by providing background knowledge on the development of
space law, tensions in the international community stemming from the OTS, and where
necessary policy developments should come from. Many of the statements provided by
Christensen et. al are corroborated in international treaties, such as the OTS, the United Nations
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and national policies, such as the U.S. SPACE
Act of 2015.

"Confusion Over Need for Shareholders' Resolution for Every Private Placement of
Debt." Money Life, 3 July 2019. Gale General OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A592265767/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=b59f2d84. Accessed 13 Aug. 2019.

This article focuses on the two main interpretations of The Companies Act (2013), Section 42,
Rule 14 as an extension of the Securities and Exchange Board of India. In India, there is
currently a need for companies to reduce their dependence on bank loans and move to capital
markets for the sake of the debt market. The Securities and Exchange Board had required large
companies to move at least a portion of their incremental borrowing to bonds. For finance
companies, bonds are issued frequently; the private placement of debt is fairly common. Rule 14
of the Companies Act, Section 42 requires companies to pass a special resolution before
privately placing their securities. However, a board resolution would be adequate in the case that
a carve-out (a small company created from a larger one) regarding the private placement of a
non-convertible debenture (NCD) if the proposed amount to be raised does not exceed the limit
set in Section 180(1)(c) of this rule. The two interpretations are as follows: (1) prior approval
from the company’s shareholders is not required if the NCDs are issued within the limit provided
by the shareholders under Section 180 and (2) prior approval from shareholders is required if
NCDs are issued in excess of the sum of paid capital (free reserves and securities premium
account), which is the limit specified in the section and irrespective of the limit approved by the
company’s shareholders under 180. In a further analysis of the two interpretations, the article
provides the exact shareholder’s resolution passed under 180 in which they consented to the
board of directors, etc. of a company borrowing by obtaining loans, NCDs, and more as long as
the sum of the amount already borrowed by the company does not exceed the aggregate of paid-
 Sacks 8

up share capital of the company. Interpretation two required companies to annually approach
shareholders to approve the private placement of NCDs if the proposed amount exceeds the paid-
up share capital even though shareholders clearly consented to an overall limit. In some cases,
companies have approached their shareholders and requested for a specific limit for their
borrowing. This interpretation is counterintuitive to the amendment, which was made
specifically to require less compliance from companies and promote their debt issues. Even if a
company publicly issued an NCD, they would be required to approach their shareholders if they
wish to privately invest after exceeding the limit. In contrast, the first interpretation supports the
notion that companies are able to raise debentures up to borrowing limits set by the board under
180. The board may borrow beyond the aggregate of paid-up share capital of the company; if the
issuance of NCDs are from time to time within the borrowing limits, separate approval from
shareholders in not required. In conclusion, interpretation two defeats the purpose of the
amendment.

This article was published on July 3, 2019 in Money Life Journal, which is an Indian journal that
focuses on money, currency, and overall economics. They publish daily and can be reached at
news@moneylife.in. The article specifically references Section 180 of the Companies Act of
2013, which negates concerns about the meaning of the law being altered through paraphrasing.
The explanations of the interpretations were somewhat easily understandable, but an article like
this one would be most suitable for those in the field of investment, economics, or foreign affairs
(although this is issue is predominantly domestic in nature). It is not suitable for the general
public and those interested in investment at the surface level, due to complex words such as
debentures, non-convertible debentures, and aggregate paid-up capital. It effectively covered
both interpretations of the law and provides sufficient reasoning for his analysis.

Dalton, Taylor R. “Developing the Final Frontier: Defining Private Property Rights on
Celestial Bodies for the Benefit of All Mankind.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 16 Aug.
2010, pp. 1–29., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1660163.

This journal begins with the history of outer space law, including the Outer Space Treaty and the
Moon Treaty, and continues onto its main topic: whether or not private property rights are
defined in current international space laws. According to the author, Alan Wasser, the Chairman
of the Space Settlement Institute, argues that corporations may claim ownership of resources in
space because the Outer Space Treaty (OST) does not specifically exclude private property
rights. His reasoning is built on the basis of expressio unis est exclusio, a legal doctrine stating
that provisions not included in a document were purposefully excluded. However, the author
later disputes Wasser’s claim by explaining that, because Article II of the OTS explicitly
prohibits state ownership and states that all non-governmental activities are the nation state’s
responsibilities, unrecognized private property ownership is illegal. Therefore, the appropriation
of celestial land and resources is prohibited. This counterclaim can be met with the fact that the
 Sacks 9

latter analysis of Article II of the OST is too broad. The author is coming to conclusions in a way
that leave holes in his argument, which he openly discusses. Later, the author discusses various
terrestrial treaties and international legislation and analyzes their usefulness in regards to filling
the evident hole in international law. One of the most seemingly useful is the Law of the Seas,
drafted by the United Nations, which defines a specific spot of the deep seabed and ocean floor
as “The Area,” and states that all profits received from the exploitation of this section outside of
a nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone must go to better “the common heritage of mankind.”

This recent journal was written by Taylor Reeves Dalton, an attorney at Green & Hall in Santa
Ana, California. He received his B.A. from the University of Southern California, his J.D. and
L.L.M. in International and Comparative Law from Cornell Law School, and his PhD in Political
Science and International Relations from the University of Southern California. He has
numerous publications in several academic journals, such as Rights for the Landless: Comparing
Approaches to Historical Injustice in Brazil and South Africa in the Columbia Human Rights
Law Review. He has long been interested and has practiced law involving in international law,
property rights litigation, and corporate formation and governance. Dalton may be contacted at
tdalton@usc.edu. Dalton effectively covers all the information necessary, such as a summary of
the most important international treaties in space law, an explanation of the various arguments
regarding the legalities of private property rights in space, and an analysis of numerous solutions
to encourage a consensus on the issue. The information he has provided is evidently meant to
reach an audience highly educated on the issue at hand. He refers to copious amounts
international legislation, of which the reader would need prior knowledge to fully comprehend.
Although the information is crowded, Dalton defines most legal terms, such as expressio unis est
exclusio, which make his audience mostly space lawyers, political scientists interested in space
law, and international legislators looking to fill this gaping hole in space law. Dalton’s claims
can be supported by many credible sources, such as Space Settlements, Property Rights, and
International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs to Survive by
Alan Wasser and Douglas Jobes and The Development of Outer Space: Sovereignty and
Property Rights in International Space Law by Thomas Gangle.

Dodge, Michael. “The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015:
Moving U.S. Space Activities Forward.” Air & Space Lawyer, vol. 29, 3 Nov. 2016.

This article is an analysis on the impact of the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness
Act (SPACE Act), passed by the Obama administration in 2015. The author begins by explaining
the origins of the law and how it was created to further modernize and encourage growth in the
nation’s space industry. The SPACE Act concerns with insurance requirements, benefits for
individuals actually going into space, and the creation of a supervising authority for the
commercial space industry. The SPACE Act directs the secretary of state, secretary of
transportation, and the head of NASA to directly work with the director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy to review current and proposed space activities and ultimately develop a
 Sacks 10

coherent, flowing government that will be efficient in resolving issues and promoting healthy
growth. Under this new act, Congress now has greater jurisdiction over space activities and can
more powerfully direct head government officials regarding space commerce. The SPACE Act
also clarifies the role of the Office of Space Commerce by clearly defining its objectives, such as
encouraging good conditions for economic growth and national technological advancements.
However, there are concerns regarding the enactment of this new law: the United States is
inadvertently placed into a leadership position that may violate existing legislation governing
international space law, the federal government must make necessary changes to related existing
law to ensure the coherence of the SPACE Act, and requires the Congress to consistently be
engaged in overseeing the development of the commercial space industry.

This recent article was written by Michael Dodge, an Assistant Professor and Director of
Graduate Studies of the Department of Space Studies at the University of North Dakota. He was
previously a research counsel and law instructor at the University of Mississippi School of Law
Air and Space. He is currently researching Global Navigation Satellite System law,
environmental regulation of space, Space Traffic Management, and orbital space law. He can be
contacted at michael.s.dodge@UND.edu. He has published many interesting publications, such
as “A Return to the Moon--Law and Policy Shaping Future Lunar and Cis-Lunar Operations”
(2018) and “Exploration and the Moon: Law and Policy Impacts on Future Activities” (2018).
This article encompasses the entirety of the SPACE Act, beginning with its origin, comparison to
past laws, and an analysis of the Titles within the Act, and ends with the Act’s improvements to
the government and its potential conflicts with international space law. Much of the information
in this article can be corroborated by numerous sources, such as National Space Policy of the
United States of America (2010) and the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States
in the Explorations and Use of Outer Space (1967). The prospective audience for this article is
U.S. legislators, political scientists interested in the impacts of this new law, and law students
studying the future of space.

Dodge, William S. "Corporate liability under customary international law." Georgetown

Journal of International Law, Summer 2012, p. 1045+. Gale General OneFile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A315368873/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=0dfa648c. Accessed 26 Aug. 2019.

This article focuses on corporate liability under customary international law in comparison to
natural persons. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court ruled that the Alien Tort Statute,
which gives U.S. district courts jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only,
committed in violation of the law of nations of a treaty of the U.S.,” allows courts to assess
federal common law for the causes of actions based on the current norm for international
character that are generally accepted by the “civilized” world and defined more specifically than
previous 18th century models on the infringement of the rights of ambassadors, violations of
safe-conducts, and piracy. Recently, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the Court is
 Sacks 11

questioning whether a corporation can be held liable under ATS, as Sosa involved a natural
individual. The Second Circuit stated that they cannot be liable because corporate liability is not
universally recognized and is not a rule of customary international law under the ATS. In a U.S.
amicus brief, it states that the court should have focused on whether any international law norms
exclude corporations from their reach instead of looking for laws that include them, of which
there are few. International law does not operate in a general fashion and the common doctrines
of immunity benefit states in other states’ courts and high ranking officials during their tenure,
but do not benefit corporations, whom also do not benefit from trans-substantive rule of non-
liability that do not apply to states. In Kiobel, the defendant’s home countries, the Netherlands
and the United Kingdom, adopted the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal
Court and passed domestic legislation criminalizing genocide, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, and torture. The laws apply to both corporations and natural persons, which benefited the
defendants when the prosecution stated that it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to provide sufficient
evidence that corporations are not exempt from liability. State practice applying a norm to
natural persons also binds the law to juridical or natural persons unless there is a relevant
difference between the two, excluding the latter.

This article was written by William S. Dodge on June 22, 2012 and was published in the
Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, Issue 4. Dodge teachesInternational Business
Transactions, International Litigation and Arbitration, and Contracts at UC Davis and previously
served as Counselor on International Law to the Legal Adviser of the State Department from
2011 to 2012. He is a co-author and -editor of International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court:
Continuity and Change. He has more than fifty publications in books and law reviews, which
have been cited 30+ times in court opinions. He received his B.A. and J.D. from Yale University
and its law school. Dodge can be contacted at wsdodge@ucdavis.edu. He covers both sides of
the court decision by giving context, but quickly disproves the Second Circuit’s decision.
Dodge's interpretations can be backed by multiple credible sources, such as the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The article is
written for those seeking evidence for a court opinion/ruling, those in law school, and
international law researchers attempting to gain more knowledge on this particular dilemma.

Douglas, Michael, and Nicholas Loadsman. "THE IMPACT OF THE HAGUE

PRINCIPLES ON CHOICE OF LAW IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL
CONTRACTS." Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 19, no. 1, 2018, p. 1+.
Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A583997993/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=e38ff76b. Accessed 30 Aug. 2019.

This article focuses on the impact of the enactment of an international civil law act on private
Australian international law. The law, which would give effect to the Convention on Choice of
Court Agreements (Hague Convention) and the Principles on Choice of Law in International
Commercial Contracts (Hague Principles), is supposedly in line with existing law but has a few
 Sacks 12

exceptions to party autonomy, which allows courts to apply forum law for certain public policy
reasons. The Hague Principles further the cause for harmonisation by providing a model law for
lawmakers to use and “levels the field” between litigation and arbitration by paying greater
respect to party autonomy by allowing them to select non-state law and apparently limiting the
ability of states to apply their own law. These enactments may lead to depecage, where a court
applies more than one system of law to the same dispute in a case with a foreign element that is
governed by different laws, because party autonomy will allow parties to choose their own non-
state laws. In regards to contracts, “voluntary depecage” is a legal tool that allows parties to
choose several governing laws for certain parts of their contact and conveys the highlighted
principles of freedom of contract at the core of the Hague Principles. There are many other
potential conflicts to address, such as the expression of the choice of law, the application of the
law to Consensus ad Idem, and mandatory foreign law and public policy.

This recent article was published on July 1, 2018 by Michael Douglas and Nicholas Loadsman in
the Melbourne Journal of International Law. Douglas is a Senior Lecturer in private law at the
University of Western Australia Law School and researches conflict of laws in private
international law. He is the editor of the Media and Arts Law Review, has lectured at the
University of Sydney and Curtin University, and has written several international law-related
articles such as “Choice of Court Agreements under and International Civil Law Act.” He can be
contacted at michael.c.douglas@uwa.edu.au. Nicholas Loadsman is a forensic/litigation
paralegal at Clayton Utz in Sydney, Australia and has assisted in the provision of legal advice in
regards to remediation programs, regulatory inquiries, and Royal Commissions. He has also
assisted in judicial review proceedings from migration decisions and corporate work for
commercial clients. He can be contacted at nloadsman@claytonutz.com. The article covers the
potential impacts of the enactment of the Hague Convention and Principles to private Australian
international contract law and supports their analyses with various court case rulings, such as one
from Wanganui-Rangitikei Electric Power Board v. Australian Mutual Provident Society. The
two also cite provisions from Australian law and the Hague Convention and Principles. Among
others, their conclusions can be supported by Brooke Adele Marshall and Mary Keyes’
‘Australia’s Accession to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements’ (2017). This
article was certainly written for audiences with an advanced understanding of contract law and
the international court’s ruling system. These individuals might be political scientists,
international lawyers, or law school students.

Freeland, Steven. "Fly me to the moon: how will international law cope with commercial
space tourism?" Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 11, no. 1, 2010, p. 90+.
Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A235857289/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=b5ee120b. Accessed 31 Aug. 2019.

This article analyzes the legal issues that have or may arise from space tourism activities. The
article provides a synopsis of international law in outer space, the history of space tourism and its
 Sacks 13

definition, what regulations from the international community apply to space tourism, the
undefined legal status of a space tourist, liability for death or damage, space tourism’s relation to
celestial property rights, and ethical considerations. There are five treaties/agreements finalized
by the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space: the Treaty on Principles Governing
the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies; the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the
Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space; the Convention on Registration of Objects
Launched into Outer Space; and the Moon Agreement. There are also five principles adopted by
the UN General Assembly in regards to the uses of space. As of 2010, there have only been
seven space tourists, which are individuals who have not been extensively trained as astronauts,
who have traveled to the International Space Station. The listed treaties do not specifically define
the legal status of a space tourist; the Outer Space Treaty simply refers to them as “envoys of
mankind,” and the Moon Agreement states than any person on the Moon should be regarded by
their state’s parties as an astronaut. The article explicitly expresses that a specific reference
should be made to the types of people traveling in space in international space law treaties and
agreements. Another conflict is the vague Liability Convention, which does not apply to damage
or death caused by a space object. Among the many other issues that the article addresses, it
includes quotes from the space-related UN treaties, agreements, and principles. The author
highlights the most important details in international space tourism in an evident way which
allows even the least knowledgeable reader to understand the big questions.

This article was written by Steven Freeland and was published on May 1, 2010 in the Melbourne
Journal of International Law. Freeland is a Professor of International Law at the University of
Western Sydney, Visiting Professor of International Law at the University of Copenhagen, and a
Faculty Member of the London Institute of Space Policy and Law. He was a Visiting
Professional with the Appeals Chamber at the ICC, The Hague, a member of the Australian
delegation to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and more. He has
published many works regarding international space law, such as Contemporary Issues for
National and International Space Law and ‘Promoting peace from above?: utilizing space for the
prevention and prosecution of human rights violations.’ He can be contacted at
S.Freeland@westernsydney.edu.au. The article uses data in the form of direct or indirect quotes
from the various UN treaties, agreements, and principles to provide a complete analysis of the
gaps in space law, particularly in regards to space tourism. The many problems he highlights are
supported and the potential solutions are sufficiently explained. Freeland’s analyses can be
supported by Charity Trelease Ryabinkin’s ‘Let There be Flight: It’s Time to Reform the
Regulation of Commercial Space Travel’ and Colin B. Picker’s ‘A View from 40,000 Feet:
International Law and the Invisible Hand of Technology.’ This article was likely written for
international lawmakers looking to fill in the gaps of international space regulations, law school
students, and political scientists analysing the effectiveness of space law.
 Sacks 14

Hamann, Serena. "EFFECTIVE CORPORATE COMPLIANCE: A HOLISTIC

APPROACH FOR THE SEC AND THE DOJ." Washington Law Review, vol. 94, no. 2,
2019, p. 851+. Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A596402707/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=32c118f2. Accessed 1 Sept. 2019.

This article focuses on the ways to establish effective corporate compliance within noncompliant
companies in regards to enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ). It defines corporate compliance as two elements: moral
management commitment and management steps to make the right things happen. All truly
effective compliance programs must follow the “Seven Elements of an Effective Compliance
Program,” which are contained in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and proposes that the SEC
and DOJ should use a holistic approach to compliance by incorporating these guidelines into
non-prosecution agreements and penalty settlements. A prevalent issue is the continuation of
corporate crimes even with compliance programs; this is mostly because most companies have
incomplete or bad compliance programs that are often underfunded and understaffed.
Additionally, most compliance officers are not rewarded a seat at the “big” table with the other
high-level staffers. The main problem is that there are many inconsistencies between
departments in the ways that they are applying criteria to judge a company’s ethics and
compliance program. To fix this inconsistency, the SEC and DOJ should utilize their current
authority and frequent interactions with corporations to eliminate piecemeal enforcement through
the elements in the Guidelines.

This article was written by Serena Hamann and was published on June 1, 2019 in the
Washington Law Review. She is on the Editorial Staff of the Washington Law Review and is a
student at the University of Washington School of Law. The writing of the article was assisted
by Dean Scott Schumacher and Professor Jeffrey Wool of the Global Business Law Institute at
UW’s School of Law. The latter can be contacted at jawool@uw.edu. He teaches transnational
commercial law and is the executive director of the Cape Town Convention Academic Project.
He is a co-author of Transnational Commercial Law (2012) published by the Oxford University
Press and is particularly of interest in the Middle East. The article was well-written with the
current noncompliance issues and potential approaches to fix them. The best approach was
evident and was supported by interpretations of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Hamann
evidently wishes for the SEC and DOJ to take a stronger stance on the topic and gives numerous
ways to do so. Her information can be corroborated in Leslie R. Caldwell’s article “Criminal
Division Launches New FCPA Pilot Program” and Christiana Ochoa’s “Corporate Social
Responsibility and Firm Compliance: Lessons from the International Law-International
Relations Discourse.” Hamann wrote this article for professors of this subject, law school
students, the DOJ and SEC’s legal advisers, and companies looking to lower their corporate
noncompliance.
 Sacks 15

Christensen, Ian, et al. “NEW POLICIES NEEDED TO ADVANCE SPACE MINING.”

Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 2, 2019, p. 26+. Gale In Context: Science,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A570439702/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=8610220d. Accessed 17 Nov. 2019.
The authors address the fact that, if the human race wishes to explore and expand into space,
they must build large-scale permanent developments outside of low-Earth orbit in space. This
requires for most of the resources obtained in space to be used for in-space purposes and not to
bring back to Earth. President Trump’s administration has realized the importance of obtaining
space resources, as he issued the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to
return humans to the Moon for “exploration and utilization” in Space Policy Directive 1 on
December 11, 2017. Vice President Pence supported Trump’s statement by stating at the 34th
Space Symposium in April 2018 that American astronauts will return to the Moon and figure out
ways to utilize its resources to reach Mars. The authors also address the international tension
stemming from the Outer Space Treaty’s (OTS) provision that requires nations to obtain
“authorization and supervision” from the international community prior to national space
expeditions. However, many nations have taken the section of the OTS, which provides that all
nations may use space for exploration and exploitation, to launch numerous space resource-
related activities. The authors then shift to explaining the seemingly abundant availability of
water in space, which gives hope for future, extraterrestrial human settlements and future rocket
launches from the Moon and other planets, as water is an extremely useful propellant. It is
necessary for government to first begin funding space exploration operations before private
corporations are attracted to the market. Currently, countries such as Russia and Belgium wish to
hold off on space exploration before there is an international legal framework specifically
governing the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources. Furthermore, the Hague Working Group
has begun drafting a policy framework for this specific issue. The authors point to terrestrial
extractive industries to formulate space mining policies; specifically, lessons learned from their
endeavors.

This recent article was written by Ian Christensen et. al. Christensen directs the private sector
programs at the Secure World Foundation and has extensive experience in commercial space as a
consultant and analyst. The other authors are associated with the Colorado School of Mines. He
served for one and a half years on a NASA team focused on managing the retirement of the
Space Shuttle. He has published numerous academic papers and articles, such as “Summary of
Findings: The Terminology Challenges of Communicating Value in Space Enterprises” (2019).
He may be contacted through the Secure World Foundation. This article effectively explains the
necessity of new space policies by providing background knowledge on the development of
space law, tensions in the international community stemming from the OTS, and where
necessary policy developments should come from. Many of the statements provided by
Christensen et. al are corroborated in international treaties, such as the OTS, the United Nations
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and national policies, such as the U.S. SPACE
Act of 2015.
 Sacks 16

Lal, Bhavya. "Reshaping space policies to meet global trends." Issues in Science and
Technology, vol. 32, no. 4, 2016, p. 63+. Gale In Context: Science,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A458162706/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=798afdcd. Accessed 10 Dec. 2019.

Throughout this article, Lal highlights the importance of veering the commercialization of space
away from private sectors and towards the mainstream aspect. Much of the pool of corporations
interested in space exploration and exploitation has morphed since the U.S. and U.S.S.R. ratified
the first document that established international space law; evidently, many new nations and
innovative, private corporations have gained interest in this growing market. In addition,
individuals are entering the space market, in regards to wanting the most up-to-date information
on commercializing space. Many of the individuals actually investing in the space market are
what the author calls “lost children of Apollo”: people who grew up witnessing the space
program in the 1960s and believed moon colonies to be in the near future. After losing faith in
their leaders, these “lost children” have decided to take matters into their own hands and invest
their own capital into the market of their adolescent dreams. At any rate, the increase in players
of the modern space race has and will cause new issues. As more and more countries place
satellites in Earth’s orbit and launch rockets and spaceships, the idea of space exploration will
become more competitive and crowded. There will need to be stricter laws in place to keep
order. The last statement that the author builds upon is the multilateral Cassini mission to Saturn,
which has collected data through the joint effort of multiple countries.

This article was written by Bhavya Lal, a research staff member at the IDA Science and
Technology Policy Institute. She leads related research as a part of the National Space Council
and the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. Currently, she is focusing
specifically on space nuclear power, small satellites, and human exploration to name a few. She
may be contacted through her Twitter handle @blal. Lal’s inclusion of numerous images assisted
the reader in visually comprehending the thoughts she was attempting to convey. The pie charts
displaying the international space budget of 2013 and the prospected budget of 2024 allow for
visual interpretation of the data she discusses and builds upon. Additionally, the abundance of
statistics in regards to contributors to the private sector, the international space budget, common
players in the space market, and more boost Lal’s credibility and further supports her statements
and ideas. Much of the information she presents can be corroborated by many sources, such as
“Space as a Strategic Asset,” by Joan Johnson-Freese and “The Authoritative Guide to Global
Space Activity,” published by the Space Foundation. This article is directed towards individuals
with extensive knowledge of space law history and the prospects for space law. Although her use
of graphics and visuals assist in the reader’s comprehension, Lal provides a large amount of
information. Accordingly, groups of individuals interested may include space lawyers, people
looking into investing in the space market, corporations already partaking in the market, and law
students.
 Sacks 17

Lawrence J. Lipka, Abandoned Property at Sea: Who Owns the Salvage "Finds"?, 12
Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 97 (1970), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol12/iss1/7.

This scholarly article discusses the property rights for abandoned items found at sea. The article
begins by explaining that, unlike nations and individuals prior, modern treasure hunters are
generally corporations. There has long been controversy over who owns discovered “finds” at
sea. In regards to property rights of the sea, the first relevant law was the Maritime Ordinance of
Trani created in 1063, which states that the finder receives half of the goods if the owner shows
up within thirty days of its finding. If the owner fails to show, the finder receives all of the
goods. Two centuries later, the Laws of Oleron established that the finder can fully claim goods
that were cast upon the sea to lighten the load of a ship. If found on the shore of a land, the goods
belong to the king or ruler of that land. Furthermore, in 1834, under the English rule, the king
was entitled to all treasure troves in Talbot v. Lewis. Additionally, The King v. Property Derelict
established that any property found must be immediately returned to the owners or the finder will
be punished by the crown. Under United States’ law, the ownership of lost goods is not an issue
unless the original owner has abandoned their title to the property. Where the claims of the
original owner are not an issue, the argument is between the nation and the funder. The author
later explains that the natural law concept of ownership by possession, once established in
America as a basis for legal decisions on abandoned property at sea, is no longer a certainty. This
leaves many issues unsolved for arguments between corporations in international waters.

Although dated, this article effectively encompasses the history of property rights for abandoned
items at sea. History is important in the legal field, as many decisions are influenced by
precedent. The author, Lawrence J. Lipka, graduated from St. Norbert College and, interestingly,
served in the Army from 1962-67. After coming back from his service, Lipka got his law degree
from Marshall-Wythe School of Law at William and Mary and established his own legal practice
in Newport News, Virginia. Due to the fact that Lipka passed away in 2001, he is unable to be
contacted. Lipka focused on property rights law. He wrote a few other articles, such as
“Admiralty - Wrongful Death. Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.” His work was also
included in Seafurrers: The Ships’ Cats Who Lapped and Mapped the World, a book about
historically significant seafarers and their adventures. Much of the information provided in
Lipka’s article is cited from documented court cases, such as Nippon Shosen Kaisha v. United
States (1964) and Thompon v. United States (1926). The information provided can be
corroborated with numerous related articles, such as “The Federal-State Offshore Oil Dispute”
(1970). This article was well-rounded and practically covered the entirety of legal documents
regarding maritime property rights of lost items, starting from 1063 and ending in the 1960s.
Lipka conveys this information in a moderately, easily digestible manner. Lipka’s article is
geared towards individuals with legal knowledge, such as college students, political science
researchers, lawyers, and legislators. Specifically, this article is meant for legislators looking to
learn more about the history of maritime property rights for abandoned items at sea.
 Sacks 18

Marian, Ilie. "The status of property rights in international space law." Contemporary
Readings in Law and Social Justice, vol. 4, no. 2, 2012, p. 306+. Gale In Context:
Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A321579659/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=1f98249a. Accessed 27 Aug. 2019.

Ilie focuses on the legal issues surrounding bringing a lunar property claim, the boundary
between private and government space activity, the commercial and economic potential in
regards to space travel, and the potential for valuable resources on the Moon. The article states
that most property rights still exist in space and on celestial bodies, but no nation may give
exclusive access to its citizens or another nation because all nations should benefit from the
knowledge and technology gained from resources obtained in space. Governments are
completely liable for what occurs on their territory and spacecrafts; potential liability will
increase as more private investors enter the market but this can be avoided by including
derogation clauses, which allow the signer to refuse to comply to certain provision, in the
contract. The Outer Space Treaties prohibit nations from recognizing sovereignty claims over
celestial bodies and quasi-territorial appropriation; no single government can operate in space
without the consent and regulation of at least one other government entity. Because the Treaties
do not prohibit private settlement claims, land claims recognition legislation would legally allow
a private settlement to claim and resell their territory. The article also addresses the fact that
Mars is the most habitable planet other than Earth. Property rights for Mars would be allocated
through competitive bidding before landing on Mars or an international Earth government could
seize the land for public use and compensate the previous owners.

This article was written by Ilie Marian on July 1, 2012 and was published in “Contemporary
Readings in Law and Social Justice.” Ilie Marian is the Dean of the Faculty of Law and Public
Administration and was previously on the faculty for the international relations portion of the
college at Spiru Haret University in Bucharest, Romania. He has written maybe peer-reviewed
reports and articles on international law, such as “The global framework for oceans governance”
and “International law regarding enforcement powers at sea.” He can be reached at
marian.ilie@spiruharet.co. The article covers all possible sides of the current property rights
issues in regards to international space law and the Outer Space Treaties, which have not
specifically addressed that issue yet, by addressing celestial bodies in general and the Moon and
Mars, which are two of the most popular prospective destinations at the moment. Marian's
interpretations can be corroborated by certain reputable sources such as "Bringing Space Law
into the Commercial World: Property Rights without Sovereignty" by Henry R. Hertzfeld and
Frank von der Dunk and "Defending Your Client's Property Rights in Space: A Practical Guide
for the Lunar Litigator" by Blake Gilson. The article was written for entrepreneurs looking for
the next best realm for business, countries or individuals looking to expand their territory into
space, and individuals learning about space law.
 Sacks 19

Masson-Zwaan, Tanja, et al. “SPACE MINING.” Issues in Science and Technology, vol.
35, no. 3, 2019, p. 16+. Gale In Context; Science,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A583489403/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=721b2295. Accessed 14 Nov. 2019.

In a literature review of the “New Policies Needed to Advance Space Mining” (Issues, Winter
2019), the authors discuss the necessity for ways to initiate the four policy recommendations
provided. The authors address the legalities behind commercial space mining versus using space
resources; nations are permitted from claiming ownership over resources found in regions of
space. As private space mining companies are forming, such as the Asteroid Mining Kingdom in
the United Kingdom, the necessity for an efficient framework legislation regarding the private
commercialization of space becomes increasingly apparent. They also provide that the term
“space mining,” has an inherently negative connotation and should be traded for “space
resources activities,” as this does not suggest the negative connotation that arises when
individuals think upon the private exploitation of space. They address the importance of an
efficiently disciplinary approach to the utilization of space resources that is currently viewed as
allowed under international space law. Currently, the advanced technology required to mine
asteroids, or anything in space for that matter, is premature, much like the international focus on
policy and legal guidance on this issue. Policy developments on this matter must also be
concerned with the societal and economic values gained. Ultimately, space technology must
evolve before the international community can begin to impactfully form policies for the private
commercialization of space, as they currently have little corroborated evidence regarding the
strides in excavation, processing, and storage techniques.

This recent article was written by Tanja Masson-Zwaan, Dimitra Stefoudi, and Bhavya Lal.
Masson-Zwaan is the Assistant Professor and Deputy Director of the International Institute of
Air and Space Law at Leiden University and the President Emerita of the International Institute
of Space Law. She has published many related scholarly articles, such as “The Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space” (2019). She can be contacted at t.l.masson@law.leidenuniv.nl. Dimitra Stefoudi is
a teaching/research staff member also at Leiden University and has published articles such as
“Environmental Protection of Outer Space: Contemporary Issues and Future Perspectives”
(2017). She can be contacted at d.stefoudi@law.leidenuniv.nl. Lastly, Bhavya Lal works at the
IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute in D.C. and is an alumnus of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. This article effectively covers all points covered in the initial article and
constructively criticize it in an efficient manner by providing numerous examples of the
importance of space mining and detailing the origin of space law. Information provided in the
article, such as the fact that the utilization of space resources is allowed under international law,
may be corroborated by international legislation such as the Outer Space Treaty.

Miller, Zach. "THE GREAT UNKNOWN OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY:

INTERPRETING THE TERM OUTER SPACE." Denver Journal of International Law
 Sacks 20

and Policy, Summer 2018, p. 349+. Gale General OneFile,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A595351868/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=22f1dfd4. Accessed 11 Dec. 2019.

This article covers the interpretation of the term “outer space” in various international treaties
and legislation. It begins by explaining what space law in built upon: five multilateral,
international treaties were developed from the late 1960s to the 1990s. The first international
treaty to establish and govern international space law was the Treaty on Principles Governing the
Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies. This treaty is commonly referred to as the Outer Space Treaty (OST). As it
created during the arms race, the United States and the Soviet Union were the primary drafters of
this document. As of now, there is no international document establishing a distinct point in the
atmosphere and/or space at which air space ends and outer space begins. This hole in
international law is evidently of great concern, as this point is where a nation state’s jurisdiction
ends. Following the previous explanation of the history of space law, the author begins to discuss
the ideas of spatialism vs. functionalism to assist in defining this distinct point in space.
Spatialism regards the goal to scientifically identify a point in our near atmosphere that meets the
vacuum of outer space, while functionalism focuses on the function of object in concern. The
author then addresses that the general way of interpreting international treaties is governed by the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Later on, the author states that there is no state
sovereignty in space. However, nation states may exercise jurisdiction over specific parts of
outer space.

This recent article was written by Zach Miller, who is currently a second-year law student at the
Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center and is focusing on international, space,
and technology law. He is currently a judicial law clerk for the U.S. District Courts. He recently
established the Space Law Society at LSU Law School. Miller may be contacted at
zmille3@lsu.edu. The information provided in the article effectively sets the reader up with all of
the knowledge necessary to understand how international bodies and nations are interpreting
current legislation for space law. He provides history on space law, the creation of the OST, and
deeply analyzes the articles of the OST. The authors inclusion of a hypothetical situation on a
settlement on Mars allows the reader to further develop their understanding of the goals of space
law and picture the prospects of this field of study. Additionally, Miller’s decision to analyze
each article of the treaty individually allows the reader to consume the information in a highly
organized manner. The inclusion of excerpts from the articles add to the piece’s credibility.
Miller’s information can be corroborated by numerous sources: evidently, the Outer Space
Treaty; the Vienna Convention; and “A Guide to Space Law Terms,” by Liana X. Young and
Daniel V. Osborne. Miller’s audience consists of space law students, legislators involved with
creating space legislation, political scientists, and researchers interested in the prospects of space
law.
 Sacks 21

P.J. Blount & Christian J. Robinson, One Small Step: the Impact of the U.S. Commercial
Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 on the Exploration of Resources in Outer
Space, 18 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 160 (2016). Available
at:https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/vol18/iss2/1.

This article regards the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA), passed
in the fall of 2015, which states that resources obtained in space by a private entity is considered
its property; this raised many issues with the international community, as some viewed the act as
a violation of international space law. Some legislators in the international community view it to
be a “land grab,” by the United States. The article explains the issues national communities have
with the ambiguous Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, which fails to mention private
corporations’ property rights of resources gained on celestial bodies. The article explains the
development of the CSCLA, which stemmed from the American Space Technology for
Exploring Resource Opportunities In Deep Space Act (ASTEROIDS Act). The CSCLA was
revised to narrow private property rights in space from those provided in the ASTEROIDS Act,
which made the CSCLA less likely to run into issues with the Outer Space Treaty’s Article II.
After discussing the impact the international community has had regarding the law and how it
has begun to address the discrepancies in the law, the authors conclude by providing that the
nation is likely decades away from successful space resource extractions and the issue of private
property rights in space will likely be decided by the international community; not by numerous
nations passing national legislation.

This recent article was written by P.J. Blount, an Adjunct Professor for the Air and Space Law
program at the University of Mississippi and a member of the Board of Directors of the
International Institute of Space Law. He has published many scholarly journals regarding space
law, such as “Renovating Space: The Future of International Space Law” (2012). He may be
contacted at pjblount@gmail.com. This article effectively covers all portions of the U.S.
Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act by providing its background, what legislation it
stemmed from, how it is currently being utilized, the national and international communities’
reactions to the law, and how it may impact future national and international legislation in the
future. All of the information provided in the article is, evidently, corroborated by information in
the CSCLA itself, in the Outer Space Treaty, and in other academic journals, such as
“Renovating Space: The Future of International Space Law” (Blount 2012).

Rocks, Sandra M., and Kate A. Sawyer. "International commercial law." Business
Lawyer, Aug. 2009, p. 1263+. Gale General OneFile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A208747229/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=87520829. Accessed 25 Aug. 2019.

This survey/article covers efforts in 2008 to modernize and harmonize international commercial
law. It covers agreements and discussions in the six UNCITRAL (UN Commission on
 Sacks 22

International Trade Law) Working Groups, UN/CEFACT (UN Centre for Trade Facilitation and
Electronic Business and the Organization of American States. It also addresses NLCIFT
(National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade) and its efforts to increase awareness of the
advantages of alternative dispute resolution mechanism and secured transactions in Central
America. Additionally, the article covers the Hague Securities Convention and transactions in
securities held with intermediaries through the UNIDROIT project. Among the multitude of
accomplishments that the various Working Groups and other organizations have accomplished,
the third Working Group on transport law stands out, as the UN Convention on Contracts for the
International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea was approved by UNCITRAL on July
3, 2008 and adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 11, 2008. Labeled the
Rotterdam Rules, they focused on creating a modern and uniform law for international transport
and significantly benefited shippers by increasing limits on carrier liability for loss or damage of
cargo. The Rules would enter into force after twenty nations have ratified them. Another
accomplishment would be the adoption of the UN Convention on the Use of Electronic
Communications in International Contracts by the General Assembly in November 2005. Since
its completion, the Secretariat has continued monitoring issues related to electronic commerce
and cross-border electronic signature recognition and has published an analysis of legal issues
regarding electronic signatures and authentication methods of cross-border transactions. Other
Groups, such as those on insolvency law, procurement, and security interests have continued
discussing the important topics within their realm and are working to change the various UN
conventions to best modernize an influential organization’s governing documents for
international law.

The article was written by Sandra M. Rocks and Kate A. Sawyer on August 1, 2009 and
published in “Business Lawyer,” Vol. 64, Issue 4. Rocks’ practice focuses on commercial
financing and she currently serves on the TriBar Committee on Legal Opinions and previously
served as a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Market Transactions
Advisory Committee. She is a co-author of the Uniform Commercial Code’s Article 8:
Investment Securities, Second Edition. She can be reached at srocks@cgsh.com. The two have
jointly published multiple articles on international commercial law, such as yearly articles on the
developments of international commercial law. The article covered all possible topics of
international commercial law in relation to UNCITRAL and then some. Rocks's interpretations
of UN Conventions, etc. can be corroborated with the original documents of these conventions,
such as the Rotterdam Rules. The article is mainly for researchers interested in the developments
of UNCITRAL, historians looking to conclude the effectiveness of these Working Groups, and
international law students interested in the past developments in international commercial law.

Salter, Alexander William. “Asteroid Mining 101: Wealth for the New Space Economy.”
Independent Review, vol. 20, no. 3, 2016, p. 458+. Gale General OneFile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/docA439635025/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=2da258b0. Accessed 18 Nov. 2019.
 Sacks 23

This article discusses the prospected goals of several asteroid mining companies, such as Deep
Space Industries and Planetary Resources. It provides the idea of geochemical differentiation,
where the layers of the Earth are separated by extreme heat and cooling in Earth’s early history.
He highlights the importance of understanding geochemical differentiation because it is where
the mining environment on Earth originates. It also discusses scouting missions and their results
regarding near-Earth asteroids and potentially hazardous asteroids. The article states that the
value of materials in the near-Earth asteroids is an estimated $222 trillion. However, prices
would inevitably decrease as more resources are introduced to the market at in increasing rate.
The author discusses economic benefits and drawbacks from asteroid mining and provides for
the rapid decrease in price in advanced technology, which leads the audience to believe that the
extensive exploration and exploitation of space is closer than many believe.

This recent article was written by Alexander William Salter, an Assistant Professor of
Economics in the Rawls College of Business and a Comparative Economics Research Fellow for
the Free Market Institute of Texas Tech University. He may be contacted at
alexander.w.salter@ttu.edu. He has written numerous academic articles regarding the obtainment
of resources from celestial bodies, such as “Orbital Dumpster Diving and International Law:
Wrestling with the Tragedy of the Celestial Commons” (2017) and “Ordering the Cosmos:
Private Law in the Final Frontier” (2016). He provides a rounded amount of information for the
economic behind asteroid mining. He provides background for the origins of terrestrial
extractions and extraterrestrial extractions in the future, the economic benefits and drawbacks of
space mining, the economic/business approach to asteroid mining, and the likely timeline for
asteroid mining. Salter’s points can be corroborated with various credible sources, such as “The
Free Market Frontier” (Cato Institute 2003), which discusses the consequences from drastically
increasing the supply of a good in a short span of time, and “The Privatization of Space
Exploration: Business, Technology, Law, and Policy” (Transaction 2012), which provides
further insight on the legalities behind businesses using technology to obtain resources through
space exploration.

Sterio, Milena. "CORPORATE LIABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS:

THE FUTURE OF THE ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT." Case Western Reserve Journal
of International Law, Spring 2018, p. 127+. Gale General OneFile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A571515316/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=03599c38. Accessed 1 Sept. 2019.

This article comments on corporate liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) in regards
to the Supreme Court cases of Jesner v. Arab Bank and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
According to the author, Kiobel left many questions unanswered, such as whether domestic or
international law should apply to the issue of whether or not corporations can be sued under the
ATCA and under what circumstances. In Jesner, a group of terrorist attack victims in Israel,
 Sacks 24

Gaza, and the West Bank have sued a bank based in Jordan for continuing accounts for known
terrorists, accepting donations that would evidently fund terrorist group(s), and distributing
“martyrdom payments” to families of suicide bombers. The Supreme Court’s issue is whether or
not the bank may be sued in a United States’ court under the ATCA. Corporate liability under the
ATCA was previously discussed in Kiobel, but the court left many questions unanswered, as
previously stated. In regards to the Jesner case, it is likely that the Supreme Court will side with
the plaintiffs because it approved certiorari to most likely address the circuit court splits after
Kiobel due to the ambiguity of the court ruling’s “touch and concern” test. The article then lists
other solutions for corporate human rights violations, such as imposing criminal responsibility on
corporations.

This article was written by Milena Sterio and was published on March 22, 2018 in the Case
Western Reserve Journal of International Law. Sterio is a Charles R. Emrick Jr.-Calfee Halter &
Griswold Professor of Law at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State
University. She teaches international law, international war crimes, commercial law, and
alternative dispute resolution and has research interests in international law, human rights,
criminal law, and private international law. She has publications in a multitude of academic
journals, such as the American University Law Review and the Connecticut International Law
Journal. Some of her publications include “The Case for Resurrecting Humanitarian
Intervention” and “Syria and the Limits of International Law.” She can be contacted at
m.sterio@csuohio.edu. The sufficient range of analyses and interpretations that she makes with
quotes and data from other sources can be supported by numerous publications, such as Roger P.
Alford’s “Human Rights After Kiobel: Choice of Law and the Rise of Transnational Tort
Litigation.” Sterio wrote this article for corporations concerned about human rights liability,
legal advisers of departments or companies with relation to the ATCA, or international corporate
law students.

Tronchetti, F. (2014). Private property rights on asteroid resources: Assessing the legality of the
ASTEROIDS Act. Space Policy, 30(4), 193–196. doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.07.005

This article concerns the private property rights of resources from asteroids. The author first
gives context to the topic at hand by introducing what asteroids have to offer the human race and
where various asteroids are located. Asteroids are grouped into Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) and
those in the asteroid belt near Jupiter. The author then discusses the ASTEROIDS Act, stating
that it does not represent the entire U.S. government’s opinion on the act, since it was not
approved by both the House and Senate. The ASTEROIDS Act is meant to encourage the growth
of the commercial asteroid mining industry and assigns the President the responsibility to
discourage legislation that prevents that objective. However legal this act may be nationally, it
violates international law in at least three circumstances. First, it violates Article II of the Outer
Space Treaty, which prohibits the appropriation of space and requires a superior government to
entitle the property to the corporation. Second, the ASTEROIDS Act will likely disrupt the
 Sacks 25

international peace and security required by the Outer Space Treaty in regards to the exploitation
of space. Third, enactment ASTEROIDS Act seems to be an attempt at creating a second
amendment to Article II of the Outer Space Treaty; amendments must have majority votes of all
related parties, and the U.S. is simply one party.

This recent article was written by Fabio Tronchetti, an adjunct professor for the Air and Space
Law Program at the University of Mississippi School of Law. He is also the Co-Director of the
Institute of Space Law and Strategy and is an associate professor at Beihang University in
Beijing. He may be contacted at fabio.tronchetti@yahoo.com. Tronchetti’s research is focused
on international space law, aerospace law, international security, and the commercialization of
space. Tronchetti has a PhD in International Law from Leiden University and an advanced LLM
in International Relations from Bologna University in Italy. In 2015, he received the
International Academic of Astronautics Social Science Book Award for his outstanding book,
“Handbook of Space Law.” In addition, he received the 2007 Diederiks-Verschoor award for the
best paper submitted to the International Institute of Space Law for that year. Tronchetti
effectively covers all of the information necessary to highlight the problems with the
ASTEROIDS Act under international circumstances. He includes a background of the
ASTEROIDS Act, its recent involvement in national politics, its objective, its positives, and its
downfalls. The information he provides can be corroborated by many scholarly sources, such as
“Affordable, Rapid Bootstrapping of the Space Industry and Solar System Civilization,” by Phil
Metzger, et al. Tronchetti’s audience may be considered to be legislators amending the
ASTEROIDS Act, law students looking into space law, and political science researchers looking
at the future of the commercialization of space. This article is meant mostly for national groups,
not international legislators because it addresses the faults of the national legislation but does not
insinuate that international law should be altered to make room for the ASTEROIDS Act.

Vereshchetin, V. S. (April 2010). Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.34&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

The author begins by explaining that space law has two parts: one juridical and the other related
to natural sciences. The muddled line between air space and outer space has led to issues in space
law; recent findings that 118 km above Earth is a natural boundary of the two may not be
accepted by scientists, which creates another issue. Public international space law was
established by the United Nations, following the establishment of the United Nations Committee
on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), which created the 1967 Treaty on
Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space.
According to the Outer Space Treaty, there is a limit to the freedom of exploration. Various
legislation has failed to properly address the purpose of space law, which has long been argued
between parties. The 1996 Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States failed to clear up this matter; in
fact, this legislation managed to muddle previous law to make it less binding. Although private
 Sacks 26

international space law is generally governed by public international space law, the large
investments necessary in private space law create risks in contract law, insurance, property
rights, etc. The author then highlights the two main concerns in regards to international space
law: military use of outer space and international cooperation among nations. The Outer Space
Treaty states that outer space should be utilized for peaceful purposes. Some may approach this
as meaning that the weaponization of space is crucial to maintain peace in exploration and
exploitation. This issue in particular is being dealt with by UNCOPUOS and others. To address
her second concern, the author explains how placing cooperation ahead of competition would do
well for the human race’s leaps toward celestial exploration.

This recent lecture was given by Vladlen Stepanovich Vereshchetin, a Russian professor of
international law. He is the director of the International Institute of Space Law and previously
served as a member of the International Court of Justice. He may be reached through the United
Nations Legal Department by visiting their website https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/contact/ and
inputting contact information. Vereshchetin has published many articles in regards to outer space
international law, international judicial settlement, and the theory of international law. This
lecture effectively encompasses the history of both private and public international space law, the
four main issues with the attempts to modernize space law, hard and soft space law, and the
elements of natural law and scientific principles in space law. Vereshchetin makes the difficulties
of categorizing international space law easier to understand by using a bucket analogy, in which
the bucket is labeled with numerous types of rules and legislation instead of having one coherent
definition for "space law". The information provided in this lecture can be corroborated by
numerous scholarly sources, such as “Space Law: A Treatise,” by Francis Lyall and Paul B.
Larsen and The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts. Although this lecture is geared mainly
towards members of the UN and audience members with knowledge of space law in particular,
Vereshchetin's word choice allows for his thoughts to be easily comprehensible and therefore
widens his reach in regards to an audience.

Zogby, James. "It's Time to End Harsh and Sloppy U.S. Policy in Palestine: U.S.
Complicity in Israel's Violations of International Law." Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs, June-July 2019, p. 23+. Gale General OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A593352151/GPS?
u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=50b5c680. Accessed 14 Aug. 2019.

This article outlines the history of U.S. policy in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and future actions
that could be taken to assist in solving the issues for good. To begin, the Ford administration
firmly supported the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Palestine in 1976, which
Carter also supported by asking a legal advisor for the State Department who concluded that the
settlements were a violation of that convention. Support for an end to Israeli settlements ended
with Reagan, who had not formed a large opinion on the matter and stated in an interview that
the UN resolution leaves the West Bank open to everyone. After this, no president referred to the
 Sacks 27

settlements as illegal. After Clinton inherited the Oslo Accords, he stated that continued
construction of the settlements were a violation of the Accords and prohibited parties from taking
unilateral actions that could predetermine final negotiations. G.W. Bush endorsed the Road Map
that ordered Israel to dismantle their illegal outposts, but later sent a letter to Prime Minister
Sharon in 2004, explaining the unrealisticness of the removal of the settlements after final
negotiations. In his 2009 Cairo speech, Obama did not support the continuation of the
construction of the settlements, but nothing changed and they stopped pushing the topic. The
Trump administration has not opposed the settlements. Although the U.S. had somewhat
protested the construction of settlements in the West Bank, they have continued to provide large
amounts of financial aid and loan guarantees and have blocked all efforts to censor their
behavior. Additionally, Congress and state legislatures are in the process of potentially
criminalizing American’s right to use boycotts to oppose settlements. The international
community must confront most Israel and the U.S. for providing a backing for the Israeli
violations in a circumstance in which they should be neutral in that sense.

This article was published on June 1, 2019 by James Zogby in the Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs, Vol. 38, Issue 4 by the American Educational Trust. He is the President and
Founder of the Arab American Institute and graduated with a B.A. from Le Moyne College and a
Ph.D from Temple University. He is the Managing Director of Zogby Research Services, LLC
and specializes in research, communications, and undertaking polling across Arab countries. In
September 2013, Obama appointed him to the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom. He is a lecturer and scholar on Middle East issues and a Visiting Professor of Social
Research and Public Policy at NYU Abu Dhabi. He has written the Washington Watch and
several books, including What Arabs Think: Values, Beliefs, and Concerns. The company that he
heads can be reached at communications@aaiusa.org and the Washington Report of Middle East
Affairs can be reached at communications@wrmea.org. This article was written for scholars
interested in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is it most likely used as a stepping
stone for more detailed articles about this topic. His information can be corroborated by
historical accounts and history websites, such as the information provided on the Department of
State's Office of the Historian's website. He covered mainly the U.S. side of the conflict and not
Israel or Palenstine’s although he manages to portray the Israelis as the rule-breakers, which can
be interpreted differently by a multitude of individuals.