I mean, my going theory for years as to why he 1) ignores climate change and 2) wants sovereign (rather than expansive private) rights over Greenland is Northwest passage. But then, we already knew he only cares about the straits (ba dum tsss; sob)

NB: Hammarskjöld had proposed a ban on "appropriation" - which the UK Govt heard as 'colonisation' (and speculated about a rebound back to Earth).

Relevant: "appropriation" is also the term banned in Art II OST. Just in case key states start squinting at that like they've never read words before.

So fun fact, the ~3 dozen 1960s tracking stations that enabled Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were subcontracted out, and mostly to Bendix. Which most Americans then would've known for their washing machines.

So like, maybe if they hadn't been so busy with space...

It's important to honour history, after all!!

I'm sometimes told now that the term 'colonialism' isn't applicable to space, either 'because history' or 'anachronism' (no further detail), or because 'there are no Indigenous people on the Moon'.

So now I start talks with this. That link was drawn by the UK Govt in 1958 - I'm just echoing them!

Excerpt from: Commonwealth Relations Office Memo (5 Nov 1958) National Archives of Australia: A1209, 1958/5710, 22: "On May 19th last Mr Hammarskjold expressed the hope that the General Assembly would ‘find the way to agreement on a basic rule that outer space and the celestial bodies therein are not considered as capable of appropriation by any State’. He has followed this up by a similar appeal in the introduction to his annual report.” “The United Kingdom Government would prefer to avoid, if possible, at the present time a declaration forbidding the ‘colonization’ of celestial bodies, and would be reluctant to see the Assembly endorse such a declaration. In their view there are still too many unsolved problems in this field to justify the adoption at this stage, and without further careful enquiry of any sweeping legal propositions, in whatever direction they tend. This is one of the problems that might come before the proposed ad hoc committee; and it would be premature for the Assembly to adopt such a declaration at the present session."

“The [UK] would prefer to avoid, if possible, at the present time a declaration forbidding the ‘colonization’ of celestial bodies... without further careful enquiry of any sweeping legal propositions, in whatever direction they tend."

Source: recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetri...

bsky.app/profile/cris...

In general, if an environmental solution purports to be either easy or quick, it also doesn't intend to solve systemic problems on any kind of scale. Which is to say that it is not a solution at all; just a way to feel better.

Another way to feel better: just enjoy pretty space pictures / nature!

Scott Aikin calls this "the epistemic principles of standing slack-jawed before nature", lmao.

(We see a fragile Earth in peril for lots of reasons, eg our latent awareness of the systems that imperil it. Someone from a different cultural context or knowledge system might feel very differently!!)

Likewise, some swear the 'Overview Effect' or whole-Earth images will finally trigger awe or environmental care. They also said nat'l park visits would do that. But images are meaningful to *you*, & your response isn't universally reproducible. Plus, awe alone is no basis for systemic change!

The way international courts a) valuate and b) enforce monetary reparations for either human rights violations or environmental harm is a *hot mess*.

Cable STATE 2080 from George Ball to Arthur Goldberg (6 July 1966) LBJ Lib CEJ box 16 folder 1, 102-106; NARA RG59 UD-UP 263, box 6 “1. This TEL contains instructions for US Del in subject negotiations during Outer Space Legal Subcomite session BEG July 12 Geneva and in antecedent bilateral talks with USSR if these take place.” [...] “13. It seems likely that, on pattern of 1959 Antarctic Conference, subject of ownership of possible recoverable lunar resources having commercial value will not be seriously pressed. As in all other aspects, DEL should report any proposal on this subject.”

But sometimes it's about face-saving, or beating your nemesis, or because an optimist began writes your econ studies, or because one state really proactively worked to limit discourse on an issue and didn't say why.

... here's a quote from the 1966 US instructions for OST negotiations: /end

Sorry, to your point: by reading treaties as always shaped by power, we're assuming they are always shaped by particular states' *internal* political/economic interests; that risks flattening historic contestation into the winner's view, in ways that also erase what the other sides said or wanted.

Likewise, Japan's demands for consults before harmful activities, which they made in 1963 and 1966, hit very different because the US needed Okinawa to continue bombing Southeast Asia. Actually, the Japanese govt agreed - but they had 100,000s of Japanese protesters demanding they do something, so.

The other factor: some pushback is heavier than others. In 1962-3, it was criticism from British Labour politicians and British uni scientists to West Ford/nuke tests that forced the US to internally *and* publicly accept that environmental concern wasn't Soviet propaganda, but a real policy issue.

So for context, I research commons treatymaking (space /others) w/ heavy focus on states' internal vs private vs formal discourse.

In short, yeah, often. But it's complicated. Eg if enough states gain enough support for a provision, then it turns into forum & discourse control, and/or face-saving.

Just before I reply to that, re: my 1st post: if you wanna talk about eg how labour law or criminal punishment might work on the Moon? Antarctica is a a smorgasbord of precedents.

But on questions of intl law, you're diving into the weeds on how specific terms or contexts differ in meaning or use.

My usual analogy or 'readiness test' that kind of long-term lunar activity, which speaks to the same point, is evidence of sustained, multi-decade management & upkeep of an inter-regional public transport service. Given that this is an infrastructure project, where breakdown becomes lethal.

IMO, comparing space & Antarctica is often more useful re: (co-)applications of domestic law, & less useful for intl law comparison unless you're talking specific provisions.

In this case, Arts 7, 25(5)(a) of the Madrid Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty ban non-scientific mineral extraction.

But-

I actually did flip it, to help orient people.

Now, I realize there is no “up” in space — except by definition of our rotation axis, angular momentum, etc.

But I changed it so people could feel more oriented, grounded, and have a stronger connection to something they recognized.

bsky.app/profile/glob...

Thank you for clarifying that!! I don't doubt or critique the aim of improving recognisability etc, and I'm not coming for you or anyone in particular here.

I *am* interested in the apparent longer trend of reorientation that seems to happen without need for explanation.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting or that @globalecoguy.bsky.social did the flipping - it seems that version is circulating across various social media, including Facebook. This is a story about the literal reorientation of the world happening repeatedly, in quiet moments by anonymised people.

Aha - the first time I've seen this (I was waiting). The original image (left, NASA ID: art002e000192) shows Africa, the south oriented to the top. @globalecoguy.bsky.social's version (right) has been quietly flipped so North is up. This was also done to the Blue Marble in 1972 by someone at NASA.

NASA just dropped this image of Artemis II astronaut Christina Koch looking back at us. The first woman to ever see our planet in its entirety. I’m not crying you’re crying 🥹🔭🧪 📸: NASA

A full disc image of Earth, as seen from the Orion Crew Module. The planet is a pale blue, swirling with white clouds and glowing slightly lighter blue in place from reflected light. At lower left, a large brown landmass is Africa, with Spain and Portugal with twinkling lights where the planet curves. At top right, auroras glow in a thin green glow, just barely separated from the planet's surface. Earth is set against the black of space (pic: NASA/R.Wiseman)

More context on this #Artemis II image:

* This is the night side, lit by moonlight. You can see city lights in Spain & Portugal, & a sliver of day at lower right

* The Sun is entirely behind Earth, which makes it a kind of solar eclipse, but w/ Earth doing the eclipsing instead of the Moon:
☀️🌍🚀🌕

Likewise, 1950s-60s newspaper parody columns were *fire*.

A State Dept UN Legal Adviser / COPUOS delegate in the 1960s was Herb Rice, and every. single. time. I type his name, I gotta pause and think 'mmm.... Herb rice'. And they let me go for a PhD and everything.

I apologise for that.

And there was a time in that period where I cared so much, but in unhealthy ways which ended in a 5day coma and relearning how to walk. It is not an experience I would recommend to friends, which was why I replied above.