I just found your channel after years of seeing your Vox work and I love it- instant sub. As someone you actually works in space law (actually though, I'm not joking) I really appreciate the research and effort you put into this. I can't tell you the number of "space doesn't have a border!?!" articles and videos I've read/seen that skim the surface but don't really get into the details and miss how delimitation is really a non-issue right now. Using that Gangale article and book really gives the context you need. Although, I would push back a little on the prediction that an international court could decide the boundary at 6:16. There isn't really a body that would have the authority to make a binding decision: the ICJ's authority is only limited to the parties which have agreed to its jurisdiction (and it's non-precedential), and there isn't another body contemplated under international space law to make such a decision with any binding value. Even if a court tried to make such a decision, it will be ignored by any country that doesn't like the result (the US, for example, has a *history* with the ICJ). It's more likely that if push comes to shove, allied countries will read informal agreements with each other (definitely not treaties, more like MOUs) to help clarify situations between them for expediency, and this could eventually slowly turn into customary int'l law. But as you said, who even knows right now! Love the video, and would love to see more space (and space law in particular!) stuff in the future.
I’m also a new subscriber, just found a RUclips image link to your Mickey Mouse one, then this, after trawling through superficially great stuff to finally find your sincere and super interesting channel. Thank you, I will spend my night coffee here until sleep but thought to 👌👏 before bed and hope your still doing more! Regards Pete, (Aus physicist).
I'm a huge fan of an international consensus on space starting at the FAI's recognized Kármán line of 100km as it's based on science, a round easy number, and also already has de facto acceptance as the generally accepted international standard. You can make a genuine and reasonable argument for 50 miles being the start of space but in my mind that 100-80km gap is where most of the fuzziness is. Much above 100km it rapidly becomes increasingly obvious that it's space, much under 80km and the opposite happens. Therefore to err on the side of caution setting the boundary at 100km seems logical
Phil -- Thanks for this post on space law. As the director of the Global Space Law Center at Cleveland State University, I thought I'd share my thoughts. The delimitation issue is a fascinating conundrum and people often express wonder that the international community hasn't solved what seems to be a threshold issue in space law. But there is a reason for this, namely that it really isn't a problem. Most space activities are clearly "in space" -- if its an orbiting satellite for example. Likewise, activities in the air are generally obviously not in space (i.e. a plane in flight due to lift). So there has been no impetus for the UN to spend time and energy on this complicated issue since there was no pressing need. That is now changing a bit due to suborbital tourism which straddles the border between air and space. But since those activities have not been international in nature (the flights take off and land in the same country), it hasn't triggered international concern. The biggest concern probably comes from customers who want to know if they have actually been taken into space or not - but this is more of a truth-in-advertising issue. I do think there is some work to be done in clarifying the issue for purposes of simplifying the domestic regulation of Virgin Galactic (and other companies that may fly spaceplanes) since they have been subjected to double regulatory requirements as both an airplane (when not going into "space") and a spacecraft (for those flights that do go into "space"). But again, this hasn't really been much of an issue -- Virgin Galactic has managed to comply with both sets of regulations without great cost. We may finally see the impetus to resolve this issue arrive when suborbital flights become international (i.e. international point-to-point flights) because the differences in international space law vs. air law are drastically different as to the need to seek consent for overflight. Hopefully that day will come sooner than later! Thanks again for brining attention to fascinating field of space law!
The concep of how law would work on space is interesting, sci-fi always make me think that the law on space would be pretty much shaddy, since normally in space settings law is only applied to a planet/sector/station it would be rather different laws by place and space itself would be "lawless", since we cant regionalize the whole space or even track crimes around it
The fact that one of the most important things space law has to deal with right now is a 20km difference in where space starts shows how little we've accomplished in space as a species despite the Moon landings.
Surely the biggest problem in space law is the lack of updating the main UN treaties on space? So what if the line separating space and air space is unclear? I mean, most issues arising from space activities happen literally in space - not in between space and airspace. Also, rules under international law is created by states. The line in space will eventually be decided by them, whilst an international court will simply identify it (see article 38 of the ICJ statue). On another note, how else should we call the law regarding Space?
62 miles A common definition of space is known as the Kármán Line, an imaginary boundary 100 kilometers (62 miles) above mean sea level. In theory, once this 100 km line is crossed, the atmosphere becomes too thin to provide enough lift for conventional aircraft to maintain flight.
if it were up to me, I think I would set it at the lowest altitude that satalites can orbit, because space is where we orbit. if we cannot orbit then it is not space
Hey Phil, I feel like you really missed out on the conversation of geostationary space. If a satellite is directly above your country and just hanging out, shouldn't you have a say about that? Nations have tried to claim geostationary orbits (Bogata Declaration 1976), but were seen to be in violation of the Outer Space treaty. Primarily, because they tried to argue against the definition of where space is! While these orbits are clearly in space, I think the failure of the declaration is more a commentary on geopolitics, and how the Global North is all to willing to call something "unclaimable territory" when they can use it to their advantage. Beyond the science, it's prime real estate, and surely the countries that would benefit the most from it (equatorial states) should have a say.
But if you use a really long tungsten rod, you can probably achieve 1 orbit as low as 60km, wheras a parachute would probably need well over 100km to sustain one orbit. You need to define what would be orbiting in order for the line to be defined, and given the choice, I would choose a 1kg steel sphere
Its intriguin that each of the three methods likely gives an answer of "about" 100km, give or take maybe 10km max (sure they claim as low as 80 for where air ends, but planes that cant fly in outer space can fly above 80km, up to around 100km. And for orbiting satellites the lowest possible perigee is 100km). And yet, despite that fact folks still cant just agree on 100km bein a good enuf number to use for the space line. I guess the benefit to leavin it fuzzy is the potential to challenge a very low orbiting satellite being used and declare it an act of war... But that wud be a dangerous precedent to try to set there cuz even if folks cud then agree on something, it wudnt rly help much as then they just go slightly above/below whatever line is then set; even if that may take time while they wait for better imagin technology or whatever else was bein used and claimed as an act of war. Technology improves and the law cant plan for that; which is why it is best to just do the best ya can with the law so theres actually something set and then adapt the law as technology improves.
simple below 80km is Air Space so Planetary Law applies, Above 125km is Space so Space Law applies, in between is the Interface, now get together and work on that. perhaps wright some Interface Laws.
I think we should just say that the ships laws are tied to its country of launch while in space, until it is brought back down to earth. Any crimes commited outside the vessel are outside jurishdiction.
Borders will be a tough component of space sovereignty. The ''official'' boundary between Earth and space is 100 kilometers\ 60 miles up. But the Karman Line is no ''harder'' border than those between most nation-states and their territories abroad. In fact, it's softer than most country borders as almost everyone agrees where one country ends and an adjacent one begins (with a few exceptions like Palestine\Israel and West Saharrah\Morocco), whereas the boundary between Earth and space is rather blurry and up for interpretation. It also leads to the problem of borders on other planets and moons. Would they be ''duked out'' in warfare just like most of Earth's national borders (particularly in Africa)? Would there be international agreements as to what existing Earth state gets what piece of Luna, Mars, etc? Or would it be the settlers themselves deciding the borders? The sovereignty of Earth governments over space settlements would be almost non-existent if it's not backed by force and coercion.
Time Magazine doesnt troll with their man of their year choices >.> The term "man of the year" does not imply that the person has done good things for humanity, just that said person had a hugely influential influence on the world. Hence why they even named Hitler such one yr. Its not "Best Man of the year"; its "Man of the year" (Tho its actually person of the year, but point still stands)
This sounds much more a shortcoming of legal thinking than a scientific melon-scratcher. 5:00 pretty much answers that question: satellites don’t go below 100 km and planes don’t go above 80. So while that’s fuzzy for sure, there’s nothing much happening between 80 and 100 km that would need regulating. If it’s a plane, it’s in the atmosphere. If it’s orbiting, it’s in space. UN, you know where to find me.
There is no outer edge to the neutrality of space. But what about Mars once we have self sufficient colonies, are martians allowed to create their own nation(s)?
It seems likely that any group 'colonizing' mars in the foreseeable future will follow the rules and regulations of the entity (government or corporation) that sent them. Early adopters can't go rogue. They'd have no leverage and die on a rock alone because they're not going to be able to build a nation/civilization without support from their investors and Earthly resources. Even with competing national entities going onto the same planet, it's such an exclusive and specially funded endeavor that it's probably just going to be like how Antarctica or the International Space Station is now, a shared scientific neutral zone. By the time any kind of extraterrestrial space conflict is even possible, "space law" will mature along with it.
No one ever does anything, before it becomes a problem. You now have strict work place fire, and safety laws. Rigorously enforced. Why: chiefly because of the Triangle Shirt factory fire. The seamstresses locked in the upper level, all burned to death. You had Life boats on the Titanic ( and now on almost all ships) why?: Because of the NYC Ferry, General Slocum, catching fire( it started in a rope locker) on June 15 1904. The passengers ( wives and children of German factory workers, attending a day time, church picnic) either burned , or drowned to death, in the East river. No eff up, no rule/ law preventing said eff up. Homo sapiens, now, and till the end of time.
Curse you for triggering my pedantic compulsion to read every word of your "Disclaimer" because (not having read the comment section prior to reading or starting this comment) I suspected it would probably be humorously written and partially out of respect for the effort you took to write it . . . unless you used A.I., in which case: double curse you.
I just found your channel after years of seeing your Vox work and I love it- instant sub. As someone you actually works in space law (actually though, I'm not joking) I really appreciate the research and effort you put into this. I can't tell you the number of "space doesn't have a border!?!" articles and videos I've read/seen that skim the surface but don't really get into the details and miss how delimitation is really a non-issue right now. Using that Gangale article and book really gives the context you need.
Although, I would push back a little on the prediction that an international court could decide the boundary at 6:16. There isn't really a body that would have the authority to make a binding decision: the ICJ's authority is only limited to the parties which have agreed to its jurisdiction (and it's non-precedential), and there isn't another body contemplated under international space law to make such a decision with any binding value. Even if a court tried to make such a decision, it will be ignored by any country that doesn't like the result (the US, for example, has a *history* with the ICJ). It's more likely that if push comes to shove, allied countries will read informal agreements with each other (definitely not treaties, more like MOUs) to help clarify situations between them for expediency, and this could eventually slowly turn into customary int'l law. But as you said, who even knows right now! Love the video, and would love to see more space (and space law in particular!) stuff in the future.
Pinned this comment so everyone can read about the note on 6:16 - thanks!
I’m also a new subscriber, just found a RUclips image link to your Mickey Mouse one, then this, after trawling through superficially great stuff to finally find your sincere and super interesting channel.
Thank you, I will spend my night coffee here until sleep but thought to 👌👏 before bed and hope your still doing more!
Regards Pete, (Aus physicist).
Your disclaimer deserves a short film of it's own. Lot's of pausing and reading but it was so worth it.
I am honored you read it. Related: law.utexas.edu/news/2020/07/21/in-memoriam-steve-susman-65/
I'm a huge fan of an international consensus on space starting at the FAI's recognized Kármán line of 100km as it's based on science, a round easy number, and also already has de facto acceptance as the generally accepted international standard. You can make a genuine and reasonable argument for 50 miles being the start of space but in my mind that 100-80km gap is where most of the fuzziness is. Much above 100km it rapidly becomes increasingly obvious that it's space, much under 80km and the opposite happens. Therefore to err on the side of caution setting the boundary at 100km seems logical
100km also denies Nazi-Germany the accolade of being the first to reach space.
Phil -- Thanks for this post on space law. As the director of the Global Space Law Center at Cleveland State University, I thought I'd share my thoughts. The delimitation issue is a fascinating conundrum and people often express wonder that the international community hasn't solved what seems to be a threshold issue in space law. But there is a reason for this, namely that it really isn't a problem. Most space activities are clearly "in space" -- if its an orbiting satellite for example. Likewise, activities in the air are generally obviously not in space (i.e. a plane in flight due to lift). So there has been no impetus for the UN to spend time and energy on this complicated issue since there was no pressing need. That is now changing a bit due to suborbital tourism which straddles the border between air and space. But since those activities have not been international in nature (the flights take off and land in the same country), it hasn't triggered international concern. The biggest concern probably comes from customers who want to know if they have actually been taken into space or not - but this is more of a truth-in-advertising issue. I do think there is some work to be done in clarifying the issue for purposes of simplifying the domestic regulation of Virgin Galactic (and other companies that may fly spaceplanes) since they have been subjected to double regulatory requirements as both an airplane (when not going into "space") and a spacecraft (for those flights that do go into "space"). But again, this hasn't really been much of an issue -- Virgin Galactic has managed to comply with both sets of regulations without great cost. We may finally see the impetus to resolve this issue arrive when suborbital flights become international (i.e. international point-to-point flights) because the differences in international space law vs. air law are drastically different as to the need to seek consent for overflight. Hopefully that day will come sooner than later! Thanks again for brining attention to fascinating field of space law!
Thanks a lot for commenting and adding your insight!
@@PhilEdwardsInc My pleasure! Great to connect with you. I love your channel!
Your channel deserves more subs! Always wondered if space was just this place where no rules applied.
not titanic subs, just to be clear.
The concep of how law would work on space is interesting, sci-fi always make me think that the law on space would be pretty much shaddy, since normally in space settings law is only applied to a planet/sector/station it would be rather different laws by place and space itself would be "lawless", since we cant regionalize the whole space or even track crimes around it
The Alien franchise (well, at least as far as I know in the first and second movies) does a good job of capturing these nuances.
loved the topics you pick. great video... I liked the use of your graphics that traced your fingers path.
This channel is highly underrated
Came here from your video post to Fake Science. Pretty good video - hope the channel picks up!
Love all your content. Looking forward to helping you surpass "Map Guy".
That disclaimer was amazing!
The fact that one of the most important things space law has to deal with right now is a 20km difference in where space starts shows how little we've accomplished in space as a species despite the Moon landings.
I never new space law could be so interesting
I would like you to discuss who’ll be responsible for any accidents causing in outer space.
If you think Space Law is intense, just wait until you hear about Bird Law.
international bird law? 😭😭
Surely the biggest problem in space law is the lack of updating the main UN treaties on space? So what if the line separating space and air space is unclear? I mean, most issues arising from space activities happen literally in space - not in between space and airspace. Also, rules under international law is created by states. The line in space will eventually be decided by them, whilst an international court will simply identify it (see article 38 of the ICJ statue).
On another note, how else should we call the law regarding Space?
I think space law should be analogous to maritime law in the way interplanetary law would be analogous to international law
@@samwhaleIV Check Article I-III of the Outer Space Treaty - your suggestion is already law.
4:06 This is where his "not a lawyer" disclaimer starts.
Very good, cheers man
"'Space Law' seems like a joke." But, I'd watch the heck outta that show.
I'd also watch the heck out of 'RUclips Law'-providing it did not require a RUclips TV or Premium plan and was based on a John Grisham-ish novel.
space lull
62 miles
A common definition of space is known as the Kármán Line, an imaginary boundary 100 kilometers (62 miles) above mean sea level. In theory, once this 100 km line is crossed, the atmosphere becomes too thin to provide enough lift for conventional aircraft to maintain flight.
if it were up to me, I think I would set it at the lowest altitude that satalites can orbit, because space is where we orbit. if we cannot orbit then it is not space
Interesting, thank you!
Hey Phil, I feel like you really missed out on the conversation of geostationary space. If a satellite is directly above your country and just hanging out, shouldn't you have a say about that?
Nations have tried to claim geostationary orbits (Bogata Declaration 1976), but were seen to be in violation of the Outer Space treaty. Primarily, because they tried to argue against the definition of where space is! While these orbits are clearly in space, I think the failure of the declaration is more a commentary on geopolitics, and how the Global North is all to willing to call something "unclaimable territory" when they can use it to their advantage.
Beyond the science, it's prime real estate, and surely the countries that would benefit the most from it (equatorial states) should have a say.
Totally fair! I’m sure you’ve seen Johnny’s video that touches on this, but just in case: ruclips.net/video/NY8Rv6PaXVI/видео.html
4:08 💯💯 is all I can say
Hey, student journalist here. How’d you create the highlighting animations with the space law documents
If you look up “trim paths” in After Effects, it’s not too tricky. They also have a slightly slower frame rate as an effect.
Why does a line need to be defined? Just develop a new system to deal with a buffer zone. Probably a more useful long term apporach
Great video, as usual. We need to collab!
Thanks! That’d be awesome.
Subscribing because you're my older doppleganger
I would propose the area of space where orbits can begin
That seems totally reasonable to me and still lands you at that easy to remember that 100 km line.
But if you use a really long tungsten rod, you can probably achieve 1 orbit as low as 60km, wheras a parachute would probably need well over 100km to sustain one orbit. You need to define what would be orbiting in order for the line to be defined, and given the choice, I would choose a 1kg steel sphere
found your channel. i love it :) keep it up
Space law actually has foundations in nuclear weapons policy, and the weaponization of space (as well as Antarctica).
The thought of Space law and Space lawyers gives me anxiety lol 😂
Its intriguin that each of the three methods likely gives an answer of "about" 100km, give or take maybe 10km max (sure they claim as low as 80 for where air ends, but planes that cant fly in outer space can fly above 80km, up to around 100km. And for orbiting satellites the lowest possible perigee is 100km). And yet, despite that fact folks still cant just agree on 100km bein a good enuf number to use for the space line.
I guess the benefit to leavin it fuzzy is the potential to challenge a very low orbiting satellite being used and declare it an act of war... But that wud be a dangerous precedent to try to set there cuz even if folks cud then agree on something, it wudnt rly help much as then they just go slightly above/below whatever line is then set; even if that may take time while they wait for better imagin technology or whatever else was bein used and claimed as an act of war. Technology improves and the law cant plan for that; which is why it is best to just do the best ya can with the law so theres actually something set and then adapt the law as technology improves.
I consider the beginning of space to the be the first square inch that isn't protected by our atmosphere. My question is - what is the END of space??
FIRST COMMENT! I hope so at least. Sick video Phil, you inspire me.
simple below 80km is Air Space so Planetary Law applies, Above 125km is Space so Space Law applies, in between is the Interface, now get together and work on that. perhaps wright some Interface Laws.
I think we should just say that the ships laws are tied to its country of launch while in space, until it is brought back down to earth. Any crimes commited outside the vessel are outside jurishdiction.
Borders will be a tough component of space sovereignty. The ''official'' boundary between Earth and space is 100 kilometers\ 60 miles up. But the Karman Line is no ''harder'' border than those between most nation-states and their territories abroad. In fact, it's softer than most country borders as almost everyone agrees where one country ends and an adjacent one begins (with a few exceptions like Palestine\Israel and West Saharrah\Morocco), whereas the boundary between Earth and space is rather blurry and up for interpretation.
It also leads to the problem of borders on other planets and moons. Would they be ''duked out'' in warfare just like most of Earth's national borders (particularly in Africa)? Would there be international agreements as to what existing Earth state gets what piece of Luna, Mars, etc? Or would it be the settlers themselves deciding the borders? The sovereignty of Earth governments over space settlements would be almost non-existent if it's not backed by force and coercion.
I guess it's the closest you can have a stable orbit
Time Magazine doesnt troll with their man of their year choices >.> The term "man of the year" does not imply that the person has done good things for humanity, just that said person had a hugely influential influence on the world. Hence why they even named Hitler such one yr. Its not "Best Man of the year"; its "Man of the year" (Tho its actually person of the year, but point still stands)
we are all in space in constant relative motion.
Just subscribed! I hope your channel will be as big as Johny Harris's or maybe exceeding him!
from national defense POV, i thought it'd be obvious it should be where jet planes can't operate anymore.
This sounds much more a shortcoming of legal thinking than a scientific melon-scratcher. 5:00 pretty much answers that question: satellites don’t go below 100 km and planes don’t go above 80. So while that’s fuzzy for sure, there’s nothing much happening between 80 and 100 km that would need regulating. If it’s a plane, it’s in the atmosphere. If it’s orbiting, it’s in space. UN, you know where to find me.
algorithmic punch!
There is no outer edge to the neutrality of space. But what about Mars once we have self sufficient colonies, are martians allowed to create their own nation(s)?
It seems likely that any group 'colonizing' mars in the foreseeable future will follow the rules and regulations of the entity (government or corporation) that sent them. Early adopters can't go rogue. They'd have no leverage and die on a rock alone because they're not going to be able to build a nation/civilization without support from their investors and Earthly resources.
Even with competing national entities going onto the same planet, it's such an exclusive and specially funded endeavor that it's probably just going to be like how Antarctica or the International Space Station is now, a shared scientific neutral zone. By the time any kind of extraterrestrial space conflict is even possible, "space law" will mature along with it.
I know a guy who is well versed in Bird law, not sure about his expertise in Space law though...
Space is where non-space ends
I thought the Karman line was 100km?!
The USA defines space as 80km if I recall correctly, and that's what the controversey was on Bezos' first flight to "space" at 85km
Spaaaaaaaace Laaaaaaaw
Neat
Stupit law, the space will not bend on decisions made in a piece of paper. Use your space wisely.
Phil makes a Vox Borders episode?
Great video. Also love the fact you look both 15 years old and 30 years old lol
i'll take either
If humans take the same attitudes wherever: Doing the same and not really caring about the results, immediate nor longterm.
space lawyer
No one ever does anything, before it becomes a problem. You now have strict work place fire, and safety laws. Rigorously enforced. Why: chiefly because of the Triangle Shirt factory fire. The seamstresses locked in the upper level, all burned to death. You had Life boats on the Titanic ( and now on almost all ships) why?: Because of the NYC Ferry, General Slocum, catching fire( it started in a rope locker) on June 15 1904. The passengers ( wives and children of German factory workers, attending a day time, church picnic) either burned , or drowned to death, in the East river. No eff up, no rule/ law preventing said eff up. Homo sapiens, now, and till the end of time.
Now I’m worried about the space disaster!
so youre saying i could steal the ISS or any other satellite and get away with it.....
sPaAaAaAaAaAcE lAw!
put a cool effect on my comment or it wont work right
lol.. yeah.. where's the line between pressure and zero pressure again..?
There isn't one, this isn't a problem the way you think it is.
Damn Phil, I was gonna like this video but then you wished me to stay on Earth. *Sigh*
Curse you for triggering my pedantic compulsion to read every word of your "Disclaimer" because (not having read the comment section prior to reading or starting this comment) I suspected it would probably be humorously written and partially out of respect for the effort you took to write it . . . unless you used A.I., in which case: double curse you.
Haha I think AI wasn't good enough for that yet. It is real and heartfelt!