4 ms·

To me this is the flaw in the article. The T-3 situation was only hard because it wasn’t clear if it was land or sea. But I don’t see why this should be a probl

To me this is the flaw in the article. The T-3 situation was only hard because it wasn’t clear if it was land or sea. But I don’t see why this should be a problem in space, just consider it the high seas.

jessaustin 6y ago
It isn't obvious that the two contexts are so similar that customs developed in one will be useful in the other.
- garmaine 6y ago
  No it is not obvious. There are entirely different governing laws (Outer Space Treaty vs whatever land or sea treaty applied to T-3, which wasn't clear). Had this happened in space, with the details otherwise the same, it would be 100% clear which jurisdiction applied: that of the nation which was registered under the OST as responsible for the hab/trailer in which the murder occurred. Had the murder happened outside of a hab, in EVA suits for example, it would be a bit more complicated. But it is our general understanding that in those circumstances the Law of the High Seas would apply. The specific caveat of the article that was discussed (is a long-lived arctic iceberg a island or international waters?) probably wouldn't apply. All of space is generally assumed to be international waters, for the moment.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]