Human ventures into space bring unlimited opportunity for space exploitation (commerce), which, if done responsibly, will benefit all humankind and our Planet Earth.

But, there are massive dangers looming as large as the opportunity. All space faring nations intend to weaponize space (a defensive measure to protect space-based and Earthly assets). This will bring dangerous risk and will hurt the Outer Space Treaty (OST: the only thing that really prevents nuclear weapons from being parked 350 km above our heads). Astronauts will no longer be “Envoys of Mankind” (as per the OST) … potentially becoming space force combatants.

Space commerce itself does pose problems for the Outer Space Treaty (to do with use and ownership of resources – mining etc). The US Space Act and Artemis Accords do forge a rocky path through the Outer Space Treaty (basically, a work-around which should grow in strength over time). There is significant discontent (not just Russia and China) over both of these developments … and this tension does cause further harm to the Outer Space Treaty.

Perhaps the biggest risk is the unresolved “problem” of Article I of the Outer Space Treaty. This obligates space faring nations to ensure sharing of the benefits gained from their use of space (mining etc)… so, how much sharing is acceptable?… this is not defined. This uncertainty is a huge problem for space commerce which will need huge investment. It may not stall everything, but it is a massive hurdle.

Disputes (over the amount/type of sharing) will arise … with an already weakened Outer Space Treaty (some experts believe it unfit for purpose), this could be the final straw. It is conceivable that a space faring nation could pull out of the Treaty if pressurized to “share more.”

A weakened treaty (or worse… an abandoned treaty) may not prevent nuclear weaponization of space. As a species, we really are not mature enough to deal with that sort of weaponization. Even “mutually assured destruction” breaks down (a first nuclear strike from orbit = a big win).

Our project delivers a solution to all these big risks, including the obligations within article I of OST … it really is an elegant flat-packed solution … we have applied it to Planet Mars, but the UN could apply the same model to the Moon.

If you would love to save the Outer Space Treaty (to keep us safe from aggressive weaponization just 350 km above our heads) and provide your family descendants with a real chance to own a huge chunk of land on Planet Mars … then do something amazing and JOIN our communal claim to land on Mars!

Without open and independent expert legal advice, our public facing strategy had proved vulnerable to suspicion and doubt from some people in our world audience. The subject matter is peculiar, and we all know of existing agencies that sell celestial land deeds (labelled “novelty items” in small print). We do not issue deeds. We have been recruiting people to our cause via the issuing of legitimate land claims within a communal possession of land on Mars. The claim certificates confirm that the claimants have joined our communal claim of factual possession of land on planet Mars, and also that we shall endeavor towards the conversion of this possession into legal beneficial ownership.

Our communal claim of possession is based upon the sustained use of extremely powerful lasers which positively influence/control the geo-atmosphere of Mars (to a very small degree). We do admit that the existing law would need to evolve in a favorable direction in order to facilitate the conversion of our possession into ownership.

We felt that in order to enhance our open, public-facing strategy, we needed some independent expert legal validation of our activities and strategy. We are very thankful and excited to have had the positive criticism from Professors Philip de Man, Fabio Tronchetti and P.J. Blount. We then commissioned the elite scholar, Professor Frans von der Dunk (and his world renowned agency, Black Holes BV) to provide two consecutive legal analyses/reports on our project. The second report, a “Legal Reality Check” was produced by Prof. von der Dunk specifically for our publication. It is a magnificent piece; it has served to further organize and shape our strategy such that we can now be fully confident in our legal position now (in current law, lex lata) and the exciting opportunities for our claim to be ready for (or even shape) the future law (lex ferenda).

This expert independent legal analysis has confirmed that our claim of factual possession of all land on Mars is legitimate. Currently, as the law stands now, we cannot convert that possession into ‘owned property”… but our legal advice confirms that should the law evolve (as we are sure it will) to tolerate/encourage private property rights in space, then our claim should morally and legally be ‘first-in-line’ for consideration. In maybe 150 years time, the descendants of our co-claimants could genuinely gain beneficial ownership title to large areas of land on Mars (9-35 sq km!!).

Even more interestingly, our expert legal advice confirms that our ownership/governance plans for Mars could be morally, ethically and politically appealing to space faring nations … such that we could encourage their molding of the law in our favour. It is feasible to facilitate such a pan-multinational ownership of celestial land without going against the text of the core space laws (Outer Space treaty 1967). Other changes to the interpretation of the law (customary international law) are required, plus some change within private international law… resulting in the legal title to Mars going to All Mankind (held in trust by the United Nations) and beneficial ownership going to all our co-claimants (from all 195 world nations).

Responsible space commerce is encouraged and governed by a core space-user group, representation on which can only be permitted to a space-faring nation on ratification of a new ‘top-up’ space treaty (to reinforce the OST: facilitating space commerce/mining, enhancing strength against aggressive space weaponization, and gaining control over space debris generation/removal. In this manner we safely enable vibrant and responsible space commerce.

Our strategy also solves one of the biggest problems facing space commerce right now, that being Article I of the Outer Space treaty (OST): the dichotomous problem of exploitation with compulsory sharing. Through our operational model, the space-user group approves/awards Mars mining contracts and the mining company pays the relevant land claimant(s) a ground rent (for hosting their installations). These claimants then must part-share (half) the ground rent payments with all other claimants. All nations are represented (in equitable numbers) by these co-claimants, so the commercial activity results in financial benefit going back to all nations. The mining company thus retains all profits (less tax to its parent nation).
We describe this elegant plan as ‘Inclusivity built on Exclusivity.’

It is important for would-be co-claimants to realize that we are doing this not because we are overwhelmingly pro-appropriation, rather it is that we think such a situation is inevitable and we want to be ready with an inclusive solution that also appeals to commerce.

Ultimately, space commerce should prove hugely beneficial to our planet Earth and all its people. Earth is the best planet in the solar system (maybe galaxy), so if mining other celestial bodies helps us preserve the geo-atmosphere and biodiversity of Earth, so be it … as long as we do so responsibly and peacefully.

We declare that we have been in factual possession of all land on Mars for almost 12 years.

We base this declaration on the actions we have been doing over those years.

So, what are those actions?..

1. Using extremely powerful lasers (attached to astronomical telescopes) we have persistently targeted Mars in order to physically influence/control the surface geo-atmosphere of the planet. This effect is extremely small (physically trivial) but is not legally trivial.
2. We have developed a detailed, beneficial and inclusive governance plan for the safe and equitable use of land on Mars.

Our factual possession of Mars is exclusive but not necessarily permanent. Our anticipation is that the laws applied to space will evolve to tolerate the appropriation of celestial land. In such a future situation we (or our co-claimants’ descendants) will be “first-in-line” to have the claim considered for conversion into ownership. We have declared our intent to have the ownership titles split into legal title and beneficial titles. The legal title is to be awarded to All Mankind and held in trust by the a United Nations committee (a celestial trusteeship council?). It is the beneficial title which is to go to our co-claimants (or their descendants).

Independent expert legal advice confirms that this legal position/strategy is correct and viable.

Professor von der Dunk is perhaps the world’s foremost scholar and lawyer in this subject. He runs the world’s leading legal consultancy agency for space law (Black Holes BV). He is a professor in USA, Director of IISL (International Institute of Space Law), author of “The Handbook of Space Law” and the keynote speaker at US Space Command’s ‘Inaugural Legal Conference 2021.’

Via his two consecutive legal reports (including the published ‘Legal Reality Check’), the professor concludes that our activities are legal, including those that can be argued to represent factual possession.  He agrees that if, in future, the space laws evolve to tolerate private ownership of celestial land, then our claim should rightly be first in line for consideration.  He also can see genuine moral, ethical and political worth in our meta-legal arguments, such that space faring countries might find our proposal to be sufficiently attractive to prompt them towards molding the law in this direction. Professor von der Dunk confirms that there is a route for this to happen that does not require any adjustment to the text of core space law (The Outer Space Treaty 1967).

We are ‘The Martians’ (myself and pan-multinational co-claimants, currently numbering >180,000).

We aim to build upon existing space law in order to save/preserve the Outer Space Treaty and legally facilitate space commerce/mining, prevent aggressive weaponization of space, and manage the ‘space debris problem.’ You may wonder then how a claim of possession of a planet can help with all that … read on (it could do)…

OK, first things first. Why the quite urgent need to build on existing space law?.. Well, we are sure that without early intervention, the following things are sure to happen:

1. Increasing international friction as a small core of space-faring nations begin to mine celestial bodies (moon and asteroids) in a manner that does not sit easily within the Outer Space Treaty.
2. Such friction will contribute to the existing motivation of some space faring nations to weaponize space (especially in orbit @ Earth).
3. Such space exploitation and aggressive weaponization will further marginalize and discredit the Outer Space Treaty (seen as ‘out-dated). This is a big worry/problem as this treaty is the only significant law to prevent nuclear weaponization of space. Weapons of mass destruction will probably find their way up into orbit @ Earth, just 350 km above our heads.
4. The risk of an international war employing space based strike weapons (including WMDs?) is then highly likely.
5. Without suitable hard law, the generation of space debris is likely to continue with little control.
6. Ultimately, as the feasibility of human settlement in space is realized (Moon/Mars in maybe 150-200 years) the laws will evolve to allow for land ownership. This is likely to follow an exclusive first-come-first-served model via sovereignty claims by the strongest nations.
7. There will be very little left of the Outer Space Treaty. Inclusiveness will be long gone.

In summary, we are currently heading towards an unstable, inequitable, high-risk, weaponized future in space. Collaborations like the Artemis Accords will help somewhat, but are unlikely to significantly alter the current path. There are no good indications coming from the responsible UN committee (COPUOS) that any enhancement of ‘hard’ space law is likely. The space-faring nations attending that committee need a helpful JOLT.

So, we have developed a claim to possession of celestial land which, if followed to the intended conclusion, will see a safe/secure, responsible, equitable and pro-commerce solution that builds inclusivity upon exclusivity.

See our business/legal strategy document to see how our proposal can not only lead to vibrant, equitable space commerce but also ensure an elegant ‘top-up treaty’ to enhance the Outer Space Treaty and keep us all safe from aggressive space weaponization.

It is important for would-be co-claimants to realize that we are doing this not because we are overwhelmingly pro-appropriation, rather it is that we think such a situation is inevitable and we want to be ready with an inclusive solution that also appeals to commerce.

Professor Dr. Frans G. von der Dunk is one of the world’s most elite scholars in International Space Law and was, in April 2021, the keynote speaker at US Space Command’s inaugural legal conference.

He is a generally positive proponent of the “US Space Act” and the “Artemis Accords,” but also scathingly critical of those private online agencies that sell ‘deeds’ (small-stamped ‘novelty item’) for celestial land to unsuspecting buyers.

Given his elite international profile and his publicized negative opinion of those online sales agencies, we wanted to get his expert analysis of our own project.

His two consecutive analyses/reports (separated by 5 months) of “The Martians” project, have lead to some significant change in the order/structure of our strategy … especially with respect to our legal position within current applicable law (lex lata) and opportunities within (or even to shape) the law of the near future (lex ferenda).

We are delighted with his positive findings!… our actions are legal; our factual possession of Mars is arguably real; our meta-legal arguments might prove ethically and politically appealing to space faring nations … and if the law does evolve to tolerate private celestial  land ownership, our claim should rightly be first-in-line for consideration!

More about the professor:

Professor Dr. Frans G. von der Dunk holds the Harvey and Susan Perlman Alumni / Othmer Chair of Space Law at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s LL.M. Programme on Space, Cyber and Telecommunication Law since January 2008. He also is Director of the Black Holes consultancy company in space law and policy, based in Leiden . See:

CLICK: BLACK HOLES BV

Previously, he was Co-Director, then Director of Space Law Research at the International Institute of Air and Space Law at Leiden University since 1990.

Prof. Von der Dunk has served as adviser to the Dutch Government, a number of foreign Governments, the European Commission, the European Space Agency (ESA), the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a number of space agencies, and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), as well as a number of companies, and was member of the Advisory Group to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the drafting of Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes relating to Outer Space.

He is Director Public Relations of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL), Member of the Board of the European Centre for Space Law (ECSL), and Member for the Netherlands in the International Law Association’s (ILA) Committee on Space Law. He is also Member of the International Editorial Board of ‘Space Policy’. Further memberships include: International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA), International Bar Association’s (IBA) Section on Business Law (SBL), Committee Z on Outer Space Law, International Policy Advisory Committee (IPAC) of the International Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA; Senior Member), and Centro de Investigacion y Difusion Aeronautico-Espacial (CIDA-E; Corresponding Member).

He has given many interviews to the international media on issues of space law and policy. He has written more than 180 articles and published papers. He was the author of “Advanced Introduction to Space Law” and editor of the “Handbook of Space Law.”