THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CORPORATION (ISDAC): WHY, WHAT, HOW, WHEN, WHERE AND HOW MUCH.
*
Declan J. O‘Donnell, Esq.
United Societies in Space, Inc.
499 South Larkspur Drive Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 Phone: 800-632-2828 E-mail: djopc@qwest.net www.space-law.org
Abstract
The International Space Development Authority Corporation is to be enabled internationally by United Nations General Assembly resolution for participation by resolution and contract of member nations. The goal is to have all nations participate in phase one of space development, (as opposed to research and exploration), by taking an allocated part of the larger plan for its coordinated contribution to our off-world colonization of the solar system. This phase is targeted for completion in 100 years. The structure of the corporate authority is to include space governance not only for Earthkind humanity but, also, for the benefit of future settlers, with a legislature including former astronauts and cosmonauts, a strong executive branch, with a space bank, and a supreme court with inferior departments. Astro law would be administered by these courts as an extension of the common law from America to space at the cutoff date of 2000 A.D. The function of this space governance authority is to design and architect humanity‘s habitats in space; to organize how to construct it, when and where; to commit the necessary budgets and concurrent sources of money; to plan a monetary and fiscal system for an economy in space; to create a space bank for exclusive administration of that plan; to arrange for dispute resolution, criminal procedures, and commercial codes, family law, and workers compensation administration in space; and to demonstrate a permanent community of 10,000 humans, (as the target), living and working as settlers in space habitats during our lifetime, and/or within 100 years. Authority management would be appointed by the United Nations secretary-general from nominees submitted by the International Astronautical Federation and its member organizations.
*
Declan J. O'Donnell is an attorney practicing general trial law in Colorado; President of the World Space Bar Association; President of United Societies in Space, Inc., and of its Regency of United Societies in Space, Inc. (ROUSIS); Board of Directors, Mars Society; Board of Directors, Lunar Economic Development Authority Corporation, Inc.; Board of Directors, Space Orbital Development Authority Corporation; Publisher, Space Governance Journal; and member, AIAA Subcommittee on Space Colonization and the International Institute of Space Law, and the National Space Society.
The chief justice of the Regency of USIS is Kathleen Woody, Esq., formerly on the faculty of Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, and Georgetown Law School and formerly employed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in Russia
The importance of this is emphasized in the UN Moon Treaty of 1979. This treaty calls for a new legal regime to be installed for outer space when space development appears to be feasible. Our goal and our energy should be directed towards ISDAC being that new regime. The course to steer to that end is to have ISDAC judicial and policy personnel coordinate with UN and member nations on how to accomplish that, how to solve “The Top Ten Space Policy Problems“ and what to establish as fair court rules and procedures in an off-world estate.vii
Stephen E. Doyle, America‘s designated board member to IISL for 20 years, has called for a new judicial court system in space. The current trend towards voluntary arbitration appears to have a lack of precedent developed for it. As stated in his recent publication:
—Further, there has to be more attention paid to the issue of settlement of disputes. …UNISPACE III has shown that settlement of disputes is a topic requiring attention to formulate a sufficient legal framework for settling disputes arising in the expanding future uses of outer space.“viii
WHERE AND WHEN
The answer is here and now. The third millennium is the ”space development millennium‘. A budget of one quadrillion U.S. dollars is proposed and the IAF is requested to nominate officers, members, judges, and technical personnel to the ISDAC with UN approval. The non-profit corporation has 10 years of preplanning, good offices, and international recognition.
Please contact the author if you care to participate.
HOW MUCH
The one quadrillion U.S. dollars equivalent budget is one trillion dollars per year for 1,000 years. The first 100 years will set all of the standards and lay most of the plans. Then it will demonstrate five or so permanent human settlements in space orbits and on the Moon and Mars. This ought to be enough if our managers are selected properly.
The value added to space will be exactly equivalent to the cost of space objects constructed by the ISDAC and its contractors. This financial principle will justify its bank guarantees on space money legal tender for approved projects. The reasoning includes the idea that we cannot permit any failed providing realistic international cooperation under UN auspices. IISL president Nandasiri Jasentuliyana has decried this as his most frustrating task as president of the UN Office on Space Affairs.vi
Governance Structure
ISDAC features a traditional governance structure in order to run the long term space development first 100year phase. The legislative department of ISDAC contains a senate comprised of astronauts and cosmonauts. These will represent future settlers in space. The Authority is expected to transform from an Earth entity into a space governance entity in due course. The legal regime to be enacted by this legislature will be important to that end. (See, Diagram No. 3)
Mr. Ronnie Lajoie of Boeing and a board member of the National Space Society is the chief legislator. The Regency of USIS was founded not only with a legislature, but, also, with an executive department headed by the chief executive officer, Declan J. O‘Donnell.
The executive department features not only the critically important space bank, but six vice presidents who each head up an important function: science and technology; construction permitting; inspection and enforcement; environmental protection; international cooperation; and education administration. (See, Diagram No. 4.)
Additionally, resolutions from space-faring and other nations interested in participating will be sought. These would enable contract participation as in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) rather than as a treaty commitment. Each nation would nominate its likely agency to work with the Authority. Unlike most MOUs signed by NASA, for example, this one would pay money to the U.S. Treasury rather than seek money from it. The chances for obtaining the relevant approval are increased accordingly: ISDAC features new sources of money for space development.
Another aspect of how to start will relate to the ISDAC judiciary. It is formed as a skeleton agency. We have designed it to be a supreme court with inferior courts by contract. All decisions are required to go through the supreme court and become published in Space Governance Journal. The rule of law is the common law as extended from England to America, circa 1690 to 1750, (state by state), from America to all extraterritorial courts by Congress in 1850, and from America‘s Regency of United Societies in Space by convention in 2000 A.D. to outer space. The definition of common law was recited as the ”black letter law‘ set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum at 2000 A.D. This Thangavelu. Its members are Oleg Alifanov, Greg Allison, Pahlah Bajaj, Greg Bennett, Brad Blair, Bruce Cordell, Steve Durst, William Good, Stewart Johnson, Alex Lightman, David Livingston, Declan O‘Donnell, Jesus Raygoza, Gary Rodriguez, Carol Rosin, David Shrunk, John Spencer, and Kathleen Woody; and, also, an advisory committee of 37 members including Dr. Buzz Aldrin and Dr. Michael Duke.iii
The plan for Mars is being worked on by the Mars Society of which this author is a founding member of the board of directors (with Dr. Robert Zubrin and Margaret Zubrin). Dr. Zubrin has published that plan.iv
Consistent with The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Chunnel Authority, ISDAC will have a police force, permitting department, inspection officers, and a robust environmental protection office. A more unique feature will be a continuing education program as proposed by Regent Jesus Raygoza, president of the Mexican Space Society.v
This effort is proposed as nonexclusive so nations and corporations can compete with it and/or coordinate projects with it. The ISDAC bank, however, would be available to all space developers. Also, the executive and legislative licensing, permitting, and inspection services, with attendant appeals procedures, would be available to all developers.
Like the Panama Canal Authority, it anticipates being turned over to a more permanent space governance regime controlled by settlers in space.
Like the International Seabed Authority, it is designed for enabling by a UN General Assembly resolution as the appropriate UN imprimatur. Each nation would then participate by contract and resolution.
HOW DO WE START?
Ten Years Ago
The embryo of this scheme was planted in Cuchara, Colorado, in 1994 when USIS held its first convention and published its first issues of Space Governance Journal. Co-sponsors were the World Space Bar Association headed by Declan O‘Donnell, Esq., and USIS of Russia headed by Oleg Alifanov. Dr. Philip R. Harris was a founding member and the first editor of the journal. George Robinson, Esq., Ph.D., was the first chairman of its Council of Regents.
USIS is a special interest chapter of the National Space Society. In 2000 A.D., its magazine Ad Astra named it one of the six most important space activist groups. Mr. O‘Donnell has addressed it and the Mars Society conventions repeatedly for over five years on space governance. It is safe to say we hit the ground running with 10 years background.
Our next step is to firm up our offices and programs, get the ISDAC bank in order for a charter, and begin the quest for the relevant governmental approval. Then we reorganize with IAF assistance and professional participation. (See, Diagram No. 2.)
The plan for imprimatur achievement is to seek a UN General Assembly resolution on international cooperation. This is a treaty burden of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that is a chronic problem. All of the space-faring nations have had limited success in deficiency. The management of the Authority did not take this problem to France, nor to England. Instead it held a board of directors meeting and raised tariffs on traffic in the tunnel forthwith. Regardless of the success or failure of its financial life, the Chunnel itself will remain in existence and subserve the underlying economic need for speedy mass transit across the English Channel. The capital asset is placed into service as planned.
The Panama Canal Authority, in fact, failed. It is said that most Europeans and everyone in Paris, France, held at least one defaulted 500
U.S. dollar equivalent Panama Canal revenue bond at the turn of the century (circa 1890). The United States of America and England came into the Authority after it failed and completed the project. Somehow the impossible canal was placed into service and, eventually, turned over to the country of Panama as planned. It was a successful project despite early failures and hidden engineering problems.
The International Seabed Authority
The International Seabed Authority was created in 1994 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and became fully autonomous in 1996. Behind the story is the story that the president first negotiated for America to take a leadership role while donating its deep sea technology, hardware, and personnel. This compromised the common heritage of mankind verbiage in that treaty, but it also enhanced the viability of the enterprise for all nations.ii
The ISDAC Structure
Consistent with the TVA model, the ISDAC has been functioning for 10 years as United Societies in Space, Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation with IRS section 501(c)(3) public charity status. In 1999, it added the —Regency of United Societies in Space“ to complement its affiliated Lunar Economic Development Authority and the Space Orbital Development Authority. ISDAC is an alias of United Societies in Space (USIS) by Colorado state registration. Hopefully it will not take a full 17 years to achieve U.S. and/or United Nation‘s imprimatur. During this time it has subscribed 50 plus Ph.D. level members to staff its virtual space governance authority: it features executive, legislative, and judicial branches with a space bank and, also, a first issuance space money (as part of a barter club). (See, Diagram No. 1.)
It has a target life of 100 years from its receipt of the imprimatur as requested. It has designed 30-year bonds at five percent interest and begun work on the space bank that will guarantee all of the bonds. The final plans for development are delayed until its legislature can review and vote on the likely plans.
Perhaps the only lead project that it favors is that plan of its affiliated Lunar Economic Development Authority to locate a municipal services infrastructure on the Moon, all as published Dr. David Schrunk, Burton Sharpe, Bonnie Cooper, and Madhu
WHAT IS ISDAC? Traditional Authorities
The subject space authority has borrowed features from many more traditional authorities. The following entities are in business successfully and ISDAC borrows something from each of them.
The world is aware of large projects built by quasi-municipal authorities but may not be aware of how those entities operate. The bottom of it is official government imprimatur by decree, resolution, legislation, or otherwise. The English tradition of creating a —regency“ to act in the stead of a king or queen who became incapacitated, died, or who left a minor as heir to the throne, started the concept. It was an entity or person entrusted with authority to act within the larger jurisdiction to perform special duties of governance in that void, such as monetary and fiscal policy management.
Legally, these authorities are enabled by the dominant state but they are managed as separate corporations under a charter akin to a constitution for its special purposes.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal corporation created in 1933 by the U.S. Congress, is one of America‘s classic special district entities. It operated for 17 years as a non profit corporation dedicated to conservation issues while planning to produce electricity for southeast America. It had almost no success until Congress enabled the president of the United States to appoint three people to its board of directors in 1947. That year the company raised 50 million U.S. dollars by issuing 20-year bonds at three percent per annum interest. These bonds were not guaranteed by any government. Technically, they were junk bonds. However, they were timely repaid and larger re-financings followed for the TVA.
The Columbia River Authority is enabled by congressional legislation. It also emphasizes conservation issues while working internationally with Canada and surrounding states. One plan for the river is administered by it instead of responding to various and contrary desires of Canada or other states involved.
The Port of New York Authority was established on April 30, 1921, to administer the common harbor interests of New York and New Jersey. Renamed The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, it is a bistate agency that deals with international shipping at one of the world‘s largest ports. The subject matter is specialized because it relates to foods, chemicals, ships, docks, unions, and international laws. It has its own executive branch with a police force on site and a court system to process complaints, citations, and fines. This Port Authority services revenue bonds with earnings from its specialized activities and does so without requiring the City of New York, the states of New York and New Jersey, and the United States of America to even hold a committee meeting let alone write a check to anyone.
The —Chunnel Authority“ manages a transportation tunnel under international waters between France and England. It was financed almost entirely by revenue bonds marketed in bond markets worldwide. Recently the sinking fund projections for repayment of these bonds became at risk of space governance off-world. (See, Graphic No. 2.)
The burning question remains: Who pays this great big budget? The answer is that the long term debt is paid by the off-world estate and almost everything is converted to long term debt. There are three reasons why this will work: (1) The great big budget for space development
is far too large for Earth, as well as too risky; (2) A conflict of interest is resolved by shifting the liability to space where the assets exist; and (3) Once space money is spent as legal tender it can never be reduced to non-legal tender. (See, Graphic No. 3.)
The pump needs to be primed by a robust show of support from the financial community, nations, and individuals investors. Their early monies will be guaranteed by the ISDAC bank. It is a good guarantee because it is governmental.
The Policy Imperative
Space law and policy problems need a catalyst for cure, also. The lack of sustained government support and corollary lack of funding for space development is only part of the problem. The next eight of the top 10 space policy problems are equally as challenging. These are known as conflicts of interest, soft law proliferation, strict liability on nations and other, exorbitant insurance requirements, unenforceability of treaties, unregulated debris in space, no property regime in space resources, and benefit sharing as a treaty burden. These are chronic anti-development policies made by our leaders, not by the laws of nature, and contrary to common sense during the development phase.i
These 10 problems as a group are chronic. Despite the warnings of legal experts and efforts by the UN affiliate IISL, they are worse now than in 1995. For example, in 1996, UN General Assembly resolution 51/122 redefined benefit sharing as just another aspect of international cooperation on an —equitable basis.“ This explodes soft law farther because such resolutions do not cancel prior treaty burdens. The UN paradigm is sort of stuck in its own stuff, so to speak, so another specialized, well funded, and quasi-governance authority should be welcomed. It could at least correct these problems as they apply to development phase participants who rely on ISDAC processes, money, and management.
WHY IS ISDAC NEEDED?
The Great Big Budget
The space development budget must be big because we need to build a system of united societies in space. These would occasion commerce in space among themselves without reliance on Earth products. This goal is implicit in the dream and required for survival of our off-world settlers as a society.
Budget Assumption No. 1 is that a well rounded off-world estate is required as a goal. This may require 1,000 years to complete, ONE QUADRILLION U.S. DOLLARS EQUIVALENT to achieve, and hundreds of thousands of settlers, workers, and tourists to enjoy. We may foresee 100 hotels in orbit; two or more cities at Lagrange Points; five developments on the Moon, (a mining sector; Malapert Mountain municipal services; a Krafft Ehricke habitat; a telescope park; and a tourist resort); Mars with several permanent habitats under para-terraforming shells; three cycler orbiter vessels, perhaps small O‘Neill Tauruses, one housing space governance headquarters; and a mining town at the asteroid belt. (See, Great Big Budget Graphic No. 1.)
If all of this costs less than one quadrillion U.S. dollars over 1,000 years, so much the better. However, it is a principle of this development program that no project can be left undone, no foreclosure can intervene, and no amount of money required for completion can be withheld. Thus, the great big budget.
The first 100 years is seen as dedicated to planning, promoting, contracting, research, demonstrating, and starting. It will largely determine space development as a worldwide enterprise for the entire third millennium. The role of the ISDAC will be that of a catalyst to pull nations, corporations, individuals, and professionals together. The promise of new sources of money for space development will attract them.
The 100-Year Budget for ISDAC is only 100 trillion U.S. dollars equivalent. Sources of funding are increased from corporate and governement sources to include ISDAC bondholders, bank guarantees, and space money issued by the bank for in-space capital assets. Space money could be used to clear bank guarantees and to repay bonds eventually.
The work to be paid for will include not only planning, but, also, formal endorsement through the ISDAC legislative process, committee hearings, and formal commitment of money. Presumably the off-world estate to be demonstrated during this phase of development would include three hotels in LEO, three habitats at Lagrange Points, municipal services on the Moon from a Malapert Mountain station, three Mars Direct missions with one permanent station, and one cycler orbiter designed to house ISDAC and
projects, half built structures, and unpaid workers. This space development mission is too important to the participants, as well as to the survival of the human race, to tolerate error. ISDAC must proceed to conclusion of its demonstration regardless of cost. The next 900 years may then fill up, round out, and truly enjoy these united societies in space under a territorial self-governance regime that works. Comity can attach. Trade may ensue. Intramural off-world commerce will flourish with resulting benefits to Earth and bond holders can be assured of fair returns.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons the ISDAC may represent a leading edge vessel for space governance architecture during the third millennium, or during the next 100 years at least. It tends to resolve the two principal problems of a lack of political focus on space and corollary lack of funding for space development.
ENDNOTES
i
O‘Donnell, Declan J.: —Survey of the Top Ten Space Policy Problems at 1995,“ Space Governance Journal, 1995, p. 40, and O‘Donnell, Declan J.: —Overcoming Barriers to Space Travel,“ Space Policy, 1994, p. 252.
ii
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.
iii
Schrunk, David, et al., The Moon Resources, Future Development and Colonization, John Wiley & Sons and Praxis Publishing, Chichester, 1999.
iv
Zubrin, Robert: The Case for Mars, Free Press, 1997.
v
Raygoza, Jesus B.: —Space Continuing Public Education,“ Space Governance Journal, 1998, p. 80.
vi
Jasentuliyana, N., —International Copoperation Revisited,“ Journal of Space Law, 1998.
vii
The Moon Treaty, 1979, Article XI, para. 5.
viii
Doyle, Stephan E.: The Origins of International Space Law, Univelt, San Diego, CA, 2002, p. 112.
substantial and material start needs to be rounded out with not only a credible bench but, also, with space policy experts. (See, Diagram No. 5.)
IAC-04-IAA.3.7.1.04