I can understand that if an astronaut attack an other astronaut inside a spaceship he/she will have to answer to the law of the country which owns the ship but what if the attack happened on the moon?
-
18Unless Moon Officer Bob arrives on the scene in time, Moon Person A can get away with anything. In my opinion, the Moon Crimes Division is underfunded and understaffed, but that's an uninformed, incoherent rant for another comment thread. – Parthian Shot Jun 20 '15 at 00:01
2 Answers
The answer might be found in Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty:
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.
So a person on a 'celestial body' (and the Treaty includes the Moon as a celestial body) is under the jurisdiction of the country who registered the launch vehicle which carried them. If they attacked another person while on the Moon, they would be subject to the criminal law of that country.
I believe all space-faring nations have ratified the treaty.
- 3,044
- 1
- 21
- 38
-
1What happens if astronaut from country A attacks astronaut from country B on the Moon, when both are on the surface of it (outside their vehicles) ? Which court will handle such case? – Glory to Russia Jun 19 '15 at 13:12
-
'A' would remain under the jurisdiction of the country in whose registry his launch vehicle is listed. – Flup Jun 19 '15 at 13:44
-
2That means that an astronaut (say an American) would (at least theoretically) have to present a passport and a valid Visa to enter a spaceship, let's assume, launched from Russia? – gmauch Jun 19 '15 at 14:28
-
7One doesn't need to present documents to enter embassies, even though they are foreign sovereign territory; in other words, entry controls are not a necessary feature of entering foreign soil. – Flup Jun 19 '15 at 14:30
-
Chris Hadfield recently confirmed that passports and visas are indeed required by foreign astronauts! – James Thorpe Jun 19 '15 at 15:05
-
@JamesThorpe but the question was 'Do astronauts need passports when they come back to Earth?' – Flup Jun 19 '15 at 15:05
-
@Flup Indeed - was just intended as an interesting/related/topical observation – James Thorpe Jun 19 '15 at 15:07
-
-
2
-
@DaleM The answer cannot exist until the circumstance exists. But, all countries have some form of paternity/maternity based citizenship for citizens abroad. – ohwilleke Aug 20 '18 at 22:17
-
@DaleM: The courts of admiralty can hear the case if no other court has jurisdiction. – Joshua Jun 14 '23 at 15:12
If a crime has already been committed on the moon, then it would probably be handled under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Given that everyone who has been to the moon as been in the U.S. military. If we colonize the moon in the future then there will need to be a new organization to handle any potential crimes that will probably be committed.
- 21,795
- 12
- 80
- 175
- 109
- 1
-
1Russians never went to the moon?! excuse my ignorance here I thought the did?! – Ulkoma Jun 19 '15 at 13:52
-
6
-
2@Ulkoma The only manned moon landings were Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. All the men who have walked on the moon were US Military personnel – Sabre Jun 19 '15 at 14:03
-
@Sabre Thanks, stupid me! I always thought Gagarin has walked on the moon – Ulkoma Jun 19 '15 at 14:06
-
1@Ulkoma sadly, he didn't even live to see it (Died: 1968, Apollo 11: 1969) – Sabre Jun 19 '15 at 14:13
-
7This sounds more like a guess than a legal standing. Do you have a source? – Robert Cartaino Jun 19 '15 at 14:42
-
Do I have a source as to why members of the U.S. military would fall under military jurisdiction? – Gandolf989 Jun 19 '15 at 14:56
-
3@Gandolf989 A source for former military members being subject to UCMJ would be good. Armstrong, for instance, was not a member of the military at the time, and was widely hailed as "the first civilian astronaut". – Geobits Jun 19 '15 at 16:07
-
2Members of the VFW are also former military personnel, but that doesn't mean crimes committed by their membership automatically fall under military jurisdiction. I don't mean to pick, but I don't think your conclusion has a sound legal basis, unless you know otherwise. That's why I asked. – Robert Cartaino Jun 19 '15 at 18:15
-
2