Neapilia vs Kalvion
Bahar Ramazanova,LL.M Candidate, Istanbul University (Online Intern @LawOF)
According to the moot case the parties, with their frequent space activities, are expected, in the near future, to be on the planet Mars. Both parties are trying to escape from the global environmental problems on planet Earth and they want to solve those issues immediately. Hence, the Republic of Neapilia called for special support from private endeavors while in the meantime Kalvion needed an urgent solution for supplying resources where there were the least natural energy resources for an over-populated area. The company based in the applicant’s country started its Mars mission to melt the ice on the red planet and to use the resulting water and build a human settlement under the principle of for all humankind. After the technology use, the environment of Mars underwent a change which had a marginal impact on the mining activities of the other state.
Neapilia had a plan for Mars settlement many years ago, not just during the 2050s and the state has already registered its Theos Ares in its national registry for space objects. The technology which was designed and manufactured by SalPA Corp. was unique and was planned entirely to implement this method. If that was unlawful activity, then the UN Space Policy and Law Committee should have stopped this, as it had been introduced to the UN as a peaceful space activity.
The different interests are colliding in the case given. In order to make a fair decision, the two interests should be compared from the aspect of their benefit of all humankind and the urgency of the activities; their importance should be evaluated separately. Moreover, the impact of space activities over Outer Space and an Earth environment could be calculated in order to unveil the liability and damages which would exist.
The chronology of space activities and national space policy details per state come up next for debate. Neapilia declared its national space policy before Kalvion’s space program actually began. That means the rest of the developing countries with resource shortcut problems should have known about the technology and character of the space activities conducted on Mars polar in advance. SalPA Corp. did not break the principle of international space law concerning the peaceful use of outer space and its resources. The idea to melt Mars ice was to protect the continuity of human life, as it was a global overpopulation problem everywhere. All of the states were invited to get licenses for Optron Ray usage. This was anticipated to be deployed in 2046 and Kalvion knew this, too. Two years earlier, Kalvion had launched its first mining vehicle to Mars and two years later, when the “50 Rays of Salpa” had been tested, it was a reason for the activities of the SIENAR mission to stop. Although Salpa’s activities had been addressed to settle sustainable development on Mars, it later altered the natural environment of the planet. The UN accepted international norms for governing the environment of the planet Mars. These rules aimed to adopt a new international regime for celestial bodies, but Kalvion simply declared that it would take its own protective measures which later involved a cyber attack on the SalPA technology, an infraction of the rules of international law.
Kalvion should compensate the damage to Neapilian technology and all the losses incurred as the result of that. Neapilia should be liable only for the activities performed after the Seychelles Declaration was adopted along with the unfair price rates for human settlement programs.
 See, THE 2018 MANFRED LACHS SPACE LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION CASE https://iislweb.org/2018-manfred-lachs-space-law-moot-court-problem-is-published/.