First, I'd like to express appreciation for a thoughtful and nuanced comment about how this might apply to space, and the boundaries of (extraterritorial?) law. This feels like a remarkably poignant summary of the issues involved, at least to an amateur.
While you did carve out the exceptions earlier for (my summary) laws essentially being created in reaction to actual events occurring, I think this misses some novel aspects at hand here. Citizenship, and by proxy the (choice?) of personal jurisdiction for persons born on another celestial body are certainly not issues that maritime law can provide absolute analogies for, if these realities come to pass with long term inhabitation.
As I think your comment implies, OST is wholly insufficient for any of these new problems, and so it does seem clear that there is a need to resolve ambiguities that might result from these scenarios via new international space agreements. How might we expect those to play out?
There's also the fact that ratification of OST (wholly or partially) might perhaps bring some standing to the issues at play, but there's really not all that much preventing a dissenting government from exiting it as well, despite international (Earth) condemnation. Orphaned citizens in space? Might sound crazy, but the fall of the Soviet Union did result in exactly this scenario for an astronaut that had to go through a harrowing survival situation for a very long time until things were resolved down on Earth.
> Orphaned citizens in space? Might sound crazy, but the fall of the Soviet Union did result in exactly this scenario for an astronaut that had to go through a harrowing survival situation for a very long time until things were resolved down on Earth.
In the grand scheme of things a handful of murderers going free or a ship of people stranded in space isn't the end of the world, and for almost everybody else they would be nothing more than a curiosity. These are hypotheticals that are easy to personify and therefore may seem to require urgent attention, but that's mostly illusory. (As evidenced by the fact that even when we use supposedly "real life" stories, we leave out many of the most important details; details that almost always admit of other possible endings easily reached.) The "plight" of the Mir cosmonaut paled in comparison to the plight of people down below, and in any event it's difficult to imagine a treaty having accounted for this kind of event--dissolution of a state. It may have been just as likely that a treaty would have bound the hands of signatories; signatories who might otherwise have permitted him to land--lawfully, unlawfully, or otherwise--when he truly neared the end of his rope.
At their best treaties improve the consistency and application of normative international law, and on occasion accelerate their maturation. But at their worst treaties become dumping grounds for wants rather than needs, ideals rather than practicalities; and thus are likely to injure consistency and fair application of the law in the long-term. And unlike domestic statutory laws, treaties can be very difficult to change. From a real politick perspective states are free to ignore them, but in doing so they injure the effectiveness of other treaties and the rule of law generally. (See how pharmaceutical companies have effectively locked the United States into a strong patent regime based on a complex system of multilateral and bilateral treaties.)
My only point is that these matters are not as urgent as often described and rarely without alternative remedies. Legal systems aren't usually so brittle and technical that they fall apart in the face of such seemingly novel events. And in any event, in the realm of international law and international relations avoiding the possibility of technical gaps a priori is not and should not be a high priority, and can have significant unintended consequences which are far more difficult to rectify than most other areas of the law. Letting experience and exigency be our guide might seem lazy, but it also helps keep the system accountable and grounded when there are very few mechanisms for achieving that.
While you did carve out the exceptions earlier for (my summary) laws essentially being created in reaction to actual events occurring, I think this misses some novel aspects at hand here. Citizenship, and by proxy the (choice?) of personal jurisdiction for persons born on another celestial body are certainly not issues that maritime law can provide absolute analogies for, if these realities come to pass with long term inhabitation.
As I think your comment implies, OST is wholly insufficient for any of these new problems, and so it does seem clear that there is a need to resolve ambiguities that might result from these scenarios via new international space agreements. How might we expect those to play out?
There's also the fact that ratification of OST (wholly or partially) might perhaps bring some standing to the issues at play, but there's really not all that much preventing a dissenting government from exiting it as well, despite international (Earth) condemnation. Orphaned citizens in space? Might sound crazy, but the fall of the Soviet Union did result in exactly this scenario for an astronaut that had to go through a harrowing survival situation for a very long time until things were resolved down on Earth.