ABSTRACT
Neither scholars nor policymakers have agreed on a common understanding of the CHM, but a working definition would likely comprise five main elements (Frakes 2003: 411-413). First, there can be no appropriation of a common heritage space, though some scholars have argued that this prohibition should not necessarily be viewed as a significant impediment to regulation (Baslar 1998: 90, 235). Second, all nations must work together to manage global common pool resources and global public goods. As collective management is impractical, though, a specialized agency must be created to aid in coordination, such as the International Seabed Authority that manages deep seabed mining. Third, all nations must share in the benefits derived from exploiting global common pool resources in common heritage regions. Fourth, these spaces should be used for peaceful purposes. But what constitutes “peaceful” differs depending on the common heritage region in question; the Antarctic Treaty regime, for example, equates peaceful use with barring “any measures of a military nature” (Baslar 1998: 106), which differs from the more permissive definition in the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. The latter accord, commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty, preserves space “exclusively for peaceful purposes” and even addresses the “harmful contamination” of outer space, but it has not directly led to the sustainable, peaceful use of space, in part because of ambiguity in the treaty language. Finally, common heritage regions must be protected for posterity, highlighting the intergenerational equity considerations at the heart of the CHM (see Justice).
