@Mangetout (Mangetout) posted a new topic, subject "Legality of purloining sample return canisters from Mars". It read:

   Money is no object (I have received emails from many rich, dying widows wanting to write me into their wills for many millions of dollars each and I will soon be the richest human on the planet, I am sure of it).  
    I am going to fund the creation of my own Mars lander, which will follow in the tracks of the Perseverance rover, collect up all of the sample return containers it poops out, stow them in my own ‘return vehicle', which will launch them into the sun, or Jupiter (I haven't decided yet)
    
    Leaving aside the morality of such a dick move, can I be charged with any crime, and under which jurisdiction would it be prosecuted?

So @Stranger_On_A_Train (Stranger On A Train) replied

    This is an interesting question in the field of so-called “space law”, which is to say that there is essentially no formal jurisdiction in space beyond Earth orbit nor any means of enforcement. However, presuming you are a citizen of the United States and your operations are dictated from or by an entity incorporated or otherwise established (e.g. a partnership, joint venture, private action, et cetera) within the jurisdiction of the United States, the government could seek an injunction or other legal remedies against your interference and damages arising from your actions on Earth.
    
    Whether this could actually be regarded as a criminal act is another matter; from a quick reading of 14 CFR I can't see that there is any established law regarding the interference with or theft of objects on celestial bodies. If you brought the rocks back to the United States as an independent organization you might be charged duties for importation (for which NASA is explicitly exempt) but sending them to another destination would seem to be beyond the scope of the Code of Federal Regulations. However, you would probably not want to try to send it directly into the Sun owing to the prohibitive energy cost of doing so; slinging it outward would be much easier and then do a gravity maneuver with Jupiter or Saturn to kill the orbital momentum, or else plotting a complex swingby trajectory to Venus-Earth-Venus-Mercury or something similar to remove the orbital component of velocity.
    
    Getting back to the mutable laws of Earth rather than the inexorable laws of gravitation, there is the hypothetical crime of vandalism or theft of government property, not of the samples themselves, which are arguably not in possession of NASA until they are actually within a vehicle but rather the canisters that NASA delivered and are marked as property, but you could also argue that these are salvage since there is no currently defined mission to actually collect these. Hypothetically, I suppose you could return them to Earth and claim a salvage bounty for them, and were it less than the cost of launching their own mission NASA might even be willing to pay you for it.
    
    The only treaty that really discusses celestial bodies beyond Earth orbit is the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, a.k.a. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, and the pertinent articles are VII and VIII, reproduced below:
    
    > **Article VII**  
    >  Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.
    > 
    > **Article VIII**  
    >  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. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party of the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.
    
    I would not assume my reading of the subject is the last word since ‘space law' is really a nascent area of jurisprudence, and you would be wise to seek other, more expert opinions. To that end I would suggest that you advance your question to LegalEagle, perhaps with the suggestion that he enjoin Scott Manley and/or Vintage Space curator Amy Shira Teitel, not because I think you'll get a more definitive answer but just because I would find it entertaining to watch a KSP simulation and hear about the history of ‘space law'.
    
    Stranger

After which, @Mangetout (Mangetout) added

    Ohhhh, collab with LegalEagle would be so much fun! Other questions could include whether Nasa is littering on Mars…

@Grrr (Grrr!) replied

    Didn't the Straight Dope do an article “What if someone stole the flag that's on the moon?” Once? I could be misremembering. But I vaguely remember reading something like that.

To which @MrDibble (Not censoring Nazis is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-Nazi.) replied

    Mangetout:
    
    > whether Nasa is littering on Mars
    
    No, littering is discarding _trash_. The sample canisters are serving their intended purpose, so are not trash.

After which, @wolfpup (wolfpup) added

    MrDibble:
    
    > No, littering is discarding _trash_ . The sample canisters are serving their intended purpose, so are not trash. 
    
    What about all the junk that rained down on Mars – the now-mangled heat shield, the wreck of the backshell, and the crashed descent stage? This is littering, big-time. If I was a Martian, I'd be getting out my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

To which @Mangetout (Mangetout) replied

    Isn't there some nuance to that? I mean, I could write some lovely messages of peace to all mankind, put them in plastic bottles and toss them in the ocean to spread love and joy. That's an intended purpose, but it's also littering.

@MrDibble (Not censoring Nazis is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-Nazi.) replied

    wolfpup:
    
    > What about all the junk that rained down on Mars – the now-mangled heat shield, the wreck of the backshell, and the crashed descent stage?
    
    Oh, yeah, those definitely are litter.
    
    Mangetout:
    
    > Isn't there some nuance to that?
    
    Oh, sure, I agree. But with the sample canisters, there is an intent to retrieve them, which puts them firmly on the “not trash” side. With  & messages in bottles, they're just randomly dispersed, not intended for anyone specific, which yes, makes them a kind of litter.
    
    So, I guess the nature of the intent matters, too.

So @wolfpup (wolfpup) replied

    IANAL, but if I was (or even if I were) and was acting for the prosecution, I would think the strongest argument would be theft or sabotage of government property, with the value of said property assessed at the portion of the mission cost due to the sample collection objective.
    
    However, if a very rich person actually did this, it would probably be wiser to forego all charges in return for them turning over all their technology and going to work for NASA.

After which, @Chronos (Chronos) added

    I think that, regardless of the actual status or lack thereof of space law, as a practical matter the US government would claim jurisdiction, as they were the victims of the theft/vandalism, and if the US claims jurisdiction, who in the world is going to dispute them?
    
    The nation you launched from could also potentially claim jurisdiction, and if the nation you launched from is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty, then any other signatory nation could also claim jurisdiction.

So @mbh (mbh) replied

    If _Curiosity_ , _Opportunity_ , _Spirit_ , and _Sojourner_ got together and lynched **Mangetout** 's rover, would **Mangetout** have any recourse?

To which @Stranger_On_A_Train (Stranger On A Train) replied

    Chronos:
    
    > think that, regardless of the actual status or lack thereof of space law, as a practical matter the US government would claim jurisdiction, as they were the victims of the theft/vandalism, and if the US claims jurisdiction, who in the world is going to dispute them?
    > 
    > The nation you launched from could also potentially claim jurisdiction, and if the nation you launched from is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty, then any other signatory nation could also claim jurisdiction.
    
    ‘Jurisdiction' implies enforceability, both the legal consensus and physical abilities to affect detainment and impose penalties. If a jerkish billionaire ‘space pirate'–we'll call him Emon Thrush for the sake of reference–took his fortune in resources and equipment, went to Mars, and started wrecking NASA equipment just to show he could, there would be no effective way for the US government to impose any jurisdiction on Pirate Emon, notwithstanding that there is no caselaw or (as far as I am aware) precedent for legal action. The President could order the Space Force and SOCOM to send a “Beyond Top Secret” team of Space Raiders or Purple Beret Strike Force commandos on a _L. B. Johnson_ -class interplanetary frigate to Mars and fly DHC-21 ‘Quad Orca' dropship to collect Mr. Thrush and extralegally rendition him back to US territory to stand trial in the secret Extraterrestrial Terrorism Court held in an allegedly unpressurized storage module on the ISS, but all of these services and abilities would have to be stood up and developed, by which time Mr. Thrush would have doubtlessly moved onto Titan or Enceledus, or maybe a recursively simulated reality inside his own brain developed by his ‘Neuroloop' company.
    
    Stranger

So @Kimera757 (Kimera757) replied

    Mangetout:
    
    > Other questions could include whether Nasa is littering on Mars…
    
    If Martians sued us for litter, I would celebrate. Unless they arrive with disintegration pistols.
    
    More seriously, I would like to see what laws would look like if other planets were colonized. (Even more complicated, what if there's aliens on those planets, and they're less technologically advanced?)

So @Chronos (Chronos) replied

    The OP was positing sending an unmanned probe to carry out the theft, while he himself presumably stayed here on Earth. The US government might not have the capability to enforce anything on Mars, but they certainly can enforce against a person on Earth, even a person in another country on Earth.

To which @ASL_v2.0 (ASL) replied

    Stranger_On_A_Train:
    
    > ‘Jurisdiction' implies enforceability, both the legal consensus and physical abilities to affect detainment and impose penalties. If a jerkish billionaire ‘space pirate'–we'll call him Emon Thrush for the sake of reference–took his fortune in resources and equipment, went to Mars, and started wrecking NASA equipment just to show he could, there would be no effective way for the US government to impose any jurisdiction on Pirate Emon, notwithstanding that there is no caselaw or (as far as I am aware) precedent for legal action. The President could order the Space Force and SOCOM to send a “Beyond Top Secret” team of Space Raiders or Purple Beret Strike Force commandos on a _L. B. Johnson_ -class interplanetary frigate to Mars and fly DHC-21 ‘Quad Orca' dropship to collect Mr. Thrush and extralegally rendition him back to US territory to stand trial in the secret Extraterrestrial Terrorism Court held in an allegedly unpressurized storage module on the ISS, but all of these services and abilities would have to be stood up and developed, by which time Mr. Thrush would have doubtlessly moved onto Titan or Enceledus, or maybe a recursively simulated reality inside his own brain developed by his ‘Neuroloop' company.
    
    Titan from Mars? Why not light speed to another star system?
    
    If you're not going to bound the behavior of your space pirate to some kind of shared reality in which they are not immeasurably more advanced than every nation and every other private entity on Earth, then you've effectively asked "How might the government catch a criminal who is protected at all times by a magic uncatachability spell?
    
    Because outside of that, the answer is, if the law doesn't currently fit the situation on Mars, it will be made to fit when it needs to. If it somehow _cannot_ be made to fit due to practical reasons (such as difficulties in apprehension or extradition) then there are other options available. The US government has been using them on alleged or suspected terrorists and (other countries') insurgents for years now, and rigging up a satellite to do something similar might take a few years, but otherwise is probably doable with something like present technology.

To which @susan (Perfectly cromulent.) replied

    Are the standards for flotsam vs. jetsam bound by jurisdiction?

@Mangetout (Mangetout) replied

    MrDibble:
    
    > Oh, sure, I agree. But with the sample canisters, there is an intent to retrieve them, which puts them firmly on the “not trash” side. With  & messages in bottles, they're just randomly dispersed, not intended for anyone specific, which yes, makes them a kind of litter.
    > 
    > So, I guess the nature of the intent matters, too.
    
    Yeah, that makes sense - there has to be sincere and credible intent, otherwise I could just drop a wrapper in the street and say it's not littering, because I'll probably come back later for it.

To which @Peter_Morris (Peter Morris) replied

    Stranger_On_A_Train:
    
    > I would not assume my reading of the subject is the last word since ‘space law' is really a nascent area of jurisprudence, and you would be wise to seek other, more expert opinions.
    
    It is my understanding that Space Law falls under Maritime Law, with Mars being international waters.
    
    Calling @Princhester.

So @DesertDog (DesertDog - he/him) replied

    Kimera757:
    
    > If Martians sued us for litter, I would celebrate. Unless they arrive with disintegration pistols.
    
    That's worrisome only if they're better than ours.

So @Stranger_On_A_Train (Stranger On A Train) replied

    ASL_v2.0:
    
    > Because outside of that, the answer is, if the law doesn't currently fit the situation on Mars, it will be made to fit when it needs to. If it somehow _cannot_ be made to fit due to practical reasons (such as difficulties in apprehension or extradition) then there are other options available. The US government has been using them on alleged or suspected terrorists and (other countries') insurgents for years now, and rigging up a satellite to do something similar might take a few years, but otherwise is probably doable with something like present technology.
    
    Sure, new law can be passed, or potentially existing law can be interpreted to create a new precedent, e.g. theft or vandalism of government property (which can be applied by the US government on a US citizen even if the act occurred in an extraterritorial location). But, as it stands, there is really no US law regarding the use of objects in space beyond Earth orbit, and the only treaties that exist really govern the responsibilities of governments in relation to one another and citizens thereof.
    
    As for our hypothetical billionaire thumbing his nose by going from Mars to the moons of Saturn, the entire paragraph was intended to be (and I hope, interpreted as) hyperbolic and satirical, but the point remains that if someone can remove themselves from any effective action by a government, any theoretical jurisdiction they can impose is just so much hot air escaping into the void. There is no place on the surface of the Earth that a criminal could secure themselves and not be accessed by some means of action, be it legal, military, covert and extrajudicial, et cetera. But someone with the capacity of “purloining sample return canisters from Mars” is already exhibiting technical means that equal or exceed what even major governments can accomplish today
    
    Peter_Morris:
    
    > It is my understanding that Space Law falls under Maritime Law, with Mars being international waters.
    
    Nope; modern international maritime law is primarily governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which formalized an array of multilateral treaties and imposed jurisdiction through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea along with the International Maritime Organization, International Seabed Authority, and the International Whaling Commission. It is specifically relating to the definition of international waters (which is still subject to dispute, most notably today with the Peoples Republic of China asserting control of the South China Sea via the contested Spratly Islands) and does not extend into airspace (governed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Avaiation) or into orbital space or beyond. It could potentially be used as a model for interplanetary commerce, exploration, and exploitation but the question remains how it could be enforced on parties beyond the effective jurisdiction of Earth-bound governments.
    
    Stranger

After which, @ASL_v2.0 (ASL) added

    Stranger_On_A_Train:
    
    > But someone with the capacity of “purloining sample return canisters from Mars” is already exhibiting technical means that equal or exceed what even major governments can accomplish today
    
    But that's the wrong standard. Because inasmuch as no government yet has the ability to exercise jurisdiction on Mars, no private citizen has the means to “purloin” Mars samples. I see no reason to hold one side of this problem to present technological limitations, but allow the other some unmatched futuristic head start. Particularly as arranging something akin to a drone strike on Mars is probably already achievable with current technology.
    
    The question of how Earth-bound governments might enforce their laws on space pirates is no more open than the question of how a presently Earth-bound humans or their descendants might turn to space piracy. The legality is one thing, the enforcement is another. I am simply positing that when it becomes necessary to exert jurisdiction in space, Earth-bound governments will figure it out from the legislative side soon enough. Or perhaps they will simply apply current legislation, particularly if their own citizens and property are involved. I think it's fair to assume that if a private citizen has means to break the law in space, then governments will have means to reach out and touch them in some way.

Then @Stranger_On_A_Train (Stranger On A Train) said

    ASL_v2.0:
    
    > But that's the wrong standard. Because inasmuch as no government yet has the ability to exercise jurisdiction on Mars, no private citizen has the means to “purloin” Mars samples. I see no reason to hold one side of this problem to present technological limitations, but allow the other some unmatched futuristic head start. Particularly as arranging something akin to a drone strike on Mars is probably already achievable with current technology.
    
    This was literally the hypothetical situation posed by the o.p. If you take issue with even considering that, you need to address that objection to the o.p.
    
    Stranger

@Mangetout (Mangetout) replied

    Stranger_On_A_Train:
    
    > If you take issue with even considering that, you need to address that objection to the o.p.
    
    I'm not sure how I could contribute to the argument you guys are having.

So @Princhester (Princhester) replied

    Actually what you are talking about here is, in the profession, called the law of the sea rather than maritime law.
    
    Your average working maritime lawyer doesn't tend to need to know too much about law of the sea.
    
    @Peter_Morris i don't think there's any overlap but if there is I have no clue.

@Peter_Morris (Peter Morris) replied

    Mark Watney will be upset to learn that.

Then @Stranger_On_A_Train (Stranger On A Train) said

    I think Mark Watney really just wanted to call himself a “space pirate”.
    
    Stranger

Then @ASL_v2.0 (ASL) said

    Stranger_On_A_Train:
    
    > This was literally the hypothetical situation posed by the o.p. If you take issue with even considering that, you need to address that objection to the o.p.
    
    I don't see where the OP requires such a mismatch. Indeed, the OP doesn't even seem to require that the perpetrator be off-planet. Launching a rocket with a probe from the US with a mission to steal the samples might also, for instance, fit the bill.
    
    The question posited by the OP (which you did not write) was:
    
    Mangetout:
    
    > Leaving aside the morality of such a dick move, can I be charged with any crime, and under which jurisdiction would it be prosecuted?
    
    If you are a US citizen, the US can exercise jurisdiction over you even for crimes (against US federal law) committed abroad. If you're not a US citizen, then I suppose it depends. Are you a US citizen?
    
    I'd also note that, were this not all just a hypothetical, engaging others to come up with a plan to steal these samples (commit larceny) might subject you to charges of conspiracy to, solicitation to, or attempt to commit larceny on that property. So jurisdiction could probably be exercised just as soon as it became apparent you were creating a rocket and a lander for that purpose.

@pjd ((optional)) replied

    It could also be art.

@Mangetout (Mangetout) replied

    ASL_v2.0:
    
    > If you are a US citizen, the US can exercise jurisdiction over you even for crimes (against US federal law) committed abroad. If you're not a US citizen, then I suppose it depends. Are you a US citizen?
    
    No, UK, but I think there is an extradition treaty, so no hiding place here.

So @ASL_v2.0 (ASL) replied

    I'd imagine the words of the treaty would matter, then. Because what seems lost in a lot of these discussions about the force of laws in space and space piracy versus international law, etc, etc is how much of it hinges on whether not the waters are “muddied” by the absence of _other_ grounds for jurisdiction. In Antartica, for instance, the problem isn't so much that the US or any other nation can't figure out how to try someone for a crime committed in Antarctica, but rather how to unravel the mess of perhaps competing jurisdictions with international research groups and some controversy over whether or not any nation can claim territory on the continent. Which is where the Antarctic Treaty System would come into play.
    
    So with you turning to larceny on Mars (or just designing a probe to accomplish the same, even without leaving Earth yourself), an added hurdle would be whether or not there is some limitation in any US treaty with the UK that might bear on the question of jurisdiction. It may turn out that in your specific case, the answer is trivial. Or it may not. Because while international law and the law of the sea are nice and all, the laws of the US, UK, and the treaties between the two are going to matter more in your specific case.
    
    Which is why I think hypotheticals can be tricky. It may be that some underlying facts of law that we might be tempted to assume away as being beyond the scope of the question (jurisdiction for crimes committed in space) are actually essential to the answer (crimes committed in space against US property by a citizen of the UK).
    
    IANAS(pace)L

After which, @md-2000 (MD) added

    I suppose an analogous case would be - what if I decided to steal or vandalize fishing nets or lobster traps put out on the high seas (or in the South China Sea), or free-floating scientific research buoys? You car does not stop being your car because you parked it on public property, either.
    
    As mentioned, the distinction is what the government can do to you legally, vs. physically. As Julian Assange may point out, even if the government really doesn't seem to have a legitimate case, the trick is to get from argument to result.

So @Chronos (Chronos) replied

    Treaties might give other countries jurisdiction as well, but the US (as owner of the stolen property) would have jurisdiction regardless. It's quite possible, even common, for multiple sovereignties to have jurisdiction over the same crime.


{'source': 'discourse', 'url': 'https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-purloining-sample-return-canisters-from-mars/937854', 'title': 'Legality of purloining sample return canisters from Mars', 'views': 1286, 'has_accepted_answer': False, 'word_count': 4066, 'like_count': 0, 'reply_count': 22, 'participant_count': 15, 'posts': 32, 'tags': '', 'author': '@Mangetout (Mangetout)', 'participants': '@Mangetout (Mangetout), @Stranger_On_A_Train (Stranger On A Train), @Grrr (Grrr!), @MrDibble (Not censoring Nazis is not a neutral stance, it is actively pro-Nazi.), @wolfpup (wolfpup), @Chronos (Chronos), @mbh (mbh), @Kimera757 (Kimera757), @ASL_v2.0 (ASL), @susan (Perfectly cromulent.), @Peter_Morris (Peter Morris), @DesertDog (DesertDog - he/him), @Princhester (Princhester), @pjd ((optional)), @md-2000 (MD)', 'image_url': [None], 'created_at': '2021-03-13T22:38:02.906Z', 'last_posted_at': '2021-03-16T21:27:24.353Z'}