ddi11 KM Wood Segura 1NC vs. CO Dean by linxiaoqin


									60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
Space development means research, development and activities to facilitate exploration
[Space Development Promotion Act of the Republic of Korea, Journal of Space Law, 33, 5-31,
http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/library/space/Korea/Laws/33jsl175.pdf, Caplan]

      Article 2 (Definitions) Definitions of terms used in this Act are as follows:
      (a) The term “space development” means one of the following:
      (i) Research and technology development activities related to design, production, launch, operation, etc. of space objects;
      (ii) Use and exploration of outer space and activities to facilitate them;
      (b) The term “space development project” means a project to promote space development or a project to pursue the
      development of education, technology, information, industry, etc. related to space development;
      (c) The term “space object” means an object designed and manufactured for use in outer space, including a launch
      vehicle, a satellite, a space ship and their components;
      (d) The term “space accident” means an occurrence of damage to life, body or property due to crash, collision or
      explosion of a space object or other situation;
      (e) The term “satellite information” means image, voice, sound or data acquired by using a satellite, or in formation made
      of their combination, including processed or applied information.

The aff declares the United States bound by international law that prohibits development and
exploration of space

Vote neg
Our definition allows them to read any aff that mandates development of technologies for space
exploration or physically going up into space.

Aff is the definition of bidirectionality—they increase space laws to decrease exploration

Key to preserve core neg ground like the on-ground CPs or spending DAs that are based off of actually
increasing space assets development—And that’s necessary to give meaning to the word substantial in the
resolution—not increasing development makes it unquantifiable

Their aff should be negative ground—we lose the privatization CP and all of our politics and spending
DAs because links are based on going up into space, not setting space laws

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                          DDW 2011

                                                             KORUS 1NC
KORUS will pass now that debt ceiling deal has been worked out
Reuters ’11. Doug Palmer, writer for Reuters, 8-1-2K11, ‘U.S. business hopes debt deal clears way for trade’.
      WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - A deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling after weeks of tough talks between the White
      House and Congress has raised hope leaders will now turn their attention to resolving difference blocking three long-
      delayed trade deals, U.S. business groups said on Monday. "It would be good if we can start those wheels turning before
      (lawmakers) go away" for their month-long August recess, said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade
      Council, whose members include major exporters such as Boeing (BA.N) and Caterpillar (CAT.N). The ugly negotiations
      over raising the debt ceiling and cutting the huge budget deficit occupied most of the White House and congressional
      leaders' time in July, blocking work on a deal to move the trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama to Congress
      for votes. But now that it looks like Congress will approve a debt agreement, "I think there's a very strong desire to come
      together and work out something" on the trade accords, said Bill Morley, president of Altrius Group, which lobbies on
      behalf of the American Chamber of Commerce in Colombia. Morley said he hoped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and
      Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell would "lay out a framework" for action in September on the pacts and a worker
      retraining program known as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). That would give South Korea, Colombia and Panama
      some reassurance that years of U.S. delay in passing the agreement are nearly over, he said. However, congressional aides
      said it was unclear whether such an announcement would come. There have been "productive" talks with leaders in the
      House of Representatives and the Senate, but "there is not an agreement on a path forward," a Senate Democratic aide said.
      The administration expects the three pacts to boost exports by about $13 billion, helping to create or support about 70,000
      jobs and giving the U.S. economy a much-needed lift. The deals were all signed during the administration of former
      President George W. Bush. However, they languished because of strong opposition from Democrats, who controlled the
      House of Representative from 2006 through 2010. Frank Vargo, vice president at the National Association of
      Manufacturers, said his group estimates American workers would have earned $12 billion more in wages and benefits over
      the past several years had the pacts not been delayed. Unless the debt deal falls apart and "turns everything upside down ...
      I am optimistic for the trade agreements in September," Vargo said.

The plan is unpopular, kills capital—resource distribution
Melissa, Sturge. J.D. Candidate, 1998, Washington College of Law, American University; Note and
Comment Editor, American University International Law Review. BA.,1993, Bucknell University, from
1999, "Who Should Hold Property Rights to the Human Genome? An Application of the Common Heritage of
Humankind." American University International Law Review 13, no. 1 (1999): 219-261

      The Common Heritage of Mankind principle is an international legal concept which conveys equal property interests to all
      people. Less developed countries have embraced the Common Heritage concept4 as the embodiment of the combination of
      customary international law withjus cogens status.'45 The Common Heritage doctrine includes four characteristics: 1) no
      country can appropriate for itself the territory in question; 2) all states share responsibility for managing the territory;146 3)
      all states share in the benefits from exploitation of the territory or its resources; and 4) all countries must use the territory
      for exclusively peaceful purposes. 147 In addition, legal bodies sometimes include a fifth characteristic, that all countries
      have a shared responsibility for preserving the unique or irreplaceable resources of the territory in question for future
      generations.4 The Common Heritage concept is unpopular with developed countries that do not agree with its goal of
      redistributing resources to less developed countries.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                                                      DDW 2011

                                                                         KORUS 1NC
Political capital’s key – KORUS prevents Korea war
WSJ 10 (Wall Street Journal, 2010, “A Korea-U.S. Trade Deal, At Last”,
        The Korea pact is a step forward, but now the President has to sell it. What a long, strange trip it's been for the South Korea-U.S. free trade
        agreement. The two sides announced this weekend that they've reached a deal on revisions to the draft that was signed in 2007 but never ratified. It
        comes not a moment too soon, given the boost this will give to a U.S. economy stumbling its way to recovery and with tensions
        rising on the Korean peninsula. The saga is also a lesson to future U.S. Presidents on the importance of trade leadership. Having campaigned
        against the pact in 2008, President Obama rediscovered its benefits once in office. Yet by then he was forced to re-open negotiations to justify his earlier
        opposition. The result is a deal that is slightly better than the excellent 2007 text in some ways, but slightly worse in others. And this after a delay that
        has cost the U.S. global credibility on economic issues, not to mention the cost to U.S. growth. The good news is that the 2007 agreement
        stays mostly in place. South Korea still offers significant opening of its sheltered economy to American manufactured goods, agriculture and services.
        Within five years of ratification the deal will eliminate tariffs on 95% of the countries' trade in goods, and it also clears the way for greater trade in
        services by, for instance, opening Korea's banking industry. Meanwhile, some of the changes to that 2007 text are helpful. The trade in cars was the main
        sticking point, especially as Detroit worried about Korea's longstanding use of technical barriers like onerous safety standards to limit imports. Negotiators
        have added a provision that ensures new environmental standards proposed by Seoul over the past three years won't become de facto trade barriers. Yet
        some of the new auto provisions are worse than what Detroit had before. Conspicuously, Korea's current 8% tariff on imported U.S. cars—which would
        have been eliminated immediately upon ratification under the 2007 deal—now will be cut in half immediately but eliminated only after five years.
        Compare that to the European Union's agreement with Korea, which is signed and due to take effect next July. That deal gradually phases out Korea's 8%
        car tariff over four years. That means that over the next few years Detroit will miss what would have been the advantage of zero tariffs compared to rates
        of 2% to 6% on EU cars, and toward the end of the five-year period tariffs on EU cars will be lower than on American cars. The biggest mistake Mr.
        Obama and Democrats made was allowing one vocal lobby—Detroit and its unions—to hijack debate on a comprehensive deal covering almost all trade.
        Consider the main "victory" for Detroit: Korea has agreed to let America phase out its 25% tariff on pickup trucks more slowly. That will come at a stiff
        price to American buyers of those trucks, including many small businesses that delayed purchases during the recession. Some farmers have also become
        collateral damage. Seoul couldn't walk away from re-opened talks empty-handed, and one concession it extracted is a two-year delay, to 2016, in
        eliminating tariffs on some U.S. pork. American pork producers are excited about any deal, but they still would have been better off under the 2007 text.
        Chilean pork already enjoys lower tariffs thanks to the Chile-Korea FTA and has been gaining market share. The new tariff-elimination date also falls only
        six months before Korea's tariffs on EU pork will end under that deal, leaving Americans far less than the two-and-a-half years they would have had under
        the earlier text to get a marketing jump on their competitors. These caveats should not deter Congress from ratifying what is still an excellent deal. Mr.
        Obama has asked GOP House Speaker-designate John Boehner to assist in getting the pact approved, and we're told Mr. Boehner has suggested
        grouping this deal together with pending agreements with Colombia and Panama in a single House vote. This would make it easier for pro-trade
        forces in Congress to concentrate their political capital. Mr. Boehner will bring a majority or more of his GOP Members along,
        but Mr. Obama will have to spend his own political capital to rebuild American public support for free trade and gain Democratic
        support. The President would have made more progress toward his goal of doubling American exports if he had supported this deal in 2008 and pressed
        it through Congress in 2009. The failure in leadership was to side with the United Auto Workers and other unions against the national interest. Those who
        think they'll lose from trade always have the strongest motivation to lobby, while the consumers and businesses that benefit (such as American pickup
        truck buyers) are harder to organize. Every American President since Hoover in the 1920s has taken the broad view, speaking up for the many trade
        beneficiaries. U.S. public support for freer trade has eroded amid the recession and the lack of Presidential leadership. It is crucial for U.S.
        competitiveness in particular, and the world economy more broadly, that Mr. Obama and his allies make a strong and unapologetic case that
        trade is in the best interests of American businesses and workers.

The deal is key to deterring North Korea
Gerwin 10 (Edward F. Gerwin, Jr., Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Economic Policy "Guest Contribution: 5 Reasons America
Needs Korea Free Trade Deal" Dec 16 blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/12/16/guest-contribution-5-reasons-america-needs-korea-free-
     China is Not a Fan. The Korea FTA would solidify America’s strategic relationship with South Korea, a key ally. It would bolster
     stepped-up U.S. efforts to respond to an increasingly assertive China and a belligerent North Korea by building strong trade,
     diplomatic and security relationships with South Korea and other Pacific allies . The Agreement would also help America compete and
      win in Korea’s $1.3 trillion economy. In recent years, China has muscled aside the United States, and is Korea’s #1 supplier. The FTA’s advantages would
      help U.S. companies and workers win back business from China and others in this vital Asian market. So, while Fords and fillets are certainly important,
      the Korea FTA also includes other “beefy” benefits for American trade.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                                                  DDW 2011

                                                                       KORUS 1NC
Hayes and Green 10 - *Victoria University AND **Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute (Peter and Michael, “-“The Path
Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia”, 1/5,
      The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic
      issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of
      nuclear attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean
      Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile
      range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited
      nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New
      research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate far more quickly than global
      warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-
      sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual
      warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to a decrease in global
      temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper
      drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global
      average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow...The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production
      than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger...To make matters even worse, such amounts
      of smoke injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the
      only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin
      left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy
      via ecological and food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by comparison. How the great powers,
      especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use,
      could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and
      global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over fissile
      material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear
      proliferation issue is not just a regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                       DDW 2011

                                                           1NC CIL PIC
Text: The United States Federal Government should bind to the principle of space as the common
heritage of all, so defined to require the equitable sharing if space.

CP solves better- The customary international law is rooted in the neoliberal mindset.
Donald J. Kochan, Assistant Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, February 2006, Fordham
International Law Journal, 29 Fordham Int'l L.J. 507

      Customary international law offers one further leading edge of legal debate. That this is so is curious. The exponential
      growth of treaty law since World War II has left little room for the application of international custom. So too has the
      dominance of positivist conceptions of the law in general. The forces of globalization operate to expand customary
      international law nonetheless, especially with regard to human rights. At least in the United States, the internal strictures of
      the domestic legal regime traditionally welcomed rather than resisted international custom. The U.S. Constitution, to be
      sure, does not privilege customary law in the way it sanctions treaties. Yet conventional sources do strongly support a place
      for customary international law as part of U.S. federal law, including Founding understandings, persistent practice, and
      case law old and new. In Transnational Common Laws, n32 Professor H. Patrick Glenn goes these considerations one
      better. Whereas customary international law rests on the behavior and commitment of Nation-States, Professor Glenn's
      Essay reminds us that vast sources of international norms - what he terms transnational common law - has long transcended
      Nation-States altogether. Yet once more, not everything points the same way. As with judicial globalization, criminal
      prosecution, and even treaty enforcement, functional concerns about democratic self-government intrude. These concerns
      have resonated as customary international law endures and expands. In part, objections stem from the "mysterious" ways
      international custom solidifies. n33 At least in the United States, resistance further results from the perception that the
      judges who identify and apply customary international [*456] lawlack sufficient democratic pedigree. n34 As in related
      areas, internationalists ignore these concerns at international law's peril. This is not to say, however, that what peril
      exists cannot be addressed and avoided.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                                                                           DDW 2011
                                                                1NC CIL kills Democracy (1/2)
The customary international law kills democracy.
Robert R. Slaughter Rubenfeld, Professor, Yale Law School, 04
Jed, December, New York University Law Review, 79 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1971, p. 2017-2019

D. International Law and Democracy International law is antidemocratic. The existing international governance organizations are
famous for their undemocratic opacity, remoteness from popular or representative politics, elitism, and unac- countability. 2 8
International governance institutions and their officers tend to be bureaucratic, diplomatic, technocratic-everything but democratic.
That is why internationalization, as the sociologist and former German member of parliament Sir Ralf Dahrendorf puts it, "almost
invariably means a loss of democracy. '129 In the last ten years or so, it became common for internationalists to reply to this problem
by pointing to the growing influence of nongovernmental organizations (NGO) in international law circles, as if these equally
unaccountable, self-appointed, unrepresentative NGOs somehow exemplified world public opinion, and as if the antidemocratic nature
of international governance were a kind of small accountability hole that these NGOs could plug. 130 This invocation of NGOs as
world democratizers served only to highlight how out of touch many internationalists are with what would be actually necessary to
democratize international law. The brute fact is that there is no world democratic polity today; the largest entities in which democracy
exists are nation-states. As a result, international law can and does frequently conflict with democracy. The problem is not only
institutional-a matter of making international bodies more "transparent" or "accountable." The problem is also ideological. There is an
antidemocratic worldview built into the fundamental premises of a good deal of international law thought and practice. This
worldview finds its clearest expression in the international human rights discourse, where the views of democratic majorities in a
given country or, indeed, throughout the entire world, will be said to be "simply irrelevant" to the validity and authority of
international law: [Tlhe international lawyer [holds] that there are certain things a society cannot choose to do to itself. Where ...
human rights are concerned, international law looks past the fiction which underlies the social contract metaphor and prescribes rules
regarding individual citizens. The views of political majorities are simply irrelevant to the validity of such rules. Indeed, these rules
are only meaningful as counter-majoritarian rights .... 131 Democracy does not have much standing here. Consider how this view
would regard the controversy over the death penalty, which the "international community" condemns as a violation of human rights
law. Actual public opinion in Europe, however, tends to favor capital punishment, in some countries at about the same rate as in the
United States. 132 For the "international lawyer," however, this fact is "simply irrelevant." Because the "social contract" is a "fiction"-
which means, presumably, that not every individual really consents to the state's authority-"international law" is somehow entitled to
step into the breach and, where "human rights are concerned," to "prescribe [the] rules.' 3

The absence of democracy creates multiple scenarios for extinction
Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict October 95, "Promoting Democracy in the 1990's,"

This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could
easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly
corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones .Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on
Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated
with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to
war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically
"cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not
build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they
offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the
destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach
agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on
which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011

                                               1NC CIL kills Environment
CIL leads to a race to the bottom environmental policy- turns case
David Bederman, Professor of Law at the Emory University School of Law, summer 20 01, National Security: GLobalizaiton,
International Law and United States Foreign Policy,, Emory Law Journal, 50 Emory L.J. 717
     Rationality and cooperation can also come into bitter conflict. Today, at least, the global trade regime has been bitterly
     criticized by environmental advocates who maintain that it unnecessarily punishes the unilateral acts of environmentally
     progressive nations. When the United States imposed import restrictions on tuna caught by foreign fishermen with
     insufficient regard for the safety of dolphins (which swim with tuna and are often killed when nets are thrown), the affected
     nations sought relief before the institutions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT") and, later, the World
     Trade Organization ("WTO"). In a series of decisions, n40 GATT/WTO panels have ruled that nations may not unilaterally
     impose trade restrictions on tuna caught with dolphin (or shrimp caught with turtles), nor may they unreasonably require
     heightened environmental protection as a condition for trading in their markets (such as rules against certain fuel additives
     or hormones in beef). The difficulty with all this is that much recent international environmental lawmaking has been made
     by progressive states, with the international community following behind. WTO's requirement that environmental
     restrictions on trade can only be imposed multilaterally may delay some needed innovations. However, it will ensure that,
     once consensus is reached, effective international enforcement through global trade disciplines will be available.
     Rationality - as a surrogate for progress in the development of international law norms - can thus be seen to conflict with
     principles of cooperation, which tend to promote lowest-common-denominator diplomacy and "race to the bottom"
     economics. The trade/environment conflict is one reflection of this paradox. Likewise, rational outcomes are not necessarily
     fair ones. So [*738] questions of global distributive justice may well be on a collision course with other international law
     objectives. Indeed, some U.N. bodies have already observed that treaty protections granted for intellectual property rights
     (such as patents on seed varietals or copyrights on folklore produced by indigenous peoples) are in direct conflict with
     human rights to food, health, cultural identity, and scientific progress. n41 While certainly generating intellectual curiosity
     (and a substantial scholarly literature), the conflicts I have so far described tend to implicate either marginal doctrinal
     concerns or expected value choices. None of these seem to debilitate international law or deny it of any essential vigor.
     Some of these paradoxes we can readily live with and embrace, just as many other legal systems have accepted similar
     disparate results in the pursuit of multiple objectives. But some of them push the limits of any system's tolerance for
     contradiction. These challenges, however, do pose major challenges to U.S. foreign policymakers. Adherence to WTO trade
     disciplines or North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") free investment policies can cause inevitable
     degradations of sovereignty, and these will pose problems for the new Administration. Whether in the form of WTO panels
     penalizing certain forms of U.S. environmental or labor legislation, or NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitrations finding
     impermissible regulatory takings of Canadian investments, certain forms of domestic legislative, regulatory and
     adjudicative authority will be shifting to international institutions. Of course, the same thing will be happen-ing with our
     trade and investment partners, although to a more extensive degree. Globalization in this sense causes marginal transfers of
     power to those who stand to benefit by trade and investment liberalization.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                        DDW 2011

                                                       1NC Solvency (1/4)
1. Common heritage of mankind has lost its meaning—exploited to justify free-market exploitation
Christopher Garrison, M.A.(Oxon.) LL.M. (Lond.) E.P.A., July, 2007, Beneath the Surface: The common heritage of mankind ,

      At one end of the spectrum is the ‘strong’ form of CHM principle envisaged by Dr. Pardo and the developing countries of
      the G-77 during the NIEO for application to the deep seabed. Inevitably, given the changes that blew through the world in
      the 1980s and 1990s, much of the strength of this view of the CHM principle has been sapped: “...Although the area of the
      deep seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction is still called and declared as the common heritage of mankind, the
      term has lost its original meaning and substance when it symbolized the interests, needs, hopes and aspirations of a large
      number of poor peoples. The principle has lost its lustre and soul...”152. This change is not just the result of the increasing
      dominance of free market thinking however. The invention of the EEZ and its inclusion in the Law of the Sea Convention
      robbed much of the riches of the ocean from the zone of the international regime under the CHM principle. With the
      dwindling expectations of the wealth associated with this zone alone, as the dreams of an El Dorado on the abyssal plains
      faded, came a dwindling of practical impact that the concept was likely to have. This by no means indicates that the CHM
      itself withered away completely however. Far from it:

2. Russia, India, China, Japan all plan to go to the moon regardless of the Common Heritage. The US
has no influence on them.
Fred Guterl, is a Senior Editor at Newsweek International and directs the magazine's coverage of science, technology,
health, medicine and the environment, With Anna Nemtsova and Owen Matthews in Moscow, Melinda Liu in
Beijing, Tracy McNicholl in Paris and Sudip Mazumdar in Delhi, February 5, 2007, “Race to the Moon”,

                                                                                     it lost the moon race in the
      This legendary stinginess is the bane of Krikalev, and Russia's ace in the hole. Although
      1960s, since then Russia's space program has made a habit of performing heroic deeds on a shoestring-
      -in many respects besting its well-heeled U.S. rival. While NASA struggled with its unreliable and fabulously
      complex space shuttle, Russia was racking up the mileage with its simple, durable Proton boosters--even during the chaotic
      years following the Soviet Union's collapse. Now, despite Krikalev's complaints, Russia's space program is emerging from
      the lean years. Last year the Parliament voted a 33 percent increase for Roscosmos, the Russian Space Agency, bringing its
      budget, including income from the sale of launch services, to $1.7 billion a year. That money has given Russia the luxury of
      once again turning its eyes to the moon. It plans to send the first of five robotic probes in 2010 and follow up with a
      permanent research base by 2012. "In spite of the fact that we have less money, Russia's piloted space programs are still
      more effective than America's," says Igor Panarin, a Roscosmos official. Russia is not the only nation with renewed
      ambitions for manned spaceflight. China, a relative newcomer, has developed a booster capable of propelling a capsule to
      the moonand has now sent three astronauts into orbit. China plans to launch its first moon probe on April 17,
      NEWSWEEK has learned, and hopes eventually to follow up with a manned trip. Japan is moving ahead with a
      moon program. And last week an Indian flight successfully deployed four satellites, giving Prime Minister
      Atal Bihari Vajpayee's audacious promise in 2003 to send a spacecraft to the moon by 2008 at least a patina of realism.
      Why, after so many decades, is everybody now interested in sending people to the moon? Prestige and the desire simply to
      explore seem to be what's motivating NASA. President George W. Bush set a goal three years ago to establish a permanent
      base on the moon and eventually send a manned mission to Mars (though many critics argue for heading straight to the Red
      Planet). Unprecedented worldwide growth has pushed formerly impoverished nations like China, Russia
      and India into the cosmic middle class. And although technological spinoffs have always been a weak justification
      for ridiculously expensive manned missions, Russia and China have designs to mine the moon for its
      resources--particularly helium-3, a rare isotope that some scientists think could fuel nuclear fusion reactors and
      provide a source of clean energy. All this comes at a time when NASA, the world's premier space agency, is floundering. In
      December, NASA unveiled a more detailed map for reaching Mars via the moon. The Constellation Program, as it's called,

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                          DDW 2011
      would involve building a new booster rocket, Ares, capable of lugging all the gear needed for a moon trip, with a capsule
      on top to carry 4 to 6 astronauts. It would involve a lunar rendezvous--one ship waiting in lunar orbit while a second
      descends to the surface. If it sounds familiar, that's because the plan is strikingly similar to Apollo, last flown in the 1970s.

3. The Common Heritage fails and no one will abide by it because the space-faring states have not agreed
to it yet.
Zach Meyer, J.D. Candidate, 2010, Northwestern University School of Law, 2010, “Private Commercialization of Space in an
International Regime, A Proposal for a Space District”, 30 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 241

      First, it should be clarified why the Moon Treaty should be discussed at all. Some commentators have simply dismissed the
      Moon Treaty as irrelevant because it has been accepted by only a limited number of States. n52 But, truly, it is only the lack
      of a major space-faring State from the number of those States accepting the Moon Treaty that really motivates such [*250]
      dismissals. If the United States, Russia, or China either signed or ratified the Moon Treaty, surely those same commentators
      would think twice before dismissing the Moon Treaty as irrelevant. However, even by that standard of relevancy, the Moon
      Treaty is not permanently irrelevant. The company of space-faring States is increasing in size, and the club of major space-
      faring States is not as exclusive as it once was. Even among those few States who ratified or signed the Moon Treaty,
      space-faring status is not necessarily so far removed. India, one of the signatories to the Moon Treaty, is aggressively
      developing its space-faring capabilities and there is no reason to think it will not succeed sometime soon. n53 After all,
      China very quickly became a space-faring State once it similarly set out to develop space-faring capabilities. n54 But even
      if the Moon Treaty is not specifically relevant, the principles of the Moon Treaty reflect principles latent in the Outer Space
      Treaty. Collectively, the Outer Space Treaty and Moon Treaty promote a legal regime seemingly inhospitable to the
      commercialization of outer space. However, the two treaties do not prohibit the commercialization of outer space outright.
      Rather, the two treaties resist private ownership and appropriation, and even that resistance is not absolute. Ultimately, as
      will soon become apparent, the two treaties do permit the private ownership and appropriation necessary to commercialize
      space so long as international interests are given their due consideration. As a general observation, the Outer Space Treaty
      is steeped in the rhetoric of a "common interest of all mankind," especially expressing the concern that one part of "all
      mankind" - the less-developed States - will be left out of the exploration and use of outer space while the other part of "all
      mankind" - the developed States - will reap all the rewards of exploiting outer space. n55 Specifically, it declares that the
      exploration and use of outer space is to be conducted "for the benefit and in the interests of all countries ... and shall be the
      province of all mankind." n56 To that end, outer space is to "be free for exploration and use by all States without
      discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to
      all areas of celestial [*251] bodies." n57

4. No set interpretation of common heritage means no solvency
Scott J. Shackelford, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, J.D., June 2009 with distinction, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, M.Phil. in
International Relations, May 2006; Ph.D. Candidate, July 2012, INDIANA UNIVERSITY, B.A., summa cum laude, in Economics
and Political Science with Honors, August 2005, from
2008 “The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind”,

      Yet there remains no commonly agreed-to definition of the CHM amongst legal scholars or policymakers. Developing and
      developed nations disagree over the extent of international regulation required to equitably manage commons resources.
      These disagreements have played out in the diverse legal regimes of the Antarctic, deep seabed, Arctic, and outer space,
      each with its own version of the CHM principle. Although no universal definition exists, most conceptions of the CHM
      share five primary points. First, there can be no private or public appropriation of the commons.4 Second, representatives
      from all nations must manage resources since a commons area is considered to belong to everyone. Third, all nations must
      actively share in the benefits acquired from exploitation of the resources from the common heritage region. Fourth, there
      can be no weaponry or military installations established in commons areas. Fifth, the commons should be preserved for the
      benefit of future generations. But now even these basic preconditions are in flux, with states claiming large tracts of the
      Arctic; the United States, Russia, and China pursuing space weaponry; and oil companies drilling further out into the deep

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                        DDW 2011
                                    1NC- Property Rights K2 Space Debris (1/2)
Property rights solve collisions and debris
Wayne N. White, Attorney, speaking at the Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space conference, “Real Property Rights in Outer
Space”, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/real_property_rights_in_outer_space.shtml, 1997, JPW
      Under a regime of functional property rights, title would arise on the basis of a principle entirely different from traditional
      property rights. Conferral of title would not depend upon a government's control over a specific area, but rather upon its
      control over the space objects and personnel at that location. Once conferred, these rights would, nevertheless, be almost
      identical to terrestrial property rights. On Earth the exclusion of others from the use and enjoyment of a given area is the
      principal right associated with real property ownership. In space first-come, first-served occupation, and the prohibition
      against harmful interference with other states' activities provides states with a similar, albeit less clearly defined, right of
      exclusion. Property rights legislation would extend this right to a state's citizens. Functional property rights would be
      subject to the limitationsof Article VIII jurisdiction. These rights would terminate if activity were halted, as for example, if
      a space object was abandoned or returned to Earth. Finally, rights would be limited to the area occupied by the space object,
      and to a reasonable safety area around the facility. Hence, orbital property rights would extend only to the moving
      "envelope" occupied by a facility, and not to its entire orbital path. In other respects a real property regime could be
      structured at a state's discretion. States would determine the conditions necessary to establish and maintain property rights.
      They could follow the example of the United States' Homesteading Acts, and require owners to maintain a facility (and/or
      conduct certain activities) in a fixed location, for a specified period of time (e.g. one to five years), to establish a property
      right. The regime would have to specify the period of inactivity or abandonment necessary to extinguish a property right,
      and the permissible deviation of an orbital facility from its proper location. In outer space, requiring facility owners to
      maintain a fixed orbit offers several advantages. First, it will reduce the probability of collision. It seems likely that some
      sort of "space traffic control" will evolve to track and direct space objects; plotting titled orbital locations as constants
      would permit controllers to concentrate on space vehicles and satellites in less stable orbits. Facility owners would benefit
      from this arrangement if non-titled space objects (or space objects exceeding their parameters) were held presumptively
      liable in a collision. Secondly, fixed orbits discourage indiscriminate dumping of debris, because debris can be more easily
      tracked to plotted, fixed points of origin. Hence, courts would sometimes be able to assess liability for debris-caused
      damage. Functional property rights permit free access to all areas of outer space and celestial bodies because they do not
      necessitate territorial sovereignty and its consequent appropriation of large areas of space. Safety zones may extend to a
      reasonable distance around a facility, and exist only for the security of the facility and to promote safe navigation in its
      vicinity. The regime is attractive because it is so easy to implement. Nations can unilaterally enact legislation, and they can
      tailor that legislation to conform to their existing property laws. The regime will cost states virtually nothing to implement,
      yet it will encourage citizens to enter what promises to be a very lucrative field.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011

                                    1NC- Property Rights K2 Space Debris (2/2)
Space debris causes ozone depletion
Leonard Davis, writes for FOX News, 5/20/2009 “Space Junk May Be Harming Earth's Atmosphere,
      Indeed, as an object plows through the Earth's stratosphere , a shock wave is created that produces nitric oxide, a known
      cause of ozone depletion. Spacecraft and rocket motors are composed of metal alloys and composite materials that melt
      away during re-entry. The researchers found that these materials, as they undergo intense heating, also form chemicals that
      react directly or indirectly to consume ozone.

Ozone depletion will result in extinction.
Greenpeace, non-governmental environmental organization with offices in over 40 countries and with an international
coordinating body, 1995, Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone

      When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer
      depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible
      scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet
      radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet
      radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on
      other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally
      the continuation of life on earth.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                         DDW 2011
                                        1NC- Property Rights K2 Colonization
Property rights are key to colonization
Alan Wasser, Alan Wasser is a former broadcast journalist at ABC News and CBS News, who then owned and operated a
successful international business, which he sold. He was the Chairman of the Executive Committee (CEO) of the National Space
Society. Alan was also a member of the Board of Directors of ProSpace, and is an Advocate of the Space Frontier Foundation. Alan is
the originator of the idea of using land claim recognition to make privately funded space settlements potentially profitable, and
therefore possible in our lifetime. He is the author of numerous articles on the subject of space property rights, most recently in The
Explorers Journal, the official magazine of the Explorers Club, Space News, Ad Astra, Space Governance, Space Times and Space
Front among others. Space Governance published a rough draft of the proposed legislation. SMU Law School's Journal of Air Law &
Commerce, the oldest and most respected law journal in its field, recently published an article Alan co-wrote with Douglas Jobes,
entitled Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs to
Survive?, July 2011, http://www.spacesettlement.org/#02, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, JPW
      What is the real purpose of enacting a land claims recognition law? The creation of a legal system of property rights for
      space is not the long-term objective. The establishment of a property rights regime for space is only a means to an end, not
      an end in itself. The real purpose is to enable the expansion of the habitat of the human species beyond the Earth by
      offering a huge financial reward for privately funded settlement. It is the only way to create an economic incentive
      sufficient to encourage private investment to develop affordable human transport to the Moon and Mars. There are
      alternative space property rights schemes being proposed by some lawyers that would, instead, make settlement even harder
      than it would be now. They would require that, if you do pay to develop space transport, you would then have to pay the
      UN or some other body even more for the land you want to settle. Property rights legislation should be judged by how well
      it encourages space settlement, not on how elegant the resulting property rights system is. Property laws could be left to
      evolve after settlement, except that settlement just isn't happening without them, so we need something like this legislation
      to jumpstart it.

Extinction’s inevitable on earth – colonization’s key to survival.
Matheny 07 (Jason G., Research Associate at the Future of Human Institute at Oxford University, 12/7, Risk Analysis, Vol 27, Iss
5, pg 1336, “Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction” Wiley Online Library) SE
      We have some influence over how long we can delay human extinction. Cosmology dictates the upper limit but leaves a
      large field of play. At its lower limit, humanity could be extinguished as soon as this century by succumbing to near-term
      extinction risks: nuclear detonations, asteroid or comet impacts, or volcanic eruptions could generate enough atmospheric
      debris to terminate food production; a nearby supernova or gamma ray burst could sterilize Earth with deadly radiation;
      greenhouse gas emissions could trigger a positive feedback loop, causing a radical change in climate; a genetically
      engineered microbe could be unleashed, causing a global plague; or a high-energy physics experiment could go awry,
      creating a “true vacuum” or strangelets that destroy the planet (Bostrom, 2002; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007; Leslie, 1996;
      Posner, 2004; Rees, 2003). Farther out in time are risks from technologies that remain theoretical but might be developed in
      the next century or centuries. For instance, self-replicating nanotechnologies could destroy the ecosystem; and cognitive
      enhancements or recursively self-improving computers could exceed normal human ingenuity to create uniquely powerful
      weapons (Bostrom, 2002; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007; Ikle, 2006; Joy, 2000; Leslie, 1996; Posner, 2004; Rees, 2003).
      Farthest out in time are astronomical risks. In one billion years, the sun will begin its red giant stage, increasing terrestrial
      temperatures above 1,000 degrees, boiling off our atmosphere, and eventually forming a planetary nebula, making Earth
      inhospitable to life (Sackmann, Boothroyd, & Kraemer, 1993; Ward & Brownlee, 2002). If we colonize other solar
      systems, we could survive longer than our sun, perhaps another 100 trillion years, when all stars begin burning out (Adams
      & Laughlin, 1997). We might survive even longer if we exploit nonstellar energy sources. But it is hard to imagine how
      humanity will survive beyond the decay of nuclear matter expected in 10 32 to 1041 years (Adams & Laughlin, 1997). Physics

      seems to support Kafka's remark that “[t]here is infinite hope, but not for us.”

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                                     DDW 2011
                               1NC- Neoliberalism- Environ Impact Turn- last resort
Neoliberalism checks environmental destruction and lifts people out of poverty.
Goklany 7 (independent scholar writing on global and national environmental issues. 03-23-2007 The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer,
Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet, http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html)JFS
      Environmentalists and globalization foes are united in their fear that greater population and consumption of energy,
      materials, and chemicals accompanying economic growth, technological change and free trade—the mainstays of
      globalization—degrade human and environmental well-being. Indeed, the 20th century saw the United States’ population
      multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of chemicals by more
      than 100. Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease such as cancer, heart, and
      respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in the past century. Heart disease and cancer rates
      have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths have actually declined the last two years,
      despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality has declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in
      1913 to just seven per 1,000 today. These improvements haven’t been restricted to the United States. It’s a global
      phenomenon. Worldwide, life expectancy has more than doubled, from 31 years in 1900 to 67 years today. India’s and
      China’s infant mortalities exceeded 190 per 1,000 births in the early 1950s; today they are 62 and 26, respectively. In the
      developing world, the proportion of the population suffering from chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent
      between 1970 and 2001 despite a 83 percent increase in population. Globally average annual incomes in real dollars have
      tripled since 1950. Consequently, the proportion of the planet's developing-world population living in absolute poverty has
      halved since 1981, from 40 percent to 20 percent. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 percent to 18
      percent between 1960 and 2003. Equally important, the world is more literate and better educated than ever. People are
      freer politically, economically, and socially to pursue their well-being as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers,
      and have freedom of expression. They are more likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of
      life, limb, and property. Social and professional mobility have also never been greater. It’s easier than ever for people
      across the world to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth. People today work fewer hours
      and have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time than their ancestors. Man’s environmental record is more
      complex. The early stages of development can indeed cause some environmental deterioration as societies pursue first-
      order problems affecting human well-being. These include hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, and lack of education, basic
      public health services, safe water, sanitation, mobility, and ready sources of energy. Because greater wealth alleviates these
      problems while providing basic creature comforts, individuals and societies initially focus on economic development, often
      neglecting other aspects of environmental quality. In time, however, they recognize that environmental deterioration
      reduces their quality of life. Accordingly, they put more of their recently acquired wealth and human capital into
      developing and implementing cleaner technologies. This brings about an environmental transition via the twin forces of
      economic development and technological progress, which begin to provide solutions to environmental problems instead of
      creating those problems. All of which is why we today find that the richest countries are also the cleanest. And while many
      developing countries have yet to get past the “green ceiling,” they are nevertheless ahead of where today’s developed
      countries used to be when they were equally wealthy. The point of transition from "industrial period" to "environmental
      conscious" continues to fall. For example, the US introduced unleaded gasoline only after its GDP per capita exceeded
      $16,000. India and China did the same before they reached $3,000 per capita. This progress is a testament to the power of
      globalization and the transfer of ideas and knowledge (that lead is harmful, for example).

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM
60cf17c0-1025-43ab-b8e6-33e03036b22d.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011

                                    1NC- Neoliberalism- Innovation Impact Turn
Neoliberalism is key to innovation
Timothy Sandefur, is the lead attorney in the Economic Liberty Project at the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, California.
He is also a contributing editor of Liberty magazine, 2008, “Innovation”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics,

      There are two common sayings about innovation. The first is that “if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a
      path to your door.” In a seminal work on innovation, economist Jacob Schmookler gave credence to this view when he
      compared the rates at which patents were issued with the amount of investment in new technologies. Schmookler concluded
      that innovation is driven almost exclusively by economic demand: people engage in innovation out of a belief that the
      economic returns will be greater than its costs.19 But some economists criticize his approach as overly simplistic,
      particularly for ignoring factors independent of economics that heavily influence how innovation happens. 20 Mere demand
      for a new product or service is not enough to bring an innovation about.
      The other common saying holds that “necessity is the mother of invention.” But the reality is that leisure is the mother of
      innovation. In economic terms, surplus capital provides the necessary time and startup costs for implementing a new idea
      (see INVESTMENT).21 Because a new product or service, or even a new social more, might not succeed, a potential
      innovator must assemble the resources to permit him to begin implementation without a guaranteed return on the
      investment. The ability to assemble and invest capital is therefore indispensable for innovation of any sort, and capital is
      available only when some people have enough wealth to permit innovators to spend their time thinking creatively.

Innovation key to human survival.
Timothy Sandefur, is the lead attorney in the Economic Liberty Project at the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, California.
He is also a contributing editor of Liberty magazine, 2008, “Innovation”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics,

      Defenders of innovation, whom Virginia Postrel calls “dynamists,”16 argue that innovation is essential for solving
      problems that impose significant social and personal costs. For example, humans lived with disease and starvation for most
      of recorded history, but technological advancement has led to cures for many of these diseases and improved the production
      of food, with beneficial consequences for a great many people. The introduction of labor-saving technology was essential to
      this process even though it initially caused disruption by costing the jobs of manual laborers. Moreover, some defenders of
      innovation point out that some of what opponents see as “costs” of innovation are in reality benefits. C. P. Snow, for
      example, argues in The Two Cultures that opponents of innovation tend to overlook the suffering of disenfranchised groups,
      or even to romanticize it. Postrel criticizes Leon Kass’s views on medical science on these grounds, arguing that it is
      morally wrong to regard suffering and illness as essential parts of human experience that ought to be preserved.17 By
      contrast, defenders of innovation often see it as beneficial for innovation to disrupt social orders they see as unjust; in The
      Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example, Victor Hugo dramatizes the importance of the printing press in disrupting the
      unjust social order of the middle ages.18 As with social disruption, dynamists regard the economic disruption caused by
      innovation as a benefit to the consumer and as an important step in the pursuit of economic efficiency. In short, dynamists
      tend to favor innovation out of a humanistic concern for the survival and flourishing of individuals.

Last printed 1/16/2013 3:20:00 PM

To top