Legislation exisits for nation-states, so they are out by the fact that this would end up in a court - maybe world court? Maybe even a space court! As for non-nation-state actors  would they not be covered by the political entity that they are formerly registered in (NGO's would also fall into to this category)? This would, prima faci govern individuals as well, in my opinion. This would cover the de jure aspects....  But, de facto - if one could get to and inhabit a piece of outer space and "sqatters rights" were able to kick in; there maybe some gravitas behind such a claim .... this is far out (pun intended)!

It is interesting especially as NASA delivered a speech about the discovery of more habitable planets. This is looking into the future quite some distance but I believe it will have to be addressed at some point

It's unlikely that anyone would pay attention to terra nullius claims made unless the NSSA proposed some kind of drastic plan to harvest materials from the celestial body. For example, several nations have claimed parts of Antarctica. These claims are largely ignored as they have yet to become an issue. However, if a nation state began drilling off the coast of Antarctica, it's likely that other nation states would get involved.

With that said, the Outer Space Treaty and other treaties regulating space exploration) does not apply to corporations or individuals. The answer to your first question then is technically yes. However, in order to execute a terra nullius claim the corporation would have to physically reach the celestial body. The answer to your second question is unavailable. Many factors would be at play and the answer would largely depend on the actors involved.

In my project I will complete a comparative analysis of Antarctica and Outer Space. What you've said is true with regards to harvesting materials and how this would bring more attention to the Space activities of NSSA. My aim is to answer the second question to which you said is unavailable. And again, as you stated the Space activity involved would play an important role, i.e. weaponisation would be treated differently to mining which in turn will also be treated differently to Space tourism

Hi Joshua, 

The Outer Space Treaty rules out any claims of sovereignty and effectively declares celestial bodies, which are an integral part of outer space, 'res communis' (though this is term not used in the Outer Space Treaty, I am just bringing it up because you mention 'terra nullius'). International treaties do not have to say anything about legal subjects that are not international legal subjects because they only regulate the relations between international legal subjects, such as States. This does not mean that celestial bodies can be claimed by private companies, however. The Outer Space Treaty also makes States internationally responsible for activities that their nationals carry out in space, including on celestial bodies, which means that States cannot allow their nationals to do anything that is against international law. And because the Outer Space Treaty bans claims of sovereignty over celestial bodies, nationals of States Parties to the treaty may therefore also not lay any such claims.

Edit: relevant provisions are Articles II and VI of the Outer Space Treaty. For further clarification of the meaning of these provisions for your question, see http://www.iislweb.org/docs/IISL_Outer_Space_Treaty_Statement.pdf.

Cheers

Hi, see my book chapter:

‘Who Will Own Outer Space: Governance over Space Resources in the Age of Human Space Exploration,’ (2010) in Ulrike Landfester, Kai-Uwe Schrogl, and Jean-Claude Worms, ed., Humans in Outer Space – Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vienna: SpringerWienNewYork, pp. 15-27.