For thousands of years, humanity has wondered how the world would end. The ancient Sumerians, for example, thought a planet called Nibiru was on a collision course with Earth. The speculations have only increased in recent years: A meteor (like the imaginary one that attracted a strong following during the 2016 U.S Presidential Election), nuclear war, global warming, or even artificial intelligence (which Elon Musk, head of SpaceX, recently called our “biggest existential threat”).
But what if they were wrong? What if instead, it will be giant slug-like intergalactic creatures called Vogons who destroy the earth to make room for a hyperspatial express route? In addition to being somewhat of a bummer (after all, then we would never live to see a world of fully autonomous cars, supersonic hyperloops, and ultra-high bandwidth brain-machine interfaces), the scenario poses the all-important question: Is there a legal remedy?
The civil legal issues raised by destroying a planet are endless, so we will only look at the most critical questions raised in tort, property, and space law.
Intentionally Vaporizing 7,000,000,000 People and All Their Property is an Assault & Battery
At common law, assault happens when someone acts to cause harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of such contact. Battery then occurs when the actor intentionally and without consent contacts another in a way that is either offensive or causes bodily harm.
Before destroying Earth, the Vogons announced to humanity their plan to destroy the planet. As one survivor heard:
As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.
When humanity protested, the Vogons retorted that they had given the humans plenty of notice by posting it on an intergalactic bulletin. Even though the humans posed no danger to the Vogons or their property (thus excluding self-defense), and fully understood that the Earth’s inhabitants preferred not being vaporized, the aliens did it anyway. Their announcement, which indicates their act had the intention of killing undoubtedly caused imminent apprehension of harmful contact, and the act of killing clearly caused bodily harm.
Destroying an Inhabited Planet for Public Transportation Purpose is a Taking
The U.S. Constitution guarantees that when the government takes private property for public use, just compensation will be given. The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified part of this principle in three famous cases: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., and Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City.
The Vogons (as part of the galactic government) did not likely run afoul of the Lucas Rule, which states that where a regulation deprives an owner of all economically viable use, then it is a per se taking. While the planet was destroyed, the space that the planet occupied is still rightfully owned by humanity, and there are plenty of economic options with that space. The surviving humans (such as Arthur Dent) could build a space station in part of the space (the part that is not within the hyperstatial express route), or mine and sell the remaining minerals from Earth, for example. Given that there is still some economic use to the property, the government’s destruction of the planet was not a taking.
However, the Vogons likely violated the Loreto Rule. The Court in Loreto held that physical occupation, an invasion of any material, or an invasion of easement, is a per se taking. So, when the Vogons destroyed Earth for a hyperspatial express route, forcing humanity (or what was left of it) to permit ships to fly through their space is a taking under the Loreto Rule, even though the route does not involve placing anything physical on the property. Given that they clearly violated the Loreto Rule, it is not necessary to examine it through the Penn Central test.
Obliteration of a Planet and its Residents May Be in Harmony with the Outer Space Treaty
In Article I of the Outer Space Treaty, it reads that “outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall 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 bodies.” This suggests that anything that is a celestial body in outer space may be used by any government for any reason, based on fairness, and that “free access” of “all areas of celestial bodies” is required.
Moreover, Merriam Webster defines “celestial body” broadly as “an aggregation of matter in the universe that constitutes a unit (as a planet, nebula) for astronomical study.” As such, given that the Earth is clearly an “aggregation of matter in the Universe,” that “constitutes a unit,” Earth is technically a “celestial body” under the treaty. So, by using Earth (by getting rid of it) to build a hyperspatial express route to allow billions of trillions of other lifeforms throughout the universe free access to other areas of celestial bodies (at the expense of only seven billion or so), the Vogons’ actions were actually in harmony with the Outer Space Treaty.
As a result, while there is no remedy under the Outer Space Treaty, surviving humans have a strong case under tort and property law. So instead of complaining about losing their loved ones, family members, and property, the survivors should count themselves lucky and find a lawyer at their nearest intergalactic law firm.
by Paul Hulbert
Comments
Post a Comment