Question

Passage A
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty establishes that outer space is the "province of all mankind" and explicitly forbids national appropriation by claim of sovereignty. Consequently, the unilateral extraction and privatization of space resources, such as asteroid mining by private corporations, violates the spirit of international law. Because corporations operate under the legal frameworks of their host nations, a nation granting extraction rights to a corporation is effectively exercising a sovereign claim over that celestial body. Until a comprehensive international regulatory regime is established—one that ensures the equitable distribution of space-derived wealth among all nations—private extraction efforts must be viewed as legally invalid and inherently destabilizing to global equity.

Passage B
Critics of commercial space extraction often conflate national appropriation with private property rights, a distinction well-established in international law. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming territory in space, but it is silent on the ownership of resources once they are removed from a celestial body. This is analogous to international waters: a nation cannot claim sovereignty over the high seas, but private entities are entitled to own the fish they extract from them. Without the legal certainty of property rights over extracted materials, the astronomical capital investments required for space mining will never materialize. Therefore, domestic legislation recognizing the right of private entities to own what they extract does not constitute a sovereign territorial claim, but rather a necessary prerequisite for the development of a space economy.

Based on the arguments presented in the passages, over which of the following propositions would the two authors be most likely to disagree?