Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardTracking Viewpoints

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) established the foundational principle that outer space is the 'province of all mankind.' For decades, Universalist legal scholars interpreted this mandate strictly, arguing that it unequivocally prohibited any private appropriation of extraterrestrial resources. Recently, however, a coalition of Legal Realists has challenged this orthodoxy. They posit that while the OST forbids national appropriation of celestial bodies, its silence on private resource extraction was a deliberate omission designed to permit commercial mining, provided such activities yield equitable benefits for humanity. While the Realists correctly recognize that a strict Universalist reading stifles necessary technological investment, their attempt to retrofit the OST to accommodate private extraction relies on a tenuous semantic parsing that defies the treaty’s historical drafting context. A more legally sound approach is advanced by the Reformers, who advocate for abandoning the OST’s outdated framework entirely in favor of a new, multilateral 'stewardship' regime that explicitly regulates private enterprise.

According to the passage, which one of the following beliefs does the author attribute to the Legal Realists?

  1. The treaty's failure to explicitly forbid private resource extraction was an intentional drafting choice meant to allow for conditional commercial activities.Answer
  2. B
    The outdated framework of the current treaty must be discarded to establish a system that explicitly regulates private enterprise.
  3. C
    The foundational principle that space is the province of all mankind requires a complete ban on the appropriation of extraterrestrial resources.
  4. D
    The treaty unconditionally permits the commercial mining of celestial bodies in order to maximize necessary technological investment.
  5. E
    The treaty's historical drafting context provides the primary justification for allowing the contemporary extraction of space resources.

Answer

The correct answer states that the treaty's failure to explicitly forbid private resource extraction was an intentional drafting choice meant to allow for conditional commercial activities.
The correct answer accurately synthesizes the core argument of the Legal Realists as presented in the text. The passage explicitly notes that the Realists view the treaty's 'silence' (failure to explicitly forbid) as a 'deliberate omission' (intentional drafting choice) that permits commercial mining 'provided such activities yield equitable benefits' (conditional).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the specific group asked about in the question stem.
The question asks for a belief attributed to the 'Legal Realists.'
Tracking viewpoints requires isolating the target group from others mentioned (Universalists, Reformers, and the author).
2
Locate the exact sentences in the text that define the target group's position.
The passage states: 'They [Realists] posit that while the OST forbids national appropriation... its silence on private resource extraction was a deliberate omission designed to permit commercial mining, provided such activities yield equitable benefits...'
Direct textual evidence is required to confirm what a specific group believes.
3
Evaluate the options against the identified textual evidence, ensuring no misattributions.
The correct option paraphrases 'silence' as 'failure to explicitly forbid', 'deliberate omission' as 'intentional drafting choice', and 'provided such activities yield equitable benefits' as 'conditional'.
Accurate paraphrase confirms the correct answer while filtering out traps that attribute the views of the Reformers or Universalists to the Realists.

Key Concept

Tracking Viewpoints in Multi-Perspective Passages
Rate this question

Topics

Tracking Viewpoints

More questions from this topic