Considering the current political situation, it becomes obvious that without external control, States would act only in their interests and not in the interests of humanity.

Accordingly, to exercise such control, each space initiative of any Member State of the Organization, before its implementation, would have to undergo peer review in the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to coordinate its goals for the benefit of humanity. That is how this principle was originally considered by the UN General Assembly.

Ultimately, space activities were supposed to lead to environmental protection, increased education (increasing access to scientific data around the world), poverty reduction, and increased well-being, freedom, and security of people.

Only in environmental matters, the space activities of States more or less justified themselves and then only because it was in the interests of the States. In all other matters, such activities for the “good of humanity” were very doubtful.

At the same time, the UN General Assembly gave states grounds for such behavior when in the UN GA Resolution 1472 was stated that “the exploration and use of outer space should be only for the betterment of mankind and to the benefit of States”.

Thus, the UN General Assembly for the first time officially mentioned the aim of “the benefit of States” about space activities.

Further, in the Declaration of Legal Principles, it was again underlined that “the exploration and use of outer space should be carried on for … the benefit of States regardless of their degree of economic or scientific development” and subsequently this position was enshrined as one of the legal principles, namely: “Outer space and celestial bodies are free for … use by all States on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law”.

In turn, the fact that “actions for the benefit of certain States” very rarely coincide with “actions for the benefit of all mankind” does not require scientific justification.

Thus, we can talk about the emergence of the following essentially opposite legal provisions:

1. “not subject to national appropriation … by means of use” and “free for use by all States”,

2. “for the benefit and in the interests of all mankind” and “for the benefit of States”.

That is attempts by States to expropriate the Cosmos through legal manipulations led to the emergence of obvious legal contradictions (collisions).

Perhaps legal conflicts could have been avoided provided the UN General Assembly clarified the concept of “use” of outer space and celestial bodies for all cases (for research, for the benefit of humanity, for the benefit of states, etc.).

For example, according to the provisions of “The Principle of a Free Cosmos”, states have the right to free exploration of the Cosmos. However, no substantial external research of the Universe cannot be performed without the physical use by states of outer space and celestial bodies, since it is difficult to carry out such research without launching a space vehicle into outer space (including celestial bodies) and placing satellites in orbit.

In turn, the presence in outer space or on a celestial body of any objects launched by states would always be considered at least a temporary use of outer space and celestial bodies. Thus, it is logical to allow the temporary use of outer space by states. At the same time, the purpose of such use can only be space exploration in the interests and benefit of humanity.

All other options for the use of outer space and celestial bodies by states (including permanent use) will contradict “The Principle of a Free Cosmos” and one of its most important conditions, namely the condition of “Res Nullius Civitatis”