Which statement reflects Dolman’s central critique of the Outer Space Treaty with regards to resource sharing?

• A. The Treaty's distortion of res nullius and res communis has made its interpretation impossible for people who do not speak Latin.
• B. The Treaty's failure to outlaw the placement of conventional weapons in orbit makes the eventuality of space warfare inevitable.
• C. In giving Brazil first refusal on rights to own property on the moon, the Treaty has held up lunar development.
• D. The Treaty's lack of a clear definition of where space begins has discouraged space exploration.

Answer: (A)

Dolman’s critique focuses on how the Outer Space Treaty handles resource sharing by using old property-law terms in Latin—res nullius and res communis—to frame space resources. These terms carry nuanced meanings in traditional law, but the treaty never provides clear, operational definitions for how they apply to extracting and distributing resources from the Moon, asteroids, or other bodies. Because the Latin phrasing is not accompanied by precise rules, the interpretation becomes opaque, especially for parties that do not have specialists in these terms or fluency in Latin. This ambiguity hinders practical agreement on who may claim, use, or benefit from space resources and under what conditions, making coordinated resource sharing difficult in the real world. In short, the perceived distortion and vagueness of these concepts in the treaty create interpretive barriers that slow or obstruct clear, equitable resource development. The other issues often cited—weapons, development pace, or exact space boundaries—are less central to Dolman’s argument about how resource rights are understood and shared among nations.