In the case of Mars, main political challenge I think is the conflict between colonizing Mars and environmental responsibility - the effect of colonization on extant life on Mars, if there is any, or on the planet if there is no life there yet.
So far, the plans for colonizing Mars are not advanced or detailed and these issues are only addressed in academic papers and workshops. Not many people know about them more widely than that.
Part of the motivation for colonizing is the feeling that we are messing up the Earth. But what if the plans would mess up Mars similarly? Is it not better to find out how to survive on Earth sustainably - a far easier place for humans to live - than to try to find a way to live on Mars? At this point anyway.
So - I see the political sticking point there - that humans would introduce life to Mars in an irreversible way. This is prohibited in the OST which has a clause about preventing "harmful contamination" which is taken seriously for unmanned missions. Surely it would be taken seriously for manned missions also.
The Outer Space Treaty applies to all citizens of the states as you say - the states have responsibility for making sure that their citizens behave in accordance with the treaty in space. Similarly perhaps to quarantine rules. For the time being at least though - you can't slip out in a private spaceship and head to Mars without doing it in a very obvious way. So - people do escape quarantine regulations - but at least in the near future would only go to Mars with full knowledge of governments. And they are mandated by the OST to stop them if their activities introduce harmful contamination to Mars.
The OST is not as weak as you think. It's the reason we don't have military bases on the Moon for instance. The US had serious plans for a military base there, which they shelved after they signed the treaty. It's the reason that neither US, Russia or China claim the Moon (only countries to have sent missions to land on the surface, human for the US, robotic for China).
It's also the reason why we don't have weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth.
So - I can't see it being dropped any time soon. If a government claimed ownership of Mars they would have to leave the OST, and in the context other countries would be concerned about their intentions.
If individuals claim ownership of Mars or other places in space - well individuals often have done so in the past - but - without a government to back them up, their claims have no basis in law and can't be enforced.
So, I'm talking about near future here, like next few decades. Longer term hard to see, but near term, I don't see colonization of Mars as happening at all. Not unless a way can be found to do it that is consistent with the OST. And the problem there is -that they would have to show they can send humans to Mars without introducing life to the planet. But the planet is not completely inhospitable to life, unlike the Moon. Some think it may have life there still to this day and most scientist think it was far more habitable in the past. Given the immense potential increase of knowledge from studying life that evolved separately from Earth - either with a common origin hundreds of millions or billions of years ago - or with a separate origin on Mars - either way, I can't see how the scientists who would need to approve the plans for planetary protection could come to a decision that it is safe to colonize Mars in the near future. Not until we know a lot more about both Mars and it's potential for present day life. It wouldn't be enough to just inspect the region for the proposed habitat to see if there is life there, because of the global dust-storms that could spread life anywhere over the planet from the settlement -and also because of the potential for a hard landing which would spill the contents of a spacecraft over the Mars desert again with huge potential to contaminate Mars.
After a landing of humans on Mars any observations e.g. of methane in the atmosphere, or of chiral imbalance of amino acids in samples on the surface, or direct traces of life - would have a big question mark over it. Was this brought by the human expedition?
We only know 1% of the microbes in typical environments on Earth - and many whole philae are known only by a few DNA fragmetns amongst the archaea. There is no way you could inspect a DNA fragment from Mars and determine whether it originated there, or from Earth, or perhaps had shared DNA exchanged with it by gene transfer (something archaea do readily between widely separated species).
We take great care not to contaminate Lake Vostock, under ice lake in Antartcica, with present day life, separated from the surface only for a few million years.
So - for that reason alone I can't see it happening in the near future.
Longer term -well why Mars? Why not the Moon or free flying settlements using materials mined from the asteroids? Those have far less contamination issues, and are more accessible from the Earth, and easier to get materials back to the Earth if they find something of value. And - at least on what we know so far, Mars with it's 1% of Earth atmosphere - a laboratory vacuum - it doesn't have that much by way of advantages over other places in space.
Then, I can't see myself large settlements equivalent to Earth countries with present day technology. Problem is that it will probably cost an order of magnitude or two more to build your "house" - will you live there if it costs say 10 or 100 times more? Immediately lethal to leave your habitat without a spacesuit? Habitat itself may need to be replaced after a few decades of residence. Who is going to live in space long term if it costs so much more to live there? Only those who have a good reason for being there, or the very wealthy. So I think only small settlements in the near term, not a new country.
So then that would be like bases in Antarctica. Where the residents remain citizens of their own countries. And no great incentive to overturn the Antarctic Treaty and set up an independent country there because the place is so inhospitable.
So, personally I don't think the question of who you pay tax to will arise any time soon, though it may become an issue say a century from now or several decades into the future. For that to happen we'd need big game changing technology that makes it nearly as easy to build a house in space as on Earth, Easy to use and accurate nanoscale 3D printers, self replicating machines, etc etc. But before taking that as your vision for future space colonies, remember that Earth would have the technology too, so everything would be changed here as much as in space. I think just too soon to see how that will pan out.
So far, the plans for colonizing Mars are not advanced or detailed and these issues are only addressed in academic papers and workshops. Not many people know about them more widely than that.
Part of the motivation for colonizing is the feeling that we are messing up the Earth. But what if the plans would mess up Mars similarly? Is it not better to find out how to survive on Earth sustainably - a far easier place for humans to live - than to try to find a way to live on Mars? At this point anyway.
So - I see the political sticking point there - that humans would introduce life to Mars in an irreversible way. This is prohibited in the OST which has a clause about preventing "harmful contamination" which is taken seriously for unmanned missions. Surely it would be taken seriously for manned missions also.
The Outer Space Treaty applies to all citizens of the states as you say - the states have responsibility for making sure that their citizens behave in accordance with the treaty in space. Similarly perhaps to quarantine rules. For the time being at least though - you can't slip out in a private spaceship and head to Mars without doing it in a very obvious way. So - people do escape quarantine regulations - but at least in the near future would only go to Mars with full knowledge of governments. And they are mandated by the OST to stop them if their activities introduce harmful contamination to Mars.
The OST is not as weak as you think. It's the reason we don't have military bases on the Moon for instance. The US had serious plans for a military base there, which they shelved after they signed the treaty. It's the reason that neither US, Russia or China claim the Moon (only countries to have sent missions to land on the surface, human for the US, robotic for China).
It's also the reason why we don't have weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth.
So - I can't see it being dropped any time soon. If a government claimed ownership of Mars they would have to leave the OST, and in the context other countries would be concerned about their intentions.
If individuals claim ownership of Mars or other places in space - well individuals often have done so in the past - but - without a government to back them up, their claims have no basis in law and can't be enforced.
So, I'm talking about near future here, like next few decades. Longer term hard to see, but near term, I don't see colonization of Mars as happening at all. Not unless a way can be found to do it that is consistent with the OST. And the problem there is -that they would have to show they can send humans to Mars without introducing life to the planet. But the planet is not completely inhospitable to life, unlike the Moon. Some think it may have life there still to this day and most scientist think it was far more habitable in the past. Given the immense potential increase of knowledge from studying life that evolved separately from Earth - either with a common origin hundreds of millions or billions of years ago - or with a separate origin on Mars - either way, I can't see how the scientists who would need to approve the plans for planetary protection could come to a decision that it is safe to colonize Mars in the near future. Not until we know a lot more about both Mars and it's potential for present day life. It wouldn't be enough to just inspect the region for the proposed habitat to see if there is life there, because of the global dust-storms that could spread life anywhere over the planet from the settlement -and also because of the potential for a hard landing which would spill the contents of a spacecraft over the Mars desert again with huge potential to contaminate Mars.
After a landing of humans on Mars any observations e.g. of methane in the atmosphere, or of chiral imbalance of amino acids in samples on the surface, or direct traces of life - would have a big question mark over it. Was this brought by the human expedition?
We only know 1% of the microbes in typical environments on Earth - and many whole philae are known only by a few DNA fragmetns amongst the archaea. There is no way you could inspect a DNA fragment from Mars and determine whether it originated there, or from Earth, or perhaps had shared DNA exchanged with it by gene transfer (something archaea do readily between widely separated species).
We take great care not to contaminate Lake Vostock, under ice lake in Antartcica, with present day life, separated from the surface only for a few million years.
So - for that reason alone I can't see it happening in the near future.
Longer term -well why Mars? Why not the Moon or free flying settlements using materials mined from the asteroids? Those have far less contamination issues, and are more accessible from the Earth, and easier to get materials back to the Earth if they find something of value. And - at least on what we know so far, Mars with it's 1% of Earth atmosphere - a laboratory vacuum - it doesn't have that much by way of advantages over other places in space.
Then, I can't see myself large settlements equivalent to Earth countries with present day technology. Problem is that it will probably cost an order of magnitude or two more to build your "house" - will you live there if it costs say 10 or 100 times more? Immediately lethal to leave your habitat without a spacesuit? Habitat itself may need to be replaced after a few decades of residence. Who is going to live in space long term if it costs so much more to live there? Only those who have a good reason for being there, or the very wealthy. So I think only small settlements in the near term, not a new country.
So then that would be like bases in Antarctica. Where the residents remain citizens of their own countries. And no great incentive to overturn the Antarctic Treaty and set up an independent country there because the place is so inhospitable.
So, personally I don't think the question of who you pay tax to will arise any time soon, though it may become an issue say a century from now or several decades into the future. For that to happen we'd need big game changing technology that makes it nearly as easy to build a house in space as on Earth, Easy to use and accurate nanoscale 3D printers, self replicating machines, etc etc. But before taking that as your vision for future space colonies, remember that Earth would have the technology too, so everything would be changed here as much as in space. I think just too soon to see how that will pan out.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0