I'm writing a story about a team of rebels and pirates who band together to steal a resource-rich moon from a solar system governed by a corrupt, oppressive regime.
Some world context:
- The moon has abundant natural flora and fauna, but no intelligent life
- It orbits an uninhabited gas giant in the system
- The corrupt regime has been mining other moons for resources, but they are now running dry
- The Universal Planetary Council (the interstellar equivalent of the UN) has banned mining the resources of this moon because it will cause irreversible ecological damage
- The corrupt regime is ignoring the ban and has begun building mining infrastructure on the moon
- The rebels plan to move the moon to a nearby system without causing catastrophic damage to the ecosystem
- The nearby system is populated by the extremely wealthy, and ruled by a government whose main concern is catering to these wealthy families
- One of those wealthy families is funding the rebels' project
- The wealthy system has much more resources than the corrupt regime, however, the corrupt regime is a bit of a 'mad dog' and likely to act irresponsibly and unpredictably
- It is rumoured that the corrupt regime has been using the resources to build weapons, but there is no definitive evidence of this
My question is this:
In an interstellar equivalent of The Hague's International Criminal Court, would the rebels stand a chance against the corrupt government?
If interstellar laws were largely the same as international laws today, albeit scaled up, how would they apply in this scenario?
Could the rebels' plot be seen as an invasion and conquest by a sovereign power, or would it be more likely they would be seen as criminals who are now being harboured by the nearby system?