“Theoretically, a mass projected from the surface of the Earth with a velocity of 6.95 miles/second would, neglecting air resistance, reach an infinite distance, after an infinite time; or, in short, would never return….” — Robert Goddard, “A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes” (1919)

The study of the sky and reaching high Earth altitudes and beyond has been present in human aspirations for a very long time. Technology devoted to making that possible has skyrocketed, quite literally, making space a subject of international attention. The 1950s officially marked the beginning of a new era of human exploration. Humans are no longer bound to their planet, which opens up a new spatial territory beyond the planetary surface. What were the early stages of orientation in the new territory, how came the first agreements about operative management to effect and what development is ahead of us?

Overview of Spaceflight Endeavors — Outer Space Becoming a Territory

In the early 20th century, German and Soviet rocket scientists had begun organizing non-governmental collaborations dealing with the challenge of reaching space with rockets and exploring outer space [A]. By getting closer to the war, governments of both sides started to see rockets as potential military tools and force multipliers (technology to increase the potential of success of traditional devices). Soon, the work done by the rocket scientists [B] was militarized by the respective governments, allegedly through coercion or the prospect of potential funding. The US military joined the efforts only after Pearl Harbor [1]. Following war era of scientific discoveries in rocket science was then entirely directed towards development of missiles and steered away from space exploration completely. The reason was the governmental order to the respective teams to „go to war and not other planets“ [2]. Despite (temporarily) abandoning the goal to reach space, rocket science evolved rapidly due to conditions favorable for experiments. The actors involved in this constant discourse about space exploration were also players in a major political, military, economic and ideological game among superpowers. As a result of that, in the 1950s, outer space officially started to be considered a “territory” which sparked negotiations about how it should be governed [3].

Territorial Affiliation in the Era of Space Age

In July 1957, a non-governmental organization International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) challenged the global community of scientists to conduct a worldwide study of the human environment, for the first time including Earth's atmosphere. This challenge inherently implied an extension of the planetary terrain into an operational territory and created foundations for the attempts to launch human-made objects beyond the terrestrial surface. On October 5th 1957, the “New Soviet Society” made a huge step on behalf of humankind and launched the first human-made satellite into orbit, Sputnik, marking a day when humankind officially entered the Space Age [3]. The intentions behind this step were not only driven by science and exploration, but also by the global politics of power and competition.

Launching Sputnik into outer space required international cooperation and coordination, creating various new situations in international politics including conflicts among many actors. Within the timeframe of 50 years, going from Cold War era, through the post-Cold War era into the era of globalization [3], motivations to enter the outer space has been changing — in regards to not only what is possible, but also in terms of the changing dynamic of the relationship between how to govern the outer space in connection to the Earthly surface.

The general collective understanding is found on the premise that outer space is a global common, a resource to which no single decision-making unit holds exclusive [4]. It could also be considered an „environmental object“ meaning an environmental entity which should not be appropriated by any individual group [5][C]. On Earth, this is for instance the case of Antarctica, which is considered global commons. In order to make this possible, there are collective understandings established as a form of coordination of what is and what is not global commons. So how are these understandings conceptualized and what does it mean for categorizing the outer space territory?

Territorial Politics — Determination and Proceedings

Agreements developed for these purposes use normative language determining that these territories are dedicated to “peaceful purposes” and that they are established as “res communis” (the common property of all) [3][D]. However, there are many ways of usage of global commons that are strategic and definitely not selfless. In some cases, territories may have restricted access or are controlled by a single actor of a small group of actors. This way of usage reduces the availability of the spatial territory as a resource (called subtractability), but cannot exclude potential beneficiaries by a single actor [6]. Therefore the usage of territory will be calculated as benefits of coordination to avoid the risk of being taken advantage of. The behavior of individual self-serving actors will then be coordinated accordingly, in order to avoid mutually undesirable outcomes. Unfortunately, the definition of human behavior as selfish utility-maximizers has been depicted across many philosophical works for centuries, from Aristotle, through Hume and Rousseau, expressing various versions of the prisoner’s dilemma [E].

Even though the study of the „commons“ has been dedicated to the Earthly and trans-border resources such as oceans or in some cases the atmosphere, there has not been an explicit debate on the scale of the territory [3]. Principally, there should be no difference according to definitions of policies for local or regional commons and global commons, however there are significant differences related to the context, especially when it comes to taking collective action related to their trans-border and non-state resource status [7]. Additionally, in the process of „scaling-up“, more challenges appear related to increasing complexity of interrelatedness, diversity and interlinked commonality that accelerate the level of constant change, and unpredictability, and reduce the opportunity to manage global commons based on implied actions. And since there are no other planets and case studies of global management of commons to compare to, the question stands: Under what conditions can a collective of actors make credible commitments to coordinated cooperative behavior? [6].

Outer space as a transnational and norm-governed area inherently falls under the definition of global commons. Such definitions, however, do not mean automatic implications for its governance. In 1958, the United Nations first focused on the issues of outer space [F]. In the same year, a UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) was created, established as a permanent body in 1959 [8]. In 1961, Resolution 1721 was passed determining that international law applies to outer space. The first agreement that was drafted by the committee was the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, sometimes called a „Constitution of Outer Space“. It stated that outer space was to be „used for peaceful purposes“, that it should be used for „benefit of all people irrespective of the degree of their economic or scientific development“ and that no Earthly nation may claim sovereignty over a celestial body [3][G]. The territorial issues of outer space are specified as retainment of jurisdiction of objects and personnel (while in outer space or landed on a celestial body) controlled by a state party whose object and personnel belong to. Essentially, this is establishing that satellites, space shuttles, operating teams or a potential floating debris from the objects belong to the country that has originally sent them to outer space [9].

In 1974, Convention of Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space or the Registration Convention came into effect, establishing a registry for all countries launching objects into outer space. It was meant to keep track of not just the objects, but also their purposes and orbital patterns [H]. The last major outer space agreement, the Agreement Governing the Activities on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies — or the Moon Treaty) was drafted in 1979 by the UN, seeking to „assure safe and orderly development of the moon’s natural resources“. This agreement was quite controversial due to its vague statements of results of the moon’s exploration being a “common heritage of humankind”, which was ratified by only a few countries.

Despite the attempts to establish some grounds on the matter of global commons, they have not been successful enough to provide holistic guidance for territorial politics of outer space. As a result, it inspired creation of a new area of international relations called regime theory, introducing new concepts and trends for international cooperation in transnational topics and issues. New theories conceptualized relationship structures of interdependence as well as navigating consequences of intervening variables [10].

Territorial Regimes and Cognitive Convergence

Territorial regimes normally define a set of principles, rules, norms around the roles of actors involved in terms of decision-making procedures regarding a territory. From the collection of theoretical grounds and literature dedicated to outer space [I], we see the categorization of outer space activities including information flow, space debris and its use or opening the radio-frequency spectrum to all. Others focus on exploring the space activity between 1957 and 1988, analyzing the collective interests and approaches based on situation definitions. It states that these are dependent on individual cognition, incorporated into collective decision making resulting in group perceptions as a foundation of how such definition develops [11]. Once this process has been completed, the group can proceed with aggregation leading to negotiations of outcomes. So what we talk about here is cognitive convergence as a representation of convergence of interests, and as a prerequisite of preference aggregation that helps the actors decide on a framework representing collective cognitive understanding of the problems. Why is this important?

Regimes can be formal and informal. The formal regimes are legislated by governmental organizations, congresses, councils and monitored by international bureaucracy. Informal regimes are created as a result of consensus among participants who have different self-interests and are monitored by surveillance. The resulting arrangements may emerge spontaneously, by negotiation or imposition. The formal regimes are usually assumed (but not exclusively) by the nations, whereas the informal ones tend to be represented by companies, organizations or agencies.

Regimes also operate on different strands — structuralist, modified structuralist or the Grotian approach [12]. They represent the variety of possible assertions of the actors — from self-interested power-maximizers (realist approach) to maintainers of systemic hegemons (strategic approach). A regime is there to formalize norms and rules for their own benefits, so the negotiations are always navigated to benefit themselves relative to others (relative gains) [3]. That makes the regimes an epiphenomenon of these negotiations, a tool to channel power, economic interests and personal values though. The regimes themselves have no causal effect on interests, behavior or outcomes, they just inform the interest formation in hope of rational proceedings in order to advance one’s interests.

Commercialization of Outer Space

Until now, the information has been focusing on developments until 1989. After entering the Post Cold War era and the era of globalization, outer space politics has become increasingly more influenced by commercialization and private-stake actors. The territorial policies until then were focusing on actors representing Earthly nations based on state agreements. Engaging private interests rendered the majority of previous formulation of policies ineffective, because the non-state actors cannot be understood as a homogenous body with comparable interests as it is in case of countries and their jurisdictions. They come with a myriad of different backgrounds and approaches. Exploration is often a secondary goal, it is the capitalization they are interested in the first place.

Although commercialization of space officially began in the mid 1960s, when the first commercial satellite went to orbit to be used for telephone communications [13], it is only recently that the technological advancement and the monetary ability of the private actors to expand on the capitalization of space. The basis of future commercialization dwells on the idea of not only bringing objects to outer space, but also humans. As the idea of space tourism is consuming the public, it is an incentive for companies in the private sector to provide the most efficient ways of transportation and further necessary operational infrastructure. This marks entering a new era of commercialization of space and will lead to further expansion towards colonization of outer space in the future.

Given these complexities, these questions arise: How can we analyze the role of solidarity in the global society that is necessary for further developments in establishing territorial policies in outer space? How is this outer space conceptualized and compartmentalized the light of consolidating the evolutionary contexts of rise and decline of civilizations? Considering international, inter-human and eventually inter-planetary interplay, what are the workings of self-determination within outer space, the actors in it, their identities? How do these influence the right to space, connections to a specific territory and collective behavior? These will be discussed in the following articles.

Notes:

[A] Examples of such organizations are a Soviet non-military society called All-Union Society for the Study of Interplanetary Flight and German VfR — Verein for Raumschifffahrt (Spaceflight Society) which existed between 1927-1933 (Burrows 1999, 64).

[B] Namely the work of rocket scientist Wehmer Von Braun in Germany and Sergei Korolev in the USSR (Burrows 1999, 63-64).

[C] On a smaller scale, this can be compared to an example of collective sharing of commons such as a tradition among the inhabitants of a village sharing a pastureland for grazing their animals. They use it as a shared joint which is not open access, but restricted by law as local commoners holding packages as a right to the territory. (Vogler 2000, 2). 

[D] In Sweden, there is a policy called ‘allemansrätten‘ translated to ‘everyman’s right‘ allowing the general public’s right to access certain land, lakes or rivers for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access with the ‚right to roam‘. It is the right to access Swedish nature by all.

[E] The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other.

Mentioned works:

Aristotle, 350 BCE — Physics

Aristotle, 350 BCE — Politics 

David Hume, 1740 — A Treatise of Human Nature

Jean Jaque Rousseau, 1755 — A Discourse on Inequality

[F] As a part of the General Assemblies Twelfth Session (White 1970, 179).

[G] Under “peaceful purposes” Article IV reads, “The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.”

[H] By January 1st 2008, 51 countries had ratified the Registration Convention. Another 4 had signed but not yet ratified it, and two European intergovernmental organizations (including the European Space Agency) had accepted the Convention’s rights and obligations.

[I] John Vogler — The Global Commons: Environmental and Technological Governance (1995) 

MJ Peterson’s — International Regimes for the Final Frontier (2005) 

MJ Peterson’s — Diverging Orbits: Situation Definitions in Creation of Regimes for Broadcast and Remote Sensing Satellites

Peter Cowhey —  The International Telecommunications Union” (1994)

References:

[1] Sheehan, Michael (2007) The International Politics o f Space. London: Routledge.

[2] Burrows, William E (1999) This New Ocean: The Story o f the First Space Age. New York:

The Modem Library.

[3] Stuart, Jill ( ) Politics of Outer Space: Regime Theory …

[4] Vogler, John 1995. The Global Commons: Environmental and Technological

Governance. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

[5] Crowe, Beryl L 1969. “The Tragedy of the Commons RevistedP Science 166, no. 3909

(28 November).

[6] Ostrom, Elinor, Joanna Burger, Christopher B Field, Richard B Norgaard and David

Policansky 1999. “Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges.” 9

April. Science 284, no. 5412:278-282.

[7] Keohane, Robert O 1995. Local Commons and Global Environmental Interdependence:

Tragedy o f the commons or opportunity for institutions? Jean Monnet Chair Papers

30. The Robert Schuman Center at the European University Institute.

[8] Vlasic, Ivan A 1991. “The Legal Aspects of Peaceful and Non-Peaceful Uses of Outer

Space.” In Peaceful and Non-Peaceful Uses o f Space: Problems o f Definition for the

Prevention o f An Arms Race, UNIDIR. Editor Bhupendra Jasani. New York: Taylor

and Francis New York, Inc, 37-55.

[9] Amopoulos, Paris 1998. Cosmopolites: Public Policy o f Outer Space. Toronto:

Guernica.

[10] Ruggie, John Gerard 1983. “International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded

liberalism in the postwar economic order.” In International Regimes. Ed. Stephen D

Krasner. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 195-232.

[11] Peterson, M J 2005. International Regimes for the Final Frontier. New York: State

University o f New York Press.

[12] Kranser, Stephen D 1983a. “Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as

intervening variables.” In International Regimes. Ed. Stephen D Krasner. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 1-22.

[13] Velocci, A. (2012). Commercialization in space: Changing boundaries and future promises. Harvard International Review, 33(4), 49-53.

Title gif: NobleDame