Governing the Global Commons

АННОТАЦИЯ. За прошедшее десятилетие понятие “глобальные проблемы” трансформировалось в новый концепт “глобальное всеобщее достояние” (“global commons”), понимаемое как в узком экологическом смысле, так и в более широком социальном. Современное развитие человечества и глобальное неравенство предопределяют постановку вопроса о доступе ко всеобщему достоянию, что в будущем может привести к принципиально новому типу конфликтов. Уже сейчас наиболее острые проблемы возникают в контексте взаимосвязи глобальной экологии и демографии. Становится все более явным противоречие между природным и социальным аспектами “global commons”. Тем самым концепция глобального всеобщего достояния может привести к столкновению между собой динамики экологического регулирования и социального развития глобального общества.

The Bogotá Declaration of 1976, in which a series of equatorial states attempted to resist the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 by claiming sovereignty over geostationary orbit above their territories, presents a unique case that contradicts some assumptions about the use of commons-like regimes to correct asymmetric governance regimes. This case suggests the value of historical scholarship on colonialism and development to ongoing disputes in space law and in other regimes governing extraterritorial domains.

Columbia Journal of Transnational Law - The Bulletin, Dec. 2017.

http://jtl.columbia.edu/the-bogota-declaration-a-case-study-on-sovereignty-empire-and-the-commons-in-outer-space/

The relationship of technology, environment, and society is a complex and
varied. As science and technology have progressed, so too has social
complexity and economic growth dependency. The environment is the most fundamental, essential, and important piece of the puzzle, but sadly not treated as such. Society – life - is completely dependent on the environment, whether because it is valued as our home or because it is valued for its economic or resource worth, society is still dependent on it. The relationship of technology and environment is one of duality. The rewards of grand technological advances have come with grave environmental and social risks. Technology has enabled society to understand and scientifically evaluate the environment, for instance, understanding the atmosphere and the changes humans have caused to its chemistry (Byrne, et al, 2002:282). The cause of the changing chemistry and resultant climate change, though, is science and technology.

ABSTRACT: This Note addresses a fundamental ambiguity in the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 (“CSLCA”). It is unclear whether the statute authorizes U.S. citizens to extract natural resources from asteroids and other celestial bodies, as is commonly assumed. Alternatively, the statute can be read to merely entitle citizens to resources that have already been obtained, where the regime for actually obtaining such resources remains undetermined. The Note resolves this issue in favor of the interpretation that best aligns with international law and policy. It first shows that the relevant elements of international law—the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (“OST”) and customary international law (“CIL”)—do not resolve the issue. The Note then adopts a broader approach by considering the OST’s anti-imperial policy. By engaging scholarship on law, colonialism, and empire, this approach centers Global South States in space law discourse. This approach reveals two ways in which the more commonly accepted interpretation of the CSLCA cuts against the anti-imperial policy of the OST, related to the distinction between private and State extraction and to State conferral of property rights. To avoid contradicting these policy concerns, the CSLCA should be read narrowly, such that it leaves open future determination of the space resources regime. Finally, the Note offers guidance for such a regime. It argues that CIL development based on subsequent legislation or mining would let Global North States asymmetrically shape international law, which would contradict the OST’s anti-imperial policy. Instead, the Note recommends multilateral agreements that employ organizationally diverse models, which mix collective and private ownership. The Note ends by reflecting on lingering questions in the context of development and the Global South.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2018 Salzburg Global Seminar in Washington, DC as part of the Salzburg Cutler Fellowship.

Space has emerged as a critical centre of gravity. The use of space-derived inputs is a vital necessity for the conduct of everyday life on Earth. While civil and commercial space activities provide a range of applications, create employment, and promote technological progress, the use of space for military and intelligence purposes has become critical requirements for national security.
The fears of an arms race and power-politics for dominating space or establishing control and hegemony in space are very real. The emerging contours of space security are dominated by the contest between national security interests of states and the interests of the larger humanity. This contest is unlikely to ever end. In the meantime, India must preserve its freedom to access and exploit space for its security and development. Given rapid developments in technology and space capabilities, it is important that India steers itself into a position of strength in space, technologically, economically, and militarily, in order to support and usher 21st century space as a peaceful ‘Global Commons.”

Current political systems tend to focus very much on the short-term, and, as a result, often produce inefficient and/or unjust policies.  This paper considers how we might design political institutions so that they are less shortsighted.

To do so the paper begins by defining what I term 'harmful short-termism'. I identify two kinds of harmful short-termism.  The first occurs when short-sighted policy-making results in current generations bearing greater costs (or forgoing greater benefits) than is necessary.  The second occurs when current generations fail to honour their responsibilities to future generations. I argue that harmful short-termism affects many different policy areas - including military conflict, environmental protection, energy policy, pensions policy, and macroeconomic policymaking (Section I).  Having identified the problem I then outline 4 criteria that any proposal for addressing harmful short-termism should meet (effectiveness, moral legitimacy, political sustainability and political accessibility) (Section II).  To assess whether a reform will meet the first criterion (effectiveness at combating harmful short-termism) requires us to consider what causes it.  The paper thus outlines what I take to be the main causes of harmful short-termism, identifying 14 different drivers of short-termism (Section III).  In the following section I outline 5 different reforms to the legislature and the policy-making process and to seek to show that these meet the four evaluative criteria I gave above (Section IV).  I further argue that my proposals (a) have advantages over some alternative proposals and (b) would make other forward-looking proposals more attainable (Section V).  Section VI then concludes.

This article seeks to make sense of Japan’s long-lasting primacy in the global race for tuna in the 20th Century. Japan dominated international tuna fisheries already in the 1930s and regained its supremacy in the early Cold War years. To understand why fisheries diplomacy and technology transfer played a crucial role in sustaining Japan’s supremacy of access to these marine resources when the oceans were territorialized by international law, it is important to look back. To explain Japan’s dominance in international tuna fisheries we have to put the story in the larger context of Japanese Empire building during the first half of the 20th Century and trace how this was transformed into overseas development aid and technology transfer projects in the framework of decolonization and the Cold War.  Thus, we see that Japan’s global success in tuna fisheries in the early Cold War years was a result of environmental, artisanal and technical knowledge as well as claims that this knowledge was exclusively Japanese, claims which Japanese fisheries experts and fishermen pursued through fisheries diplomacy. The nature of tuna, and of the oceans means that it is impossible to explain fisheries diplomacy as purely a state-driven foreign policy, generally explained by “Japanese culture.” This article starts with the tuna, exploring the trajectories of tuna negotiations and the imperial legacies shaping them. We find that the driving force behind negotiating tuna was a specific knowledge economy with imperial roots.

This paper explores the ways in which a theorization of heritage as a commons complicates the relation of heritage and identity. The paper analyzes how cultural heritage management and theorizations connect with the “old” vernacular commons in rural Europe, communist ideologies, Hardin’s and Ostrom’s theories, and finally with Hardt and Negri’s ideas. Can heritage managers and scholars work as mediators between the global flows of value and local communities, promoting redistributive policies and identity building capacities in the face of overarching commodification processes? How can the notion of a “shared” heritage be mobilized by local communities to implement politics of redistribution and rethinking of ownership against an alienated “world heritage” that frames itself as a globally “shared” common heritage of humanity? What are the consequences of treating heritage as a commons for identity politics?

Knowledge is increasingly thought of as a common good. This is exhibited in the fact that
many central economies are moving towards economic paradigms where knowledge plays a
fundamental role. This paper explores the confluence between both processes, asking in what
ways an economic model based on the knowledge commons can open up new socioeconomic
scenarios in the face of overwhelming neoliberal financialization.

The transition towards a cognitive and post-industrial economy has led to the emergence of new strategies of capture of the immanent productive capacities of the social forces. Heritage entities are subject to, and also participate in, processes by which common creativity and knowledge are being harnessed by novel forms of rent and control. The objective of this paper was to show that conceiving heritage as a common situated in specific contexts rather than as a universal essence can open up novel epistemological spheres of communication between different knowledge practices. Also, it can help bridge some ontological gaps among the various stakeholders in the arena of heritage, such as academics, managers, architects, local communities and market forces. This entails considering heritage as an emergent material and immaterial construction process involving many different agents. Currently, these processes tend towards the privatization of common values and the shattering of local communities. Normally, this situation entails a fundamental alienation between objects and subjects, and the reification of heritage. This paper suggests that considering heritage as a common could provide a different perspective to tackle this crucial problem. Accordingly, scholars should not only be bound to a critical discursive stance, but should also commit to ‘ontological politics’ that would situate them as mediators between the global hierarchies of value generated by heritage and the common productive potential of local communities.

Global commons form a comparatively new part of international law, since the term appeared in international discussions and codifications only in the second half of the 20th century. The Common Heritage of Mankind is the corres- ponding legal principle that can establish an international regime to determine the legal status of non-sovereign territories and to allocate exploitation rights. Its main aim is to balance competing national claims by emphasising mankind’s common interest in the preservation and controlled exploitation of natural re- sources. Against this background, the chapter sheds a critical light on attempts to transfer the institute of the Common Heritage of Mankind to the sphere of com- munication. Taking debates revolving around the New World Information and Communication Order in the framework of UNESCO since the late 1970s as a start- ing point, the author analyses the pitfalls and limits of attempts to establish gov- ernance structures for a global information order, including recent attempts to govern the internet.

The opening contribution introduces the reader to concepts, discussions and practices related to the pitfalls of communally and privately exploited resources on a global scale. It offers a historical perspective and suggests understanding the global commons as markers for competing visions of world order in the course of the 20th century. To throw light onto a complex field of research, the chapter gives an outline of what has been discussed in the social sciences as global commons and sketches the contexts of the international conventions which have established these commons under the legal principle of Common Heritage of Mankind in international law. In a second part, the authors situate the subject in the wider framework of global history. The global commons serve as an analytic instrument to challenge master narratives of the post-war era. The chapter advocates a nuanced approach that explores the way global commons were connected with space and territoriality, global integration and statehood, law and international organisations. It emphasises border crossings and sets out the diversity of agencies pursued by states, international communities, non-governmental interests and multinational corporations alike.

There are vast spaces of the earth that lie outside the sovereign jurisdiction of any
single sovereign state, including much of the world’s oceans, the atmosphere, outer
space, and the continent of Antarctica. Accessible to all, these “global commons” serve
as vital zones for global connectivity, as well as a critical source for military power and environmental resources. Yet, they lack strong global institutions to govern them. This discussion considers how changes to the international order, driven by the rise of new actors, new technologies, and new tests to human and environmental security, pose risks to the future of global spaces shared by all.

The importance of seed provisioning in food security and nutrition, agricultural development and rural
livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity and germplasm conservation is well accepted by policy makers, practitioners
and researchers. The role of farmer seed networks is less well understood and yet is central to
debates on current issues ranging from seed sovereignty and rights for farmers to GMOs and the conservation
of crop germplasm. In this paper we identify four common misconceptions regarding the nature
and importance of farmer seed networks today. (1) Farmer seed networks are inefficient for seed dissemination.
(2) Farmer seed networks are closed, conservative systems. (3) Farmer seed networks provide
ready, egalitarian access to seed. (4) Farmer seed networks are destined to weaken and disappear. We
challenge these misconceptions by drawing upon recent research findings and the authors’ collective
field experience in studying farmer seed systems in Africa, Europe, Latin America and Oceania.
Priorities for future research are suggested that would advance our understanding of seed networks
and better inform agricultural and food policy.

The last frontiers of the natural world are gone while species of plants and animals are disappearing. Our civilisation has been growing exponentially over the last century. The most visible side effect of that is the creation of a throw-away society (Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 2013). According to the Pope, "Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a 'throw-away' culture which is now spreading'' (Ibid.) Humanity has been attacking while Gaia has been defending. This paper argues that Gaia deserves a respite which is defined as a period of break away from exploitative human activities and the burning of fossil fuels. These should be replaced by planting trees. It would enable Gaia to catch a breath and renew itself. This could solve many of the world's problems by establishing a symbiotic coexistence between human civilisation and the planet and leading to comprehensive healing of Gaia. This paper aims to analyse whether humans have reached the limits in every possible dimension of life on the finite planet. The key research questions is: Has humanity reached the planetary threshold beyond which civilisation cannot expand without the implementation of sustainable policies? The bottom line of the argument is that accelerating growth cannot continue indefinitely on a limited planet (Nürnberger, 2011: 66). Sooner or later, "there will come a point where the growing nutritional needs of the growing world population can no longer be met, regardless of how generously future generations may want to share their food. The quest for diminishing resources will almost inevitably lead to higher conflict potentials, greater investment in military hardware and expensive security systems for those whose privileges are threatened" (Ibid.). This paper suggests that there is a need for a new paradigm that integrates the continued development of human societies and the maintenance of the Earth system in an accommodating, resilient and sustainable way. Imagine that bright, blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear, e.g.: "the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity, that is what is at stake when trying to preserve precious biodiversity on the Earth." (Obama, 2013). The earth is a spaceship, with the sun as our energy supplier, which means that it imports energy from the sun that flows into and through the elaborate patterns of energy transfer that make up the Earth system, including the oceans, the atmosphere, the various geochemical processes, and finally, all life itself. Life on the planet absorbs this precious energy and then the energy flows back from the Earth into the universe - it is as if life was participating and almost by chance (Goldilocks) functioning in a perfectly self-sustained, mutual co-exchange based on a renewal of energy and evolution of life. Through argumentative discussion, it will be demonstrated that if an era of singularity is incipient, a time in which human intelligence will become increasingly nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful than it is today, then the present global civilisation must abort prejudices, such as ethnic, religious, gender and national. Such prejudices must not become an equivalent of colonial conquests of the past. Only a steep learning process could prevent humanity from an increasingly violent scramble for dwindling resources on the finite planet. It will be concluded that first, humans ought to resolve some of the ongoing and appearing challenges on Earth, and then think about the “conquest” of the Cosmos. This is necessary to move from the present Type 0 Civilisation to Type I Civilisation when humanity will be capable of controlling Earth entirely maybe even influence the weather, control volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, influence global flora and fauna, geological makeup, plate tectonics and others. And to recall wise words by C. Kennedy, "To the extent that we are all educated and informed, we will be more equipped to deal with the gut issues that tend to divide us." Climate change seems to be such an issue although according to scientists there is a 99.9999 percent chance that humans are the cause of global warming. Humanity burns fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas, which release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. CO2 is the greenhouse gas that's most responsible for warming. With only a one-in-a-million chance that humans are not the cause, it is obvious that humanity needs to dramatically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, according to experts and scientists. Sometimes we experience an intuitive hunch that a particular challenge needs to be overcome at a particular moment in history due to the unacceptable level of hypocrisy and hiding truth to sustain the status quo. Can we solve climate change? Already in 1964, N. S. Kardashev (1964: 221) observed that "if terrestrial civilisation is not a unique phenomenon in the entire universe, then the possibility of establishing contacts with other civilizations by means of present-day radio physics capabilities is entirely realistic." The moment humanity unites, then we can believe we can do it, then we just do it and nothing is impossible. We must act within the defined planetary boundaries to avoid catastrophic environmental climate change. Investments in better preparation for dismantling natural disasters can pay dividends both for the present and for future generations. But global leaders often prefer to focus on more politicised issues of national content simply because they reflect the populist mentality of modern societies and can win easy votes. Had they focused more on long-term projects they would equip themselves with a more farsighted strategy - a strategic vision for a planetary rescue mission. If humanity does nothing effective to offset global heating, if it waits in inaction Gaia will defend against human interference and there will be fewer of us (Lovelock, 2014: 122). It is very likely that the number of humans surviving such a cataclysm will be limited, perhaps less than a million, which is still enough for the survival of our species. The history of humanity on the planet ''suggests that there was a bottleneck when our total population fell to a few thousand, and we all come from them'' (Ibid.). When climate solution will be found it will give birth to a new civilisation based on scientific progress, tolerance, multiculturalism and humility that would enable humanity to transcend national borders, biological limitations, amplify creativity and invest in the power of the human mind. Likely, such a new foundation based on post-growth economy, sustainable growth and green cities will be built in the developing world, mainly China and India. Perhaps, if we move to green cities as efficient as termite nests, there could be hope for survival. The defining characteristic of nature-symbiotic infrastructure is that it is planned and designed in a way that anticipates, prepares for, and adapts to changing climate. It coexists in harmony with the natural world, effectively imitating nature and blending humanity into it. This requires a degree of humility since according to this model, humans are no longer Earth's owners or masters, but act as wise stewards. Earth is not without unlimited reservoirs of anything. In this model, all we have is what is on our spaceship with us – and when that runs out, the money runs out, too. There is a case for working in sync with Gaia and the purpose of climate-symbiotic architecture is that it is resilient, can withstand, respond to and recover from any disruptions. As Romer (2018) observed, ''A healthy climate requires us to move to a post-growth economy with well-being rather than increasing material wealth as the goal.'' The idea of a circular economy is primarily concerned with the flows of materials and energy, and it is often taken for granted that this circulation can happen within a growing economy. However, the demand for materials and energy needs to be considered in the context of the limits of a finite planet.'' (Ede, 2016: 3). The problem with the West is that there are more goods and, more growth, but less faith in ideas, less ambition to make a world a better, a more sustainable place. There are fewer visionaries who think big. As Ede (2016) noted, ''When human demand on nature’s capacity exceeds what nature can supply, we are in a state of ‘overshoot’. It is the amount by which nature’s biological capacity is being used beyond its regeneration rate–e.g. overfishing or overharvesting, or emitting  too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and destabilising the climate.'' Positive energy could upgrade the Earth, but only when humans are able 'to hear the Earth's cry.' The key impact of this research is ​to serve as a modest, informed and objective policy advice for global leaders of tomorrow.

In July 2017, a Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) of United Nations member states agreed to take the next step toward negotiating an international instrument to govern the marine biodiversity of the high seas. This was an important milestone in a process with roots in sustainable development and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the landmark treaty frequently described as “the constitution for the oceans.” The PrepCom will send a report and recommendations to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for consideration in Fall 2017 for a new implementing agreement to UNCLOS to address the living marine environment in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This Insight offers an overview of the process leading to such negotiations. It then reviews the issues refined by the PrepCom for consideration by an intergovernmental conference on conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ).

CHAPTER 3- Associate Prof. Dr. Sezai Ozcelik
INSTITUTIONAL APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
After completing this chapter, you will be able to:
1. Describe liberal institutionalism.
2. Identify international regimes.
3. Examine multilateralism and internet governance.
4. Investigate the role of epistemic communities in managing global commons.
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Introduction
Liberal Institutionalism
International Regimes
Multilateralism and Internet Governance
Epistemic Communities and Global Commons
KEY TERMS
Liberal institutionalism, international regimes, epistemic community, multilateralism, internet governance, international institutions, global commons, information governance, environmental regimes.

The globalization of technology and current technological transition
creates a mixed bag in regard to democracy, cultural autonomy, the global environment, and our collective future. Technology represents something a dichotomy – it has enabled the movement into an information society, where ideas and knowledge can be shared quickly across borders and oceans. Conversely, it has allowed humans to create significant social and ecological problems that also cross borders and oceans. Western societies that are “advanced” have absorbed and integrated technology into all facets of existence. We continue to seek more, faster technology, and deeper integration into the world around us. Western society has also pushed technology and technological methods onto Third World societies. The West perceives its ways as superior and pressures Third World societies while simultaneously ignoring their traditional methods and culture. The intentions of these actions aside, it has led to detriment for some. Technology is not inherently bad or evil, but it is a powerful force with potential to lead us to greatness or to harm.

Este artículo presenta el concepto de «bienes comunes de la humanidad». Reconociendo una reciente valorización social de esta noción, producto de una serie de focos de controversia que le son atingentes, el autor reclama una clarificación de su sentido específico. Para ello propone reconocerle desde un plano hermenéutico-crítico, como una categoría interpretativa de los derechos de ciudadanía social.

Our main resources that make our lives possible on the Earth are vulnerable to over-exploitation or over-pollution because they belong to no one. Therefore, while not seeing radical effects on our being we do not see the global environmental problems as emerging primary issues that have to be solved regarding statuses and self-interests. Due to the growing connectivity nowadays, each continent, each region, each state and even each person has its own big impact on the environment that is not visible to a naked eye.
In my work, I would like to analyse problems such as growing population and pollution, climate change and Ozone layer depletion, oceans and atmospheric commons, biodiversity loss. However, it is important to mention that there are more environmental problems that are not of less importance such as deforestation, desertification, littering and landfills, mining, genetic modification and so forth. Each of the environmental concerns affecting our life and while some of them have similarities between each other, they are amenable to the same types of political action.
Garrett Hardin in his work called “The Tragedy of the Commons” sees the danger of overusing scarce resources of our planet while there is a freedom of Commons, a freedom of breeding and a neutral conscience of each individual. His two solutions are privatization and centralization in a way that the law will play a major part of the deal, not the human factor. In his point of view, there is a need for recognizing emerging necessity of taking more radical actions as well as a need for “mutual coercion agreed upon”. Hardin’s one of the main concerns is overpopulation, where he sees the importance of conscience and agreement to coercion as the way to develop social responsibility on the individual level. The Tragedy of the Commons gives a perspective how to look at global environmental problems. Some of them I would like to discuss further in my work.
The aquaculture development is one of the spheres in which such global environmental concerns as Fisheries and aquaculture circular emerged. It is very interesting to see each state’s contribution towards the growth of the problem and towards finding a solution to it.
Moreover, I see the genetic modification as a bigger problem as it is stated nowadays. The concern over the genetic engineering of food creates the danger of the distribution of expanded poisons and sicknesses in between plants all over the world; therefore, can cause the distorted natural system of nature. This irritation of the natural cycles would cause instability in natural processes of the environment and defected future generation of every creature on the planet.
For the problem to be considered as sustainable for international intervention there is a need to meet certain criteria that can satisfy each state, which is very concerned about its own sovereign rights being not defiled. Moreover, the possibility of unpredictable rapid change in the conditions of our environment and the level of environmental degradation leave us in a situation where we keep trying to improve the environment and keep trying to find solutions for the global environmental problems but it keeps holding us back from solving the problem, because while we still trying to meet certain criteria that would suit each state and each state keep searching for deal that provides benefits for its own state.

This Ph.D. by Published Work examines five projects that took place over ten years, between 2007 and 2016, that were curated as part of the artistic programme of Arts Catalyst,an independent interdisciplinary arts commissioning organisation of which the author is the founding director. This programme of work sought to understand what form of curatorial model and interpretative framework could generate new artworks and co-produce interdisciplinary knowledge across areas of specialist research and geopolitical urgency. The projects take the form of exhibitions, texts and edited books, which are presented as the portfolio of work. The selected projects are: Malamp UK, Brandon Ballengee (2007-2010); Arctic Perspective Initiative (2009-2011); ITACCUS – IAF Technical Activities Committee on the Cultural Utilisation of Space – and associated activities (2007-2014); Holoturian, Ariel Guzik (2013-2015); and Wrecked on the Intertidal Zone, YoHa, Critical Art Ensemble, et al. (2013-2016). Thro...

a b s t r a c t The importance of seed provisioning in food security and nutrition, agricultural development and rural livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity and germplasm conservation is well accepted by policy makers, practitioners and researchers. The role of farmer seed networks is less well understood and yet is central to debates on current issues ranging from seed sovereignty and rights for farmers to GMOs and the conservation of crop germplasm. In this paper we identify four common misconceptions regarding the nature and importance of farmer seed networks today. (1) Farmer seed networks are inefficient for seed dissemination. (2) Farmer seed networks are closed, conservative systems. (3) Farmer seed networks provide ready, egalitarian access to seed. (4) Farmer seed networks are destined to weaken and disappear. We challenge these misconceptions by drawing upon recent research findings and the authors' collective field experience in studying farmer seed systems in Africa, Eu...

Part of a series on Japan's leadership in the liberal international order, this paper examines Japan’s changing approach to the global commons, tracing commonalities across the outer space, cyberspace, and maritime domains. As security threats have emerged in these domains, Japan has continued to uphold the principles of the liberal international order based on rule of law, but it has also hedged against risk by securitizing issues, by turning its existing diplomatic and technological tools to new purposes, and by linking the commons with security structures related to the Japan Self-Defense Forces and the U.S.-Japan alliance. This examination of Japan’s approach to the global commons has broad implications for policy. First, there is a clear need for serious attention to the maintenance and/or construction of governance regimes that will promote the use of the global commons in ways that benefit all countries. Second, the increasingly crowded and competitive environment in the global commons presents new challenges in terms of cultivating consensus and regulating activity, but it also offers opportunities to create coalitions of like-minded countries, and middle powers have an important role to play in this process. Third, the clear parallels in changes across the outer space, cyberspace, and maritime domains suggest that there is something valuable to be gained from fostering dialogue among their respective scholars and practitioners, to find best practices that can be shared or transferred across domains. Although the onset of COVID-19 has drawn the attention of many countries away from developments outside their national borders, it has not lessened the importance of these issues — indeed, there is evidence that the global pandemic may be providing a convenient distraction that is enabling additional incursions in these domains and further eroding norms regarding their shared use.

In this article the alleged demise of the United States of America (USA) and the ability of its challengers will be discussed and analyzed. Based on George Modelski’s concept of Long-Cycles in Global Politics we can anticipate a disruption in the hegemonic position – currently held by the USA. Considering, the possibility of this scenario, the author executed a pragmatic comparative study and sketches out the chances for the two main competitors – China and India – which struggle mightily with domestic issues and on the other side presents four arguments, why the decline of the USA is not as apparent and looming as partly presumed. The arguments are: (i) the independence supply of natural resources; (ii) its supremacy over the world seas; (iii) reinstated activity in the Rimland and (iiii) control over the Global Commons.

In July 2017, a Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) of United Nations member states agreed to take the next step toward negotiating an international instrument to govern the marine biodiversity of the high seas. This was an important milestone in a process with roots in sustainable development and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the landmark treaty frequently described as “the constitution for the oceans.” The PrepCom will send a report and recommendations to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for consideration in Fall 2017 for a new implementing agreement to UNCLOS to address the living marine environment in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This Insight offers an overview of the process leading to such negotiations. It then reviews the issues refined by the PrepCom for consideration by an intergovernmental conference on conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ).

When South Sudan finally became an independent nation on the 9th of July 2011, hopes were high that the historic settlement would finally put an end to the conflict that had plagued the region for over fifty years. International organisations and nongovernmental organisations quickly moved in to help the process of rebuilding the nation, addressing development challenges, and providing security and services to its 10 million people. In late 2013, violence broke out in Juba, the capital. It quickly escalated to an all out civil war, characterised by ethnic targeting, massacres, rapes, summary executions, and the use of child soldiers.

The frequent discussion of the violence in South Sudan as an “ethnic conflict”  belies an implication that the underlying cause of the violence is a deep-seated hatred between the warring factions. This essay will problematise that assumption firstly by providing a background analysis that goes beyond historically strained relations between the two main ethnic groups represented in this conflict. It will then situate ethnic divisions into a broader social and political narrative, and consider the more direct factors that have contributed to the outbreak of violence. This paper finds that despite having political, social and economic causes, ethnicity has been instrumentalised by elites to incite participation in the conflict.

On February 2014, the UAE’s General Authority of Islamic Affairs released a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from a one-way Mars voyage (calling it suicide), a response to Mars One, for which 500 “Saudis and other Arabs” had volunteered. Mars One immediately requested the Authority “cancel” its fatwa, citing Islamic sources to argue the necessity of a Mars voyage. In July, the UAE established its Space Agency, planning for a Mars probe in 2021 to celebrate the bicentennial of independence from Britain. The resulting discourse online between Mars One, western media, and political/commercial/media bodies in the UAE raises questions not merely about the UAE and Islam, but also about spaceflight and humanitarianism in global public discourse.

Timothy Mitchell writes that the state operates beyond traditional boundaries, adopting Foucauldian techniques of power—not a Hobbesian hierarchy of centralized control but a discursive “effect” circulating even among non-state actors. Employing this framework to the UAE’s relationship with western and globalized spaceflight, I examine corporations and media outside borders of U.S., UAE, British, and Dutch states. UAE actors’ condemnation and support of spaceflight both rely upon reference to the west, exercising “strategic occidentalism” in a discourse enabled by Mars One. Mitchell’s discursive western power flattens across this global discourse, dangerously constricting the existential and political possibilities for answering the fundamental challenge of the fatwa controversy: What does, or should, humanity sacrifice for science? In order to realize “the peaceful uses of outer space,” the international community should come to terms with these asymmetries in global public discourse.

“How the Rest Became the West in the Mars One Fatwa Controversy: Spaceflight, globalism, risk to life, and strategic occidentalism in the UAE”

Based on research during MPhil in the Department of the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge, under the supervision of Mary Brazelton.

(Cambridge MPhil research)

In this paper, I complicate narratives about “common humanity” and “global commons” in outer space by revealing that the International Space Station (ISS) constitutes a unique space of contestation between representation and external space that challenges assumed homogeneity, and suggest adopting, as a substitute for “global commons,” a more heterogeneous account in keeping with what Michel Foucault called a “heterotopia.” I examine heterogeneity in historical and sociological accounts of the intersections of commercial, political, legal, scientific, and international spaces, applying Foucault’s concept of a ship as the “heterotopia par excellence” to scrutinize two spaces of difference with respect to the station. First, I historically examine the legal, political, economic, and international contingencies involved in the coming-to-be of an important research niche on the station, space-grown protein crystals, oriented toward the promise of economic development in pharmaceutical industries and contribution to fields in biology. Second, I conduct a sociological study of design, architecture, and bodies in one of the most unique sites on the station, the Cupola, typically referred to as “our window on the world,” as a transformative space of imagination. By revealing the heterotopic nature of the station through these spaces related to or in it, I demonstrate that it is more useful to think of outer space, or at least the station, as a heterotopia, an incongruous and contested external space, rather than the utopian, homogenous “common humanity” or “global commons.” This perspective allows for provocative historical and sociological readings of outer space activities as spaces of difference for power and resistance to it.

“Space Crystals and ‘Our Window on the World’: economic development, imagination, and humanity in the orbital heterotopia of the International Space Station”

Dissertation from an MPhil in the Department of the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge, under the supervision of Richard Staley.