Search

Purpose: Humanity has a weakness in how we approach the “challenge” of using outer space. This paper aims to show how the global and national frameworks that address our planetary activities and crises are inadequate for the opportunities and challenges of life in outer space. Design/methodology/approach: The authors draw on multidisciplinary perspectives to refine an organising governance framework that better showcases the challenges and pathways needed for living and thriving in space-age. The authors prioritise two key pillars and overview the practical and social implications that space-age humanity must address. Findings: Social sciences and humanities are vital to problematising post-war colonial legacies of governance by distinguishing the unique and overlooked challenges for thriving and working offworld and identifying progressive research agendas. Research limitations/implications: The highlighted agenda has implications for collaborative research institutes and project design. As the vital basis for continuous learning, university-based research institutes span bodies of knowledge, experience, convention and imagination that can support vibrant and overdue debate on good governance that is out of this world. Practical implications: This expansive approach has practical implications for the decision-making processes and subjects of spacescape, from reconciling the space commons with prospecting and human occupation to potential governance regimes that capitalise on the zeal for moving beyond merely “existing” off-world. Social implications: Examining the governance deficit as we pursue developing spacescape frontiers is an enriching (not reductionist) agenda that deliberately troubles the existing and emerging regime for governing our scientific and imagined off-world society. Originality/value: This framework appeals to humanity’s highest evolution in co-producing a fair and flourishing off-world governance framework (beyond replicating planetary regimes).

The Pacific region is a biodiversity hot spot with a long history of human occupation closely linked with sustainable use of the marine environment. The health of the marine environment and its resources is of environmental, economic and socio-cultural concern, and law plays an important part in its conservation and management. Designing appropriate legal mechanisms is, however, a challenging prospect. The Pacific Island countries involve a complex environment for law and policy-makers. As a result of their colonial past, these nations are legally pluralist, with more than one legal system operating at the same time. In addition, Pacific Island countries have embraced international law, ratifying the majority of key environmental treaties and subsequently taking steps to implement their obligations, including those related to biodiversity conservation. This complicated legal landscape means that law and policy must be adopted that implements international treaties whilst also meeting the needs of local communities. A particular feature of the Pacific region is the widespread adoption of community-based marine management approaches. Their proliferation is due to a combination of underlying customary law, which has subsisted despite colonial rule, together with a willingness by governments to support local approaches. This article examines community-based marine management through a legal lens; it commences by outlining traditional rules for marine management before exploring the contemporary legal position with a focus on the hybridisation of state-based legislation and customary law. Finally, comments are made on the effectiveness of these legal approaches, as well as remaining challenges.

AbstractIn the last two decades indigenous peoples have obtained a greater ‘voice’ at the international level while at the same time international laws have established the rights of indigenous peoples and drawn attention to their importance in environmental governance. A number of international legal instruments now make specific reference to indigenous peoples, customary law and traditional knowledge. However, they do not directly address the often complex issues involved in implementing law and policy in countries where multiple legal orders operate, and conflicts between customary and state-based legal norms and governance regimes often remain a significant issue. This paper explores the problem in the context of international environmental law and sustainable development, with particular reference to the small island developing states (SIDS) of the South Pacific.International law was in the past the domain of states. With the establishment of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations in the 1980s, the interest generated following the International Year of the World’s Indigenous People in 1993, and the Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (from 1995), increasing attention has been given to indigenous peoples as non-state actors, and they now have an emerging legal personality in the international arena. Most independent post-colonial societies support equality and prohibit discrimination, but the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination is disputed, since it may entail a right of secession. Nevertheless many international instruments now acknowledge rights of indigenous peoples to protection and respect for their social, cultural, religious and spiritual values and practices, including rights in relation to customs and customary law. Many international law instruments which refer to the rights of indigenous peoples relate to sustainable development and natural resource management. In addition to international human rights law and international law in general, international environmental law has provided important rights and tools for indigenous peoples.Special attention to the needs of SIDS led to the Declaration of Barbados and the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA, 1994). The Declaration acknowledges that the “international community has a responsibility to facilitate the efforts of small island developing states to minimize the stress on their fragile ecosystems, including through cooperative action and partnership”. BPOA has identified priority areas and set out actions under each which are to be undertaken at each level by a tripartite partnership involving the international community, regional bodies and the state. It has noted the need to harmonise environmental law amongst the SIDS, and the importance of global and regional programmes to develop and implement national environmental legislation. It is argued, however, that generally there has been a failure to meaningfully engage with the issue of legal pluralism which hampers implementation of culturally appropriate laws in many states in the Pacific region. There is a need for a greater role for international institutions and agencies, but it is essential to ensure that indigenous people themselves fully participate at the international level. Further proposals are advanced for a new research agenda and a strengthening of existing programmes to achieve the previously identified outcomes.