Search

Inspired by the US government's denial that outer space is a global commons, and the heated discussion in China regarding property rights in outer space resources, this article looks at this controversial term: "global commons". It finds that this term was mostly adopted as a political, rather than legal, term. As a result of the overemphasis on the implications of global commons on the property rights to outer space resources, states that plan to develop private space mining may avoid calling outer space a global commons. This article argues that this response may not be necessary. It then examines the real purpose of the global commons discourse by analogizing the tragedy of commons and thus puts forward the suggestion to adopt the non-exclusive use standard to govern the activities of space resource extraction by private parties. This solution will allow countries to continue to view outer space as a global commons while liberalizing private parties' activities in outer space resource development and extraction. Moreover, China's initiative of the global community of shared future possesses the potential to serve as the overarching concept to govern its future outer space activities, including space mining. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review examines critical questions related to whether the outer space is a global common; it also addresses the challenge of achieving balance between the outer space treaty (OST) mandate of compliance with the common interest principle and requirement of providing an environment for the success of commercial lunar enterprises while simultaneously mitigating the possibility of conflict on the Moon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review examines critical questions related to whether the outer space is a global common; it also addresses the challenge of achieving balance between the outer space treaty (OST) mandate of compliance with the common interest principle and requirement of providing an environment for the success of commercial lunar enterprises while simultaneously mitigating the possibility of conflict on the Moon.

The Anthropocene signifies the start of a no-analogue trajectory of the Earth system that is fundamentally different from the Holocene. This new trajectory is characterized by rising risks of triggering irreversible and unmanageable shifts in Earth system functioning. We urgently need a new global approach to safeguard critical Earth system regulating functions more effectively and comprehensively. The global commons framework is the closest example of an existing approach with the aim of governing biophysical systems on Earth upon which the world collectively depends. Derived during stable Holocene conditions, the global commons framework must now evolve in the light of new Anthropocene dynamics. This requires a fundamental shift from a focus only on governing shared resources beyond national jurisdiction, to one that secures critical functions of the Earth system irrespective of national boundaries. We propose a new framework--the planetary commons--which differs from the global commons framework by including not only globally shared geographic regions but also critical biophysical systems that regulate the resilience and state, and therefore livability, on Earth. The new planetary commons should articulate and create comprehensive stewardship obligations through Earth system governance aimed at restoring and strengthening planetary resilience and justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial for the special issue on “Commons in Space”.

The designation of outer space as a global commons is a contentious issue. Some argue that officially recognizing it as such could discourage private investment, while others claim that it would not sufficiently promote sustainability. To address these debates, this article examines how space actors use a global commons framework in their institutional arrangements. Based on a collection of 1042 space arrangements, we characterize a subset of arrangements that explicitly reference concepts related to the notion of global commons. We observe that this framework is seldom used in bilateral arrangements and is mostly absent from recent agreements made by influential players. Furthermore, we find that employing principles related to global commons in arrangements does not result in significantly different operational rules. As a result, we conclude that a clearly defined global commons perspective has yet to be articulated and institutionalized.

The study of heritage requires new conceptual approaches that contribute to its current theoretical debate, in order to re-nourish the knowledge of different disciplines that address it. In between, richer and more complex crossovers are generated. This article presents the positions of different authors and submits them, especially, to the discussions on rural space, tourism and the logics of land use planning. As axes, work on heritage as a concept, approach, process and attitude is proposed. The conclusions will reveal that it is necessary to expand certain conceptual categories to better cover the heritage of rural areas, as well as a need to rethink tourism in that environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces a new meaning of the acronym M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) in the field of security. From the original connection with nuclear issues, its use is moving to the area of cyberspace. The text introduces the basic division of domains important for human activities. It explains their importance in terms of undeniable usability and availability for mankind, at the same time, it draws attention to their vulnerability and the need to ensure their protection. It deals in more details with the new fifth domain – cyberspace. In this context, security threats are mentioned and some legal aspects are indicated.

If territory is part of the problem in the quest for peaceful relations, it should also be part of the solution. This is the core argument in the present text, where the work of international lawyer Louis Sohn during the Cold War and efforts towards territorial disarmament across time and space are used as starting points for the exploration of possibilities today, including in the global commons and other territories beyond the jurisdiction of individual states. I explore a range of experiences of territorial disarmament already in operation alongside the opportunities currently offered in the nexus between protection of the environment and armed conflicts. Finally, the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework and the UN Principles on protection of the environment in armed conflict developed by the International Law Commission are looked at as opportunities for the successive protection of territories through various forms of disarmament and neutralisation.

On September 22, 2022, the world’s first transaction on space resources took place, highlighting the need for an international space mining regime. Although outer space is often considered global commons, there is a concern that the commons governance regime may hinder the commercial use of space resources. The current research does not provide an in-depth analysis of the incentive mechanism under the global commons governance regime, let alone the economic incentive mechanism. This paper explores how to construct the channels for accessing economic benefits in the commons governance regime of space resources. The channels will constitute a critical incentive mechanism for the regime, and they should conform to two principles closely related to the commons and incentives: the common benefit principle contained in international law and the 2B principle proposed by Ostrom. This paper summarizes the basic types of channels and their combinations and finds that the channels and their combinations in previous studies and the latest international instruments do not fully meet the requirements of the two principles. Based on the principles, this paper puts forward a new proposal, which integrates four existing channels and one new channel. Compared with previous research, the proposal suggested in this article has advantages in the following aspects: promoting the realization of the two principles, incentivizing diverse countries to accept commons governance of space resources, and encouraging space cooperation between spacefaring nations and non-spacefaring nations.

The governance of ocean and polar regions is among the most relevant challenges in the combat against global environmental degradation and global inequalities. Ocean and polar regions are climate regulators and very much affected by climate change. They are an important source of nutrition for life in and above the sea. At the same time, they are subject to an increasing number of geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts. Due to the lasting virulence of many security issues, economic conflicts, legal disputes, new technological developments, and environmental crises in global marine areas as well as the intricate overlap of sovereign, semi-sovereign, and global commons territories, the relevance of ocean and polar governance is bound to rise. This thematic issue sketches important trends in research on these issues and identifies future avenues of inquiry. In this editorial, we first provide an overview of governance challenges for ocean and polar regions and their relevance for geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts. In a second step, we present the eight contributions that make up the thematic issue by clustering them around three themes: (a) challenges to norm-creation in ocean governance, (b) the impact of territorialisation on governance and the construction of authority, and (c) the effectiveness of regimes of ocean and polar governance.

The international system of states displays an inherent drive to territorialize the global commons. But territorialization is not a continuous process—it occurs in episodes. In this article, I use one case from ocean governance, the expansion of territory into near-shore areas of the seas, to advance a twofold argument about the nature of these episodes. First, I argue that the root causes of this drive to territorialize “empty space” are located in global politics, norms, and economics. Second, a territorializing episode occurs when there are impelling economic incentives, and when great powers are unable or unwilling to oppose territorialization. However, this can lead to different outcomes: sovereign territories, functional territories, or internationalized territories. Oceanic space has seen a series of these territorializing episodes since the end of the Second World War and functional territorialization has become more prevalent over time.

Copyright of Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad is the property of Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The designation of outer space as a global commons is a contentious issue. Some argue that officially recognizing it as such could discourage private investment, while others claim that it would not sufficiently promote sustainability. To address these debates, this article examines how space actors use a global commons framework in their institutional arrangements. Based on a collection of 1042 space arrangements, we characterize a subset of arrangements that explicitly reference concepts related to the notion of global commons. We observe that this framework is seldom used in bilateral arrangements and is mostly absent from recent agreements made by influential players. Furthermore, we find that employing principles related to global commons in arrangements does not result in significantly different operational rules. As a result, we conclude that a clearly defined global commons perspective has yet to be articulated and institutionalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Defense & Strategy / Obrana a strategie is the property of Institute for Strategic Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The exponential development of space activity due to plans to expand space activity on the Moon and other celestial bodies raises many legal tasks to solve in the future. There are a lot of international and national initiatives to build the legal framework of a future sustainable space mining economy. This article is focused on reviewing such initiatives for the aim to reveal the main issues concerning fostering the sustainable development of the space activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies. As a result, the common procedure of the advancing governance, safety zones establishing criterions, the institutionalization of the general recognition of the property rights, benefit-sharing model, interoperability of the internal authorization procedures and technical standards enabling safe and sustainable space mining activities, authoritative dispute resolution procedures have been distinguished. They should become as main conceptual mechanisms for further international and national law-making process.

The international system of states displays an inherent drive to territorialize the global commons. But territorialization is not a continuous process--it occurs in episodes. In this article, I use one case from ocean governance, the expansion of territory into near-shore areas of the seas, to advance a twofold argument about the nature of these episodes. First, I argue that the root causes of this drive to territorialize "empty space" are located in global politics, norms, and economics. Second, a territorializing episode occurs when there are impelling economic incentives, and when great powers are unable or unwilling to oppose territorialization. However, this can lead to different outcomes: sovereign territories, functional territories, or internationalized territories. Oceanic space has seen a series of these territorializing episodes since the end of the Second World War and functional territorialization has become more prevalent over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The governance of ocean and polar regions is among the most relevant challenges in the combat against global environmental degradation and global inequalities. Ocean and polar regions are climate regulators and very much affected by climate change. They are an important source of nutrition for life in and above the sea. At the same time, they are subject to an increasing number of geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts. Due to the lasting virulence of many security issues, economic conflicts, legal disputes, new technological developments, and environmental crises in global marine areas as well as the intricate overlap of sovereign, semi-sovereign, and global commons territories, the relevance of ocean and polar governance is bound to rise. This thematic issue sketches important trends in research on these issues and identifies future avenues of inquiry. In this editorial, we first provide an overview of governance challenges for ocean and polar regions and their relevance for geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts. In a second step, we present the eight contributions that make up the thematic issue by clustering them around three themes: (a) challenges to norm-creation in ocean governance, (b) the impact of territorialisation on governance and the construction of authority, and (c) the effectiveness of regimes of ocean and polar governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. The aim of the research has been: to study the theoretical basis of the application of assessment of economic damage from environmental pollution in the field of environmental auditing and accounting, to identify problems in existing methods and approaches and to propose specific ways to solve them taking into account current legislation and international experience.Material and Methods. The research carried out by the authors was based on the provisions of current legal regulations in the fields of environmental safety and environmental protection, damage assessment in the environmental sphere together with data from scientific articles by both domestic and foreign experts in the field of environmental auditing. The study was conducted using theoretical methods of research including analysis, deduction and prediction.Results. The authors propose moving away from traditional cost (taxation) methods to the consolidation in regulatory practice of a single approach to the assessment of economic damage taking into account actuarial valuation methodology, application of sanctions instruments to those unscrupulously infringing environmental regulations and the possibility of discounting the costs of restoring the environment and damage done to public health.Conclusion. Adoption of common approaches and principles in the assessment of economic damage will help eliminate negative manipulations when imposing economic sanctions on those unscrupulously engaged in activities impacting on the environment and will provide an opportunity to improve the environmental situation and public health in the long term.

Aim. To study the methodological foundations and main provisions of a new vector of economic development, the "ecological economy", as being the most important aspect of the Global Commons ideology.Material and Methods. The study was conducted using a range of theoretical research methods, including analysis, deduction and forecasting.Discussion. The basis of the Global Commons ideology is considered to be the "green economy", a new technological modality, the purpose of which is the careful and rational utilisation of available resources employing high technologies for the maximum satisfaction of people's needs. Proponents of the Global Commons ideology advocate the ecology or the environment as the dominant factors in sustainable socio-economic development. At the same time, the environmental policy of the developed world also represents a new form of neocolonialism directed at the takeover of strategic natural resources of underdeveloped countries, while restricting their rights to technological and social development. It may even be aimed at the military or economic capture of national natural and biological resources. All this challenges individual state sovereignty and may lead to a fundamentally new type of conflict in the future.Conclusions. The formation of the "ecological economy" is a new vector of sustainable socio-economic development in the Global Commons ideology, requiring our governmental authorities to take the necessary organizational, military, managerial and regulatory measures to realize the nation's competitive advantages, to conserve its natural potential, to block non-residents from capturing national wealth and to organise an effective system of environmental security.

The exponential development of space activity due to plans to expand space activity on the Moon and other celestial bodies raises many legal tasks to solve in the future. There are a lot of international and national initiatives to build the legal framework of a future sustainable space mining economy. This article is focused on reviewing such initiatives for the aim to reveal the main issues concerning fostering the sustainable development of the space activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies. As a result, the common procedure of the advancing governance, safety zones establishing criterions, the institutionalization of the general recognition of the property rights, benefit-sharing model, interoperability of the internal authorization procedures and technical standards enabling safe and sustainable space mining activities, authoritative dispute resolution procedures have been distinguished. They should become as main conceptual mechanisms for further international and national law-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The re-emergence of commoning over the last decades is not incidental, but rather indicative of a large-scale transition to a more “generative” organization of society that is oriented toward the planet’s global carrying capacity. Digital commons governance frameworks are of particular importance for a new global paradigm of cooperation, one that can scale the organization of communities around common goals and resources to unprecedented levels of size, complexity and granularity. Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs) such as blockchain have lately given new impetus to the emergence of a new generation of authentic “sharing economy,” protected from capture by thorough distribution of power over infrastructure, that spans not only digital but also physical production of common value. The exploration of the frontiers of DLT-based commoning at the heart of this article considers three exemplary cases for this new generation of commons-oriented community frameworks: the Commons Stack, Holochain and the Commons Engine, and the Economic Space Agency. While these projects differ in their scope as well as in their relation to physical common-pool resources (CPRs), they all share the task of redefining markets so as to be more conducive to the production and sustainment of common value(s). After introducing each of them with regards to their specificities and commonalities, we analyze their capacity to foster commons-oriented economies and “money for the commons” that limit speculation, emphasize use-value over exchange-value, favor equity in human relations, and promote responsibility for the preservation of natural habitats. Our findings highlight the strengths of DLTs for a federated scaling of CPR governance frameworks that accommodates rather than obliterates cultural differences and creates webs of fractal belonging among nested communities.

In recent years, the increasing need for global coordination has attracted interest in the governance of global-scale commons. In the current context, we observe how online applications are ubiquitous, and how emerging technologies enable new capabilities while reshaping sectors. Thus, it is pertinent to ask: could blockchain technologies facilitate the extension and scaling up of cooperative practices and commons management in this global context? In order to address this question, we propose a focus on the most paradigmatic and widely successful examples of global cooperation: global digital commons. Examples of these are the digital resources maintained by large peer production communities, such as free/libre open source software and Wikipedia. Thus, this article identifies and analyzes the potentialities of blockchain to support the sustainability and management of global digital commons. Our approach draws on Elinor Ostrom’s classic principles for commons governance, although revisiting and adapting these to the more challenging scope of global digital commons. Thus, in this work we identify the affordances which blockchain provides (e.g., tokenization, formalization of rules, transparency or codification of trust) to support the effective management of this type of global commons. As part of our analysis, we provide numerous examples of existing blockchain projects using affordances in line with each principle, as well as potential integrations of such affordances in existing practices of peer production communities. Our analysis shows that, when considering the challenges of managing global commons (e.g., heterogeneity or scale), the potential of blockchain is particularly valuable to explore solutions that: distribute power, facilitate coordination, scale up governance, visibilize traditionally invisible work, monitor and track compliance with rules, define collective agreements, and enable cooperation across communities. These affordances and the subsequent analysis contribute to the emergent debate on blockchain-based forms of governance, first by providing analytical categories for further research, but also by providing a guide for experimentation with the development of blockchain tools to facilitate global cooperation.

Collapse is considered a breakup of institutions and entire socio-economies. Collapse has accompanied socio-economic history, but seems to have become more topical again in recent decades. We even face the danger of extinction of the human species, due to anthropocenic climate change, not the least based on failure of institutional arrangements. Uprooting migration and "failing states" have become topical as well. Mainstream economics seems to have no clue about all that, advising ever more good old "market-economy institutions." Evolutionary and institutional economics has focused on institutional emergence, evolution, and persistent structures, but still not so much on decline and collapse. I develop an endogenous explanation of institutional decline and collapse implied by the previous success of institutionalized cooperation and increasing (over-)complexity, which exceeds individual cognitive capacities. Institutional adaptability and problem-solving capacity then decline. Uneven distribution of cooperation gains will further cause social conflict and institutional ceremonialization, decline, and collapse. Collapse will not just be a symmetric reverse of emergence. Being subject to sunk costs during emergence, to habituation and normativation, institutions tend to display some hysteresis. The article adopts an evolutionary-institutional perspective, in order to conceptualize future modeling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The system of Antarctic governance is a sui generis case. It combines the exercise of national sovereignty by seven States with an international co-administration by the Antarctic Treaty's Consultative Parties. Because the importance of Antarctica for the world, its situation is no so different from that of a global commons. Their governance can adopt the perspective of common interest of humankind. This paper reflects on the meaning of that, and about its challenges in general and concerning the Sixth Continent. We argue that this has been the view that has guided the Antarctic Treaty System's evolution in the past six decades, and it should be the one that drives its future development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The phenomenon of collective action and the origin of collective action problems have been extensively and systematically studied in the social sciences. Yet, while we have substantial knowledge about the factors promoting collective action at the local level, we know far less about how these insights travel to large-scale collective action problems. Such problems, however, are at the heart of humanity's most pressing challenges, including climate change, large-scale natural resource depletion, biodiversity loss, nuclear proliferation, antibiotic resistance due to overconsumption of antibiotics, and pollution. In this paper, we suggest an analytical framework that captures the theoretical understanding of preconditions for large-scale collective action. This analytical framework aims at supporting future empirical analyses of how to cope with and overcome larger-scale collective action problems. More specifically, we (i) define and describe the main characteristics of a large-scale collective action problem and (ii) explain why voluntary and, in particular, spontaneous large-scale collective action among individual actors becomes more improbable as the collective action problem becomes larger, thus demanding interventions by an external authority (a third party) for such action to be generated. Based on this, we (iii) outline an analytical framework that illustrates the connection between third-party interventions and large-scale collective action. We conclude by suggesting avenues for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper rethinks the governance of genebanks in a social and political context that has significantly evolved since their establishment. The theoretical basis for the paper is the commons conceptual framework in relation to both seed and plant genetic resources. This framework is applied to question the current policy ecosystem of genetic research and breeding and explore different collective governance models. The concept of crop diversity management system (CDMS) commons is proposed as the new foundation for a more holistic and inclusive framework for crop diversity management, that covers a broad range of concerns and requires different actors. The paper presents a multi-stakeholder process established within the context of the two recent projects CoEx and Dynaversity, imagining possible collective arrangements to overcome existing deadlocks, foster collective learning, and design collaborative relationships among genebanks, researchers, and farmers’ civil society organizations involved in crop diversity management.

The article deals with the circumstances of the development and implementation of new operational concepts for the use of the United States Armed Forces. The first objective is to define theoretically the issue of the so-called Global Commons, taking into account the capability of troops in operations, to secure or prevent access to these areas. The second objective is to analyse the background of the AirSea Battle concept, to clarify the essence of its specific focus on China, as well as the countermeasures of this major power toward the United States. The third objective is to clarify the circumstances leading to the rapid replacement of this concept with a new concept, the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons, using a much wider range of capabilities of the United States Armed Forces. Finally, the article focuses on the implications of the new concept not only from the point of view of the United States but also of the Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This contribution to the symposium on the economic exploitation of the commons focuses on the question of whether and to what extent the principle of the common heritage of mankind (CHM) imposes environmental limits on economic exploitation of the global commons. Focusing on the need to go beyond a unidimensional assessment of the principle, it considers how CHM was originally envisaged, the form it took in the deep seabed regime, in particular, how its role in that regime has developed over time and how it has been utilized as a basis for advocacy. It concludes with an assessment of CHM's limitations and strategic advantages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mainstreaming gender in water governance through “how to do gender” toolkits has long been a development focus. It has been widely argued that such toolkits simplify the complex, nuanced realities of inequalities by gender in relation to water and fail to pay attention to the fact that the proposed users of such gender-water toolkits, i.e. mostly male water sector professionals, lack the skills, motivation and/or incentives to apply these toolkits in their everyday work. We adopt a feminist political ecology lens to analyse some of the barriers to reduce social inequalities in the management of global commons such as international rivers. Our findings highlight the leap of faith made in the belief that gender toolkits, as they exist, will filter through layers of a predominantly masculine institutional culture to enable change in ground realities of complex inequalities by gender. Analysing the everyday workings of two hydropower development organisations in India, we show how organisational structures demonstrate a blatant culture of masculinity. These two organisations, like many others, are sites where hierarchies and inequalities based on gender are produced, performed and reproduced. This performance of masculinity promotes and rewards a culture of technical pride in re-shaping nature, abiding by and maintaining hierarchy and demonstrating physical strength and emotional hardiness. In such a setting, paying attention to vulnerabilities, inequalities and disparities are incompatible objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent system of fruit breeding and fruit cultivation faces a range of sustainability challenges, specifically genetic erosion, consequences of an increased privatization of former common goods, and an overall loss of resilience in the face of environmental change. We argue that a commons-based organization of fruit breeding could potentially meet these challenges. By (1) describing the specific collective action challenges for designing governance arrangements in the context of fruit breeding, and (2) conducting a case study of a commons-based organic apple breeding project in Germany, we develop a comprehensive picture of commons-based fruit breeding and its potential to meet core governance challenges in this sector. Our analysis shows that ‘fruit breeding commons’ are a form of ‘Hybrid Commons’: They bridge Traditional Commons and New Commons (Knowledge Commons and Global Natural Resource Commons) and involve two interacting layers of commons organization. The inner layer encompasses the norms, rules and institutions governing the variety breeding process itself within a clearly defined decentralized breeding community. The outer layer encompasses the usage and protection rules regarding the resulting fruit varieties and knowledge about its characteristics referring to a more open community. The empirical findings further reveal that fruit breeding commons can (potentially) resolve the public-good dilemma including the under-provision of innovations in breeding and agrobiodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent growth of the space sector, spurred by a surge in private actors, has led to a sharp increase in our ability to address societal challenges through space data. However, this has exacerbated an already critical situation in space: the proliferation of space debris and a critical expansion of space traffic which is leading to high levels of orbital congestion. In parallel, increased levels of spacecraft production and orbital launches are also heightening the environmental footprint of the sector. This might lead to a paradoxical situation whereby the use of space to support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) becomes unsustainable from the perspective of both the Earth and space environment. This situation can be described as the 'space sustainability paradox'. This paper presents this concept for the first time and argues that existing policies and remediation actions are not a long-term sustainable solution for tackling this issue and may actually intensify the problem. This places an added importance upon addressing space sustainability in a more coherent, strategic and responsible manner, potentially based on the doughnut economic model of social and planetary boundaries. Doing so may prevent the sector from falling victim to a 'tragedy of the commons' type of scenario and avoid negative trends from becoming the norm. As a result, this would ensure that outer space can continue to be used by future generations to address societal challenges, without priming severe and enduring damage to the Earth and space environment. • Space sustainability is a growing but often misunderstood concept. • Sustainability from and of space are two finely balanced and interrelated issues. • Existing policies/remediation actions are not a long-term solution for sustainability. • A major paradigm shift is needed to enable space sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antarctica is recognized as being geopolitically and scientifically important, and as one of the regions with the greatest potential to affect and be affected by global climate change. Still, little is known in practice about how climate change will be handled within the main governance framework of the continent: the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). Using qualitative interviews, participant observations and policy document analysis, this paper explores the perspectives of Chilean scientific, political and non-governmental actors regarding the implications of climate change for the current Antarctic governance framework. Results corroborate a misalignment of the climate change agenda and the ATS, stemming from the divergent views displayed by a wide network of actors. From the interviews, two predominant visions emerge: (i) climate change as an opportunity, where actors recognize the role of Antarctica in regulating global climate and stress greater opportunities to conduct Antarctic-based climate change research, the need for strategic international collaboration, and the reinforcement of Chile’s position in Antarctica through science; (ii) climate change as a burden where actors acknowledge climate change as a global problem, largely external to Antarctica, express disbelief regarding the effectiveness of local actions to tackle climate change and do not associate with climate change governance. The study concludes that climate change may become a dividing, rather than a unifying, field of action in Chilean Antarctic governance, reinforcing previously existing geopolitical tendencies.

This article traces the evolution of polluter-pays-principle (PPP) as an economic, ethical and legal instrument and argues that it has the potential of effecting global responsibility for adaptation and mitigation and for generating reliable funding for the purpose. However, the contradiction is that while it rests on neoliberal market principles, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change did not include the PPP as its provision though the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility based on respective capabilities” (Article 3.1) implicitly recognizes this. The article raises the basic question that under a free-market global system: why should the polluters not take responsibility of their actions so that the global society does not suffer? The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries apply this PPP in many of its forms. Some developing countries are also applying it albeit still more as a governmental rather than polluter responsibility. Currently there is an emerging consensus that a carbon tax should be applied globally to address the intractable problem of climate change. Since the problem relates to a global commons, the issue is how to apply the PPP globally yet equitably. This article brings in Caney’s proposal that as complementary to the PPP. The “ability to pay principle” (APP) can take care of emissions of the past agreed by the Parties and current and future legitimate emissions of the disadvantaged countries and groups of people. He calls the latter poverty-sensitive PPP. While PPP is primarily a market principle, APP is a principle of justice and equity. That polluters should pay the social and environmental costs of their pollution reflects the most fundamental principles of justice and responsibility.