Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen had an emotional message before he and three colleagues set off for the Moon earlier this year on the Artemis II mission: “We go for all humanity.”
The successful 10-day lunar flyby mission was an impressive scientific feat. But its importance may not have been for all humanity: it was primarily geopolitical. Because, just like the 20th-century space race between the Soviets and Americans, the new race to return to the Moon is highly politically charged.
To stop this race from morphing into a future catastrophe — one that could have debilitating consequences for life on Earth — there’s an urgent need to strengthen how space is governed. Only by fostering a deeper sense of “space citizenship” will all of humanity benefit from our journeys to the Moon — and beyond.
From space race to space war
The new space race involves many more players than the first one. It includes Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and, of course, the US. It also includes private companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing, Space Machines, Intuitive Machines, iSpace, and many others.
And why do they all want to reach the Moon? Because it contains resources — water and possibly helium-3 — which can be used as fuel. Whoever has access to, and domination over, these resources will have a major strategic advantage.
All of this matters for very pragmatic reasons for those of us on Earth.
You have probably already used space at least 20 times today — for example, to check the weather on an app or buy a coffee with your phone. The satellites that orbit Earth enable all of this. They also provide crucial information about climate change, farming and fisheries, drinking water, and responses to natural disasters.
But too many satellites and too much space debris could lead to catastrophic collisions and, therefore, outages of critical satellite connectivity.
Today’s militaries are also highly dependent on satellites for navigation, intelligence, communications, and targeting. As a result, military operations regularly interfere with and target satellites in order to compromise adversaries. There’s a possibility this could lead to an all-out war in space. This would potentially involve destroying satellites, creating uncontrollable debris, which in turn would lead to unusable orbits and a greater loss of critical connectivity.
Current space governance and space law mechanisms do a lot to safeguard against these doomsday scenarios. But just as with any system that depends upon international agreement, there are limitations to these mechanisms — especially given how international relations have ruptured recently.
A lesson from the Cold War
Signed at the height of the Cold War, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty states:
- space is the province of all humankind
- there shall be no appropriation or claims of sovereignty
- weapons of mass destruction are prohibited
- space shall be used for peaceful purposes.
Some argue the treaty is outdated or not fit for purpose in the 21st century. But the best way to view it is as a constitution.
Like national constitutions, it provides broad, enduring values and organizing principles designed to withstand the test of time. Just as in domestic legal systems, any specific technical and/or behavioral rules need to be addressed by lower-level regulations that can be changed over time without disrupting the constitution.
The challenge today is how to get to those lower-level rules. If we leave it solely up to international relations between countries, there are so many politically unstable relationships that we are likely to get nowhere. If we leave it solely up to the private sector, the rules will probably be based on self-interest rather than the common good.
We need to include as many different actors and interests as possible. This is not simple. But it’s the only way forward.
A combined effort
There are several initiatives underway to tackle space governance challenges that don’t rely only on states, and which include non-binding principles or guidelines.
Some of these are led by the private sector. They are therefore more likely to be flexible enough to adapt to changes in technology, and to gain support from commercial actors.
Some are traditionally multilateral through the United Nations. They are very slow-moving and subject to politicization, but at least they work towards political agreement.
Others are “minilateral” through smaller groups such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Quad (a diplomatic partnership between Australia, India, Japan, and the United States), NATO, the African Union, and the European Space Agency. These are more likely to come up with agreed norms because these groups already operate closely together.
Others still are based on agreement of basic principles, like the Artemis Accords, which are a non-binding set of guidelines about activities on the Moon.
Securing our future in space
We are at a crossroads in modern history. We can either allow Earth to suffocate under a blanket of space debris and space warfare, leaving humanity to flounder without access to all the things satellites make possible. Or we can shift our very relationship to space.
We inhabit space, we depend on space, and space is part of who we are. We are already space citizens. Just as individuals and civil society have a growing role to play in the global governance of artificial intelligence, big tech, social media, climate response, and education, so too we have a role to play in how we use or abuse space.
By understanding that space is part of our life on Earth, we can close the gap between ourselves (individually and societally) and those who currently have a say in global space governance mechanisms.
Approaching this shared responsibility as space citizens is the only way forward in the 21st century. Our current and future generations depend upon it.
Cassandra Steer, Associate Expert, National Security College; Chief Executive Officer, Australasian Centre for Space Governance, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Follow us on X, Facebook, or Pinterest
