This chapter deals with research priorities that were obtained during the writing of this book. We first illustrate the recent insights that were published since the publication of the first volume. New research topics deal with further exploring and identifying critical habitat components and the effect of land improvement initiatives. Demographics need to be studied in less covered areas using methods that have been perfectioned in the typical highly researched countries. Examining responses of Little Owl populations to land uses and the effects of abiotic environmental factors should allow for more quantitative management and follow-up on the effectiveness of taken measures. The adoption of the information-theoretic approach, focus on process variation and searching for mechanisms will need more statistical background and thoroughness, leading to even more long-term observational studies and focus on the cumulative effects. To do this in an optimal way, more experiments are urgently needed, to enable controling for certain parameters. Finally there is a need for the expansion of the investigated geographic range and an increase in research and experiment maturity in emerging countries, hopefully enabled by highly mature research teams and international co-operation.

The global governance regime for space is grounded in six decades of co-operation between the Soviet Union and then Russia on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other.

But continued co-operation is not guaranteed. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, some elements of international space co-operation broke down immediately. Other elements, such as the International Space Station, notably continued. More worrying, perhaps, is the heavy reliance of Russian and Ukrainian forces on satellites, including, in the case of Ukraine, satellites owned and operated by private companies. This raises challenging issues of international law, including whether these private satellites are legal targets. It also raises the question of how far Russia might go in this regard. What if it decided to target SpaceX’s Starlink mega-constellation?

Some 66 billion years ago, a cataclysmic collision between the Earth and an asteroid ten to 15 kilometres in diameter caused the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. In 1908, an asteroid 50 to 70 metres in diameter levelled over 2,000 square kilometres of forest in Siberia, while in 2013 an asteroid 19 metres in diameter produced a shockwave over Chelyabinsk, Russia, sending over a thousand people to the hospital. The field of ‘planetary defence’ involves the detection, characterisation, risk assessment and, if necessary, deflection of asteroids and comets that have the potential to strike Earth. Yet there has been a lack of high-level diplomacy on this issue. In particular, the low probability of a major Earth impact happening in our lifetime makes planetary defence a low priority for political leaders, despite the existential consequences of impacts and their eventual certainty of occurring. There is also a shortage of widely agreed international law, including on the potential use of nuclear explosive devices for deflecting asteroids. Most importantly, there is a lack of agreement on who is responsible for vetting the science, assessing the risks and making decisions if Earth were faced with an actual impact threat. Is it the United Nations Security Council that decides? What if a Security Council decision is blocked by one of its veto-holding permanent members? Would a state that acted unilaterally be excused any illegality because of the necessity of its actions, according to the international law on ‘state responsibility’?