We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The chapter delves into the intricacies of representations of outer space, exposing their entanglement with colonialist narratives. It analyzes the ideology behind space exploration to show that, rather than being something “new” or aligned with futurism, these texts repeat colonialist conquest narratives while proposing alternative methodologies of “worlding” beyond conventional materialist paradigms. By critiquing mainstream notions of space travel, this chapter illuminates the Cartesian–Baconian separation of humans from nature, which, the author argues, perpetuates antiblackness. Through an analysis of Sun Ra’s Space Is the Place, the chapter illuminates how alternative narratives use outer space as a metaphor to oppose notions of the separation of humans from the natural world and anti-blackness. Sun Ra’s film not only challenges traditional modes of travel but also hints at alternative ways of understanding exploration, most especially of oneself. This shift in perspective signifies a departure from the conventional idea of discovering new worlds towards a more profound concept of co-creating realities, emphasizing shifts in consciousness over mere geographical exploration. Drawing upon the work of Katherine McKittrick and others, this chapter also invites a reconsideration of the ways in which geography itself is constructed, rather than an objective material fact of the phenomenological world.
Historians have written copiously about the shift to ‘germ theories’ of disease around the turn of the twentieth century, but in these accounts an entire continent has been left out: Antarctica. This article begins to rebalance our historiography by bringing cold climates back into the story of environmental medicine and germ theory. It suggests three periods of Antarctic (human) microbial research – heroic sampling, systematic studies, and viral space analogue – and examines underlying ideas about ‘purity’ and infection, the realities of fieldwork, and the use of models in biomedicine. It reveals Antarctica not as an isolated space but as a deeply complex, international, well-networked node in global science ranging from the first international consensus on pandemic-naming through to space flight.
Human capacity to explore and shape outer space will increase substantially over the next 50 years. Yet, International Relations (IR) theory still treats outer space as an isolated, unique, or inconsequential realm of political life. This paper moves IR beyond its ‘terrestrial trap’ by theorising planetary politics as inherently embedded in relations with environments and actors that are located beyond Earth. To face the momentous and often alarming political developments taking place in outer space, from space militarisation to space colonisation, we challenge two of IR’s terrestrial biases. First, we confront the assumption that developments in international relations take place only or primarily on Earth. We show how the historically constituted ideologies and political economies of colonisation and domination are extended to – but also transformed within – outer space exploration and settlement. Second, we challenge the notion that developments in outer space form a logical extension of politics as it has emerged on the habitable surface of our planet. We move beyond zones of human habitation and explore how the material conditions of space intersect with situated histories of political governance and control. By analysing politics beyond Earth, we retool IR theory to confront an extraterrestrial political future.
We construct an unfolding path in Outer space which does not converge in the boundary, and instead it accumulates on the entire 1-simplex of projectivized length measures on a nongeometric arational ${\mathbb R}$-tree T. We also show that T admits exactly two dual ergodic projective currents. This is the first nongeometric example of an arational tree that is neither uniquely ergodic nor uniquely ergometric.
This chapter examines China’s differential approach vis-à-vis developing and developed countries in advancing its normative agenda on non-weaponization in outer space before the Conference on Disarmament and the UN General Assembly. Pursuant to the logic of the democratization of international relations, China has gained the majority support of developing countries for its agenda around their commonly shared values of peace and development and through other forms of functional cooperation in their outer space activities – increasing its international legitimacy in their eyes. Conversely, China has yet to gain the trust of technologically advanced – developed – nations in order to give its future regulatory framework governing peaceful relationships in outer space its much-needed normativity. Instead, past disarmament efforts in outer space during the Cold War can guide China’s norm-entrepreneurship where it must seek consensus among the major space powers, the United States in particular, on the basis of trust. Without such a fertile soil, however, any rules on the prevention of an arms race in outer space cannot take root.
The chapter discusses the basics of the law of the global commons (seas, air, outer space), by concentrating on what states can do in which zones or spaces
From Space debris to asteroid strikes to anti-satellite weapons, humanity's rapid expansion into Space raises major environmental, safety, and security challenges. In this book, Michael Byers and Aaron Boley, an international lawyer and an astrophysicist, identify and interrogate these challenges and propose actionable solutions. They explore essential questions from, 'How do we ensure all of humanity benefits from the development of Space, and not just the world's richest people?' to 'Is it possible to avoid war in Space?' Byers and Boley explain the essential aspects of Space science, international law, and global governance in a fully transdisciplinary and highly accessible way. Addressing the latest and emerging developments in Space, they equip readers with the knowledge and tools to engage in current and critically important legal, policy, and scientific debates concerning the future development of Space. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
In this chapter Germany’s position on Antarctica, the law of the sea, as well as air and space law will be examined. Concerning the law of the sea, Germany’s critical position on China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea, expressed on many different occasions, will be addressed. Besides that, it will be addressed that Turkey accused Germany of illegally boarding its merchant vessel on the high seas in the Mediterranean. Yet, it will be concluded the boarding and search of the vessel even against the expressed will of Turkey was not illegal under international law. Regarding Turkey’s conduct of seismic surveys in the eastern Mediterranean, Germany’s calls on Turkey to respect international law will be criticised as lacking a legal basis. That Germany joined the UK-led Global Ocean Alliance, will be evaluated as a way for Germany to lobby for greater parts of the ocean being assigned Marine Protected Area status. In the last part, Germany opposing Russian initiatives on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space will be assessed a sign of its increasing frustration with the double standards displayed by Russia and the other major space powers.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty reserved outer space for ‘peaceful purposes’, yet recent decades have witnessed growing competition and calls for new multilateral rules including a proposed ban on the deployment of weapons in space. These diplomatic initiatives have stalled in the face of concerted opposition from the United States. To explain this outcome, we characterise US diplomacy as a form of ‘antipreneurship’, a type of strategic norm-focused competition designed to preserve the prevailing normative status quo in the face of entrepreneurial efforts. We substantially refine and extend existing accounts of antipreneurship by theorising three dominant forms of antipreneurial agency – rhetorical, procedural, and behavioural – and describing the mechanisms and scope conditions though which they operate. We then trace the development of US resistance to proposed restraints on space weapons from 2000–present. Drawing on hundreds of official documents, we show how successive US administrations have employed a range of interlayered diplomatic strategies and tactics to preserve the permissive international legal framework governing outer space and protect US national security priorities. Our study illustrates the specific techniques and impacts of resistance in a domain of growing strategic importance, with implications for further refining understandings of norm competition in other issue areas.
The quantity of man-made space objects, ranging from abandoned launch vehicle stages to fragmentation debris, is remarkable. At the time, the drafters of the Outer Space Treaty did not (and perhaps could not) anticipate how great the problem of debris in outer space would one day become. As a result, they only drafted general provisions for the protection of the space environment which are generally deemed insufficient. This article aims to demonstrate that both general rules of international law and the UNCOPUOS Debris Mitigation Guidelines come to the rescue in addressing the space debris issue as they complement and complete the general obligations contained in the Outer Space Treaty. Particular attention is paid to anti-satellite weapon tests, which have catastrophic consequences in terms of creating debris but nonetheless continue to be carried out. Finally, it ascertains whether an obligation on states to actively remove their space debris exists.
In this paper we consider two piecewise Riemannian metrics defined on the Culler–Vogtmann outer space which we call the entropy metric and the pressure metric. As a result of work of McMullen, these metrics can be seen as analogs of the Weil–Petersson metric on the Teichmüller space of a closed surface. We show that while the geometric analysis of these metrics is similar to that of the Weil–Petersson metric, from the point of view of geometric group theory, these metrics behave very differently than the Weil–Petersson metric. Specifically, we show that when the rank r is at least 4, the action of
$\operatorname {\mathrm {Out}}(\mathbb {F}_r)$
on the completion of the Culler–Vogtmann outer space using the entropy metric has a fixed point. A similar statement also holds for the pressure metric.
While nine States in Asia, Europe, and North America retain and modernise their nuclear arsenals, projecting to retain nuclear weapons for the rest of the century, most of the world and beyond is subject to a regional nuclear-weapon-free zone. This chapter describes the different nuclear-weapon-free zones and the global UN ban treaty, which entered into force in January 2021.
How does a ‘space culture’ emerge and evolve, and how can archaeologists study such a phenomenon? The International Space Station Archaeological Project seeks to analyse the social and cultural context of an assemblage relating to the human presence in space. Drawing on concepts from contemporary archaeology, the project pursues a unique perspective beyond sociological or ethnographical approaches. Semiotic analysis of material culture and proxemic analysis of embodied space can be achieved using NASA's archives of documentation, images, video and audio media. Here, the authors set out a method for the study of this evidence. Understanding how individuals and groups use material culture in space stations, from discrete objects to contextual relationships, promises to reveal intersections of identity, nationality and community.
The chapter discusses the basics of the law of the global commons (seas, air, outer space), by concentrating on what states can do in which zones or spaces
This chapter explores the importance and usefulness of considering outer space as an environment from the perspective of environmental sociology. It identifies that, whilst 'outer space' may imply a space outside of the human environment, global society is increasingly dependent on space technology. Although our notions of 'the environment' are often limited to terrestrial natures, this chapter follows other recent arguments in advocating a closer examination of how different 'environments' are being produced in outer space. The chapter focusses on three different, though inter-related, ways in which the outer space environment is materially, discursively, and imaginately produced. First, it considers outer space as an 'abundant' environment, in which outer space is seen as an infinite supply of resources for economic expansion. Second, it considers outer space as a 'risk' environment crowded with debris that threatens the sustainability of Earth's orbit in particular. Third, it considers outer space as a 'wilderness' environment to be valued either because of its intrinsic worth or because of the role it can play in addressing human destructiveness. The chapter concludes by expressing hope that the lessons learnt from terrestrial environmental sociology can improve our relationship with the space environment in pivotal times.
Security concerns during the early Cold War prompted United States strategists to solicit worldwide assistance in studying Earth’s physical environment. Comprehensive geophysical knowledge required cooperation between researchers on every part of the planet, leading practitioners to tout transnational earth science – despite direct military applications in an age of submarines and ballistic missiles – as a non-political form of peaceful universalism. This article examines the 1957–58 International Geophysical Year as a powerful fulcrum in the transfer of ideas about Earth’s global environment from Western security establishments to conservationists worldwide. For eighteen months, tens of thousands of researchers across every continent pooled resources for data collection to create a scientific benchmark for future comparisons. Illuminating Earth as dynamic and interconnected, participants robustly conceptualized humanity’s emergence as a geophysical force, capable of ‘artificially’ modifying the natural world. Studies of anthropogenic geophysics, including satellites, nuclear fallout, and climate change, conditioned the global rise of environmentalism.
There are at least four ways in which Antarctic colonialism was white: it was paradigmatically performed by white men; it consisted in the taking of vast, white expanses of land; it was carried out with a carte blanche (literally, “blank card”) attitude; and it was presented to the world as a white, innocent adventure. While the first, racial whiteness has been amply problematised, I suggest that the last three illuminate yet other moral wrongs of the Antarctic colonial project. Moreover, they might be constitutive of a larger class of “white” colonialisms beyond the White Continent.
We introduce the concept of a standard form for two embedded maximal sphere systems in the doubled handlebody, and we prove an existence and uniqueness result. In particular, we show that pairs of maximal sphere systems in the doubled handlebody (up to homeomorphism) bijectively correspond to square complexes satisfying a set of properties. This work is a variant on Hatcher's normal form.
This study assesses China's approach to the global commons, those areas of the globe over which no state exercises sovereignty and that are accessible to all. Examining Chinese behaviour, official statements and expert positions towards the extant high seas and outer space regimes, this research concludes that China approaches the principle of international access to the two domains situationally, reflecting its assessment of how these regimes affect its national interests. The finding cautions against blanket characterizations of China's strategic orientation towards the global commons.
Outer space is becoming a more accessible and less expensive domain in which to operate. Consequently, growing numbers of state and non-state actors (NSAs) are operating in, to, and through space. At the same time, instances of space-based and ground-based interference with space systems are also increasing, disrupting crucial space-supported services and applications relied on by millions, with great financial and operational costs. The increased participation of NSAs in space activities raises particular concerns, especially the threat of intentional interference with space systems by nefarious actors like terrorist organizations. It also requires consideration of whether states bear responsibility and/or liability for the acts of NSAs with a nexus to those states. At first glance, it is tempting to conclude that one or more normative legal regimes would apply. The potential regimes include international space law, international telecommunications law, and the law of state responsibility. On further examination, however, when it comes to interference, there appears to be no effective legal mechanism to hold states accountable for NSA interference with space systems, which can be exploited by NSAs and challenge efforts by states to enforce “good” behaviour.