(Un)earthly governance: beyond functional frameworks to flourishing spacescapes
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPPEL-02-2021-0015 |
| Published date | 03 August 2021 |
| Date | 03 August 2021 |
| Pages | 122-138 |
| Subject Matter | Property management & built environment,Building & construction,Building & construction law,Real estate & property,Property law |
| Author | Clare M. Mouat,Erika Jane Edith Techera,Lies Notebaert,Meredith Blake,Renae Barker |
(Un)earthly governance: beyond
functional frameworks to
flourishing spacescapes
Clare M. Mouat
Department of Geography and Planning, The University of Western Australia,
Perth, Australia and International Space Centre, The University of Western
Australia, Perth, Australia
Erika Jane Edith Techera
UWA Law School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia and
International Space Centre, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Lies Notebaert
School of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth,
Australia and International Space Centre, The University of Western Australia,
Perth, Australia
Meredith Blake
UWA Law School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia and
International Space Centre, The University of Western Australia,
Perth, Australia, and
Renae Barker
UWA Law School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –Humanity has a weakness in howwe approach the “challenge”ofusing outer space. This paper
aims to show how the global and national frameworks that address our planetary activities and crises are
inadequatefor the opportunities and challenges of life in outer space.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors draw on multidisciplinary perspectives to refine an
organising governanceframework that better showcases the challenges and pathways needed for living and
thrivingin space-age. The authors prioritise two key pillars and overview the practicaland social implications
that space-agehumanity must address.
Findings –Social sciences and humanities are vital to problematising post-war colonial legacies of
governance by distinguishingthe unique and overlooked challenges for thriving and working offworld and
identifyingprogressive 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 debateon 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 occupati on
to potential governance regimes that capitalise on the zeal for moving beyond merely “existing”off-world.
Social implications –Examining the governancedeficit as we pursue developing spacescape frontiers is
an enriching (not reductionist) agenda that deliberately troubles the existing and emerging regime for
governingour scientific and imagined off-world society.
JPPEL
13,2
122
Received28 February 2021
Revised24 March 2021
Accepted23 April 2021
Journalof Property, Planning and
EnvironmentalLaw
Vol.13 No. 2, 2021
pp. 122-138
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9407
DOI 10.1108/JPPEL-02-2021-0015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9407.htm
Originality/value –This framework appeals to humanity’shighest evolution in co-producing a fair and
flourishingoff-world governance framework (beyondreplicating planetary regimes).
Keywords Space governance, Well-being, Outer space, Law and ethics, Urban planning,
Multidisciplinary learning, Leadership, Frontiers of society and science, Off-world futures,
Spacescape
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Literally light years from the entrenched poverty and environmental crises across this
planet, the novel luxury of off-world development grips our attention. Humanity has long
been thrilled by the physical scientific possibilities and science fictions of living in space.
Daily and popular media attentionis now placed on the promise and potential of space,from
exploration and discovery to the commercial and social prospects of off-world futures in
real, virtual and spiritualterms (Damjanov and Crouch, 2018;Weibel, 2020).
Although the idea of living and working in space holds appeal, the practical realities of
crafting governance frameworks for off-world environments will be significantly harder.
Although much remains unknown, we do know that outer space includes extreme
environments that are unforgiving to human life. For people to live, work and develop in
outer space, we must ensure that regimes are in placethat allows humanity to survive and
flourish. Yet existing scholarship that explores life off-planet does not address legal
governance issues (Bell and Morris, 2009;Harris, 2009). Literature focussed on space
governance is largely limited to legal and regulatory issues associated with space
applications and not working conditions(Lyall and Larsen, 2017;von der Dunk, 2015;Jakhu
and Pelton, 2017) or international relations perspectives that focus on state actors (Moltz,
2009).
From global assemblies to corporateboardrooms to the kitchen table, inclusive discourse
is essential as we seek to build safe, sustainable and just spacescapes. This inclusivity
extends beyond engaging withall stakeholders and must also involve the multidisciplinary
experts that are essential for humans to thrive offworld. Furthermore, we must extend our
thinking beyond an instrumental approachto futuristic off-world life and work, to embrace
and translate technoscience and techno-utopia (and their discontents) into (un)earthlysmart
cities (Bina et al., 2020;Haraway,2004).
The possibility of living and working in space raisesa diversity of issues: what risks are
known for the first off-world workers,and what are necessary safeguards that should be put
in place; what existing governance regimes apply, and are they fit for new purposes, and
what authority will be responsible for adopting rules and processes for off-world activities,
and from where can inspiration be drawn? This paper explores these issues through a
multidisciplinarylens.
This paper establishes our core position that an outer space governance deficit exists
and, moreover, that there are no obvious signs that this blindspot is being remedied.
Therefore, we argue that there is an opportunity, and indeed the necessity, to review and
reform existing space regimes. Clearly, there are reciprocal lessons from scholarship and
practices between earthly and un-earthly governance to be examined in this recalibration.
However, the primary purpose of this paper is to highlight where governance gaps lie and
thereafter to explorewhat further research is needed to address this challenge.
The paper commences with an examination of the evolution of space governance, from
international space treaties to soft law developments and national and bilateral approaches
to the most recent inter-agency agreement. Following this historical framing of space
Functional
frameworks
123
To continue reading
Request your trial