Abstract
The chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part, we introduce some key ideas from cosmopolitan thought with a focus on the distinction between weak and strong moral cosmopolitanisms and the misunderstanding of the “world state” concept in Kant’s writing influencing the debate about the substance and objectives of legal cosmopolitanism. Based on such a reading, we create a solid basis for the concept of a responsible cosmopolitan state existing in a political reality of a world of nation states, to argue, in the second part, that the cosmopolitanization of space politics has been happening for decades. The second part of the chapter explores the centrifugal and centripetal forces affecting the cosmopolitanization of both national and international law. We are particularly focused on the successful examples of cosmopolitanization as well as barriers preventing legal frameworks from fully incorporating cosmopolitan ideas. Our analysis reveals that areas where states are prevented from exercising state sovereignty are uniquely positioned to materialize cosmopolitan ideals. These areas include the high seas, the deep seabed, and outer space. Since the principle of non-appropriation excludes territorial sovereignty, these areas are open for access and use to all. The third part aims to search for cosmopolitan ideas enshrined in international space law, particularly in the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement. Our analysis of international space law reveals that cosmopolitan ideals are already deeply rooted in international space law. Its characteristics such as the requirement that space activities be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, the principle of due regard, astronauts being granted the status of “envoys of mankind,” or the concept of the common heritage of mankind pave the road for the future cosmopolitan order.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cosmopolitan literature refers to cosmopolitan law as “hard law” and international law as “soft law,” which is significantly distinct from “hard law” and “soft law” in international law literature. In the cosmopolitan literature, hard law points to laws that are enforced (national practice by law enforcement agencies or cosmopolitan ideals that mostly do not exist, though there are exceptions such as, e.g., the International Criminal Court), while soft law is rather a normative plane (international law) harmonizing behavior between states. In the international law literature, soft law points to standardization or guidelines, while the hard law is international law stipulated in treaties. For the sake of clarity in this text, we use only cosmopolitan law as reflecting cosmopolitan rights and international law as reflecting international rights. Kant used the terms “hard law” and “soft law” with the meanings of cosmopolitan literature.
- 2.
According to Conklin, Cicero acknowledged that human beings are bound together socially by virtue of their capacity to communicate and reason through language. The bonding marks the sociability of human beings with each other, and, thus, the bonding is natural. The highest form of such sociability is res publica manifesting a bonding through “this celestial order” or “this whole cosmos.” “Any particular human being is all the more “grand and glorious” because he is a member of the fellowship of the cosmic order. What begins as parental love extends into friendship with strangers and then into the whole human species” (Conklin, 2010, p. 486).
- 3.
Ibid., see Declaration of the Rights of Man, 1789.
- 4.
There are some exemptions such as tax law or pension/social security schemes; however, most of them are justified.
- 5.
National law applies extraterritorially only in exceptional cases. Some well-known examples of the extraterritorial application of national laws concern US antitrust laws, US unitary tax formulas, and US export controls which forbid foreign companies from re-exporting technology to the Eastern bloc. See (Naldi, 1990). Another example of an extraterritorial application of national would be the concept of universal jurisdiction. See International Committee of the Red Cross. “Rule 157. Jurisdiction over War Crimes.” IHL Database: Customary IHL and International Justice Resource Center. “Universal Jurisdiction.” https://ijrcenter.org/cases-before-national-courts/domestic-exercise-of-universal-jurisdiction/
- 6.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, in its form that was endorsed by the UN World Summit in 2005, stipulates three pillars of responsibility: “Every state has the Responsibility to Protect its population (Pillar One), the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual states in meeting that responsibility (Pillar Two) and if a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter (Pillar Three).” See Ban Ki-moon. Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive Response, Report of the Secretary-General, A/66/874-S/2012/578.
- 7.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. See ICC, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 2187, No. 3854.
- 8.
All UN members are parties to only eight international treaties, namely, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer; the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; the UN Convention to Combat Desertification; and the Geneva Conventions (First, Second, Third, Fourth).
- 9.
Part II of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331 and “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682.” 2006.
- 10.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 38.
- 11.
ILC Report. (2019) Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens ). International Law Commission. United Nationas, A/74/10, http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2019/english/chp5.pdf
- 12.
“Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682.” 2006.
- 13.
Ibid.
- 14.
Article 48, International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb8f804.html
- 15.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, reproduced in document A/ES-10/273 and Corr.1. See also ILM vol. 43 (2004) p. 1009, paras. 155 and 159.
- 16.
There are 9 core international human rights instruments, namely, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990); the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006); and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). In addition, there are numerous regional human rights treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, or the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. See United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. “The Core International Human Rights Instruments and Their Monitoring Bodies.”
- 17.
Preamble, Art 1, United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
- 18.
See the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277.
- 19.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967, 610 UNTS 205; Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397.
- 20.
Including freedom of navigation; freedom of overflight; freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI; freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law; freedom of fishing, being subject to the conditions laid down in the UNCLOS; and freedom of scientific research. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397.
- 21.
See Article 87, Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397.
- 22.
Arvid Prado, who first announced the principle of the common heritage of mankind, identified its three central concepts: (1) the absence of private property rights, (2) international management of all uses of the common heritage, and (3) sharing of benefits derived from such use. See broader context (White, 1982, p. 535).
- 23.
See Articles 136 and 140, Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397.
- 24.
See G.A. Res. 2222, 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 16) 13, U.N. Doc. A/6316(1966); G.A. Res. 1721A, 16 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 17) 7, U.N. Doc. A/5100(1962); https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147638686.pdf
- 25.
Such was the process for the conclusion of the first three specific treaties – the Rescue Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1971, and the Registration Convention of 1976. All three treaties were widely ratified. See (United Nations, 2017).
- 26.
Article II, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 610 U.N.T.S. 205.
- 27.
Article II, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 610 U.N.T.S. 205.
- 28.
Ibid.; ‘UN General Assembly Resolution 51/122 of 4 February 1997’ http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/oosadoc/data/resolutions/1996/general_assembly_51st_session/ares51122.html
- 29.
Article V, The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1967, 610 UNTS 205.
- 30.
Preamble, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (the Moon Agreement).
- 31.
Article 6, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (the Moon Agreement).
- 32.
Article 7, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (the Moon Agreement).
- 33.
Article 10, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (the Moon Agreement).
- 34.
Preamble, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (the Moon Agreement).
- 35.
Article 11, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (the Moon Agreement).
- 36.
Ibid.
- 37.
Article 15, Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (adopted 5 December 1979, entered into force 11 July 1984) 1363 UNTS 21 (the Moon Agreement).
References
Acemoglu, D. (2020). Trump won’t be the last American populist: The conditions that produced him need to be understood to be addressed. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-11-06/trump-wont-be-last-american-populist. Accessed 20 Sept 2021.
Anderson-Gold, S. (2001). Cosmopolitanism and human rights. University of Wales Press.
Baynes, K. (2009). Cosmopolitanism and international law. Nomos, 49, 219–239.
Beardsworth, R. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and international relations theory. Polity.
Beardsworth, R., Brown, G. W., & Shapcott, R. (2019). Introduction. In The state and cosmopolitan responsibilities (pp. 1–12). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198800613.003.0001
Beck, U. (2006). The cosmopolitan vision. Polity.
Bernstein, A. R. (2011). Moral cosmopolitanism. In D. K. Chatterjee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global justice (pp. 711–717). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_329
Brown, G. W. (2009). Grounding cosmopolitanism : From Kant to the idea of a cosmopolitan constitution. Edinburgh University Press.
Buchanan, A. E. (2007). Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination: Moral foundations for international law. Oxford University Press.
Bull, H. (2002). The anarchical society (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press. Accessed 5 Mar 2014.
Caney, S. (2005). Justice beyond Borders. A global political theory. Oxford University Press.
Cepelka, C., & Glimour, J. H. C. (1970). The application of general international law in outer space. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 36(1), 30–49.
Charney, J. I. (1993). Universal international law. American Journal of International Law, 87(4), 529–551. https://doi.org/10.2307/2203615
Chatterjee, D. K. (Ed.). (2011). Encyclopedia of global justice. Springer.
Conklin, W. E. (2010). The myth of Primordialism in Cicero’s theory of jus Gentium. Leiden Journal of International Law, 23(3), 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S092215651000018X
Davis, M. E., & Lee, R. J. (1999). Twenty years later – The Moon agreement and its legal controversies. Australian International Law Journal, 6, 9–22.
Delanty, G. (2012). Introduction: The field of cosmopolitanism studies. In Routledge handbook of cosmopolitanism studies. Routledge.
Domingo, R. D. (2019). Roman law and global constitutionalism. San Diego International Law Journal, 21(1), 217–240.
Dufek, P. (2013). Why strong moral cosmopolitanism requires a world-state. International Theory, 5(2), 177–212. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971913000171
Fassbender, B. (2012). Article 1 (2). In B. Simma, H. Mosler, A. Paulus, & E. Chaitidou (Eds.), The charter of the United Nations: A commentary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Freeland, S. (2017). Common heritage, not common law: How international law will regulate proposals to exploit space resources. In QIL: Questions of international law (pp. 19–33).
Ganim, J. (2010). Cosmopolitanism and Medievalism. Exemplaria, 22(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1179/104125710X12670926011716
Habermas, J. (2006). The divided west (Vol. 1). Polity Press.
Hannikainen, L. (1988). Peremptory norms (jus Cogens) in international law: Historical development, criteria, present status. Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Company.
Hathaway, J. (1995). New directions to avoid hard problems: The distortion of the palliative role of refugee protection. Journal of Refugee Studies, 8(3), 288–294.
Hayden, P. (2004). Cosmopolitanism and the need for transnational criminal justice: The case of the international criminal court. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 104, 69–95.
Held, D. (2010). Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and realities. Polity.
Hobe, S. (2009). Article I. In S. Hobe, B. Schmidt-Tedd, K.-U. Schrogl, & G. M. Goh (Eds.), Cologne commentary on space law. Vol. 1, outer space treaty. Carl Heymanns Verlag.
Honoré, T. (2002). Ulpian: Pioneer of human rights. Oxford University Press.
The International Law Association’s Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice. (2000). Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences, in Report of the 69th Conference of the International Law Association 4.
Jakhu, R. S., & Freeland, S. (2016). The relationship between the outer space treaty and customary international law. SSRN Electronic Journal, 53(9), 1689–1699. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3397145
Jakhu, R. S., Nyampong, Y. O. M., & Pelton, J. N. (2017). Space mining and its regulation (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing : Imprint: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39246-2
Kant, I. (1795). Perpetual Peace: A philosophical sketch.
Kant, I. (2010). Idea for a universal history. In D. Held & G. W. Brown (Eds.), The cosmopolitan reader (pp. 17–26). Polity.
Klabbers, J. (2017). International law 2nd edition (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316493717
Kleingeld, P. (1999). Six varieties of cosmopolitanism in late eighteenth-century Germany. Journal of the History of Ideas, 60(3), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.1999.0025
Lefkowitz, D. (2020). The legitimacy of international law. In Philosophy and international law: A critical introduction (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316481653
Marchisio, S. (2009). Article IX. In S. Hobe, B. Schmidt-Tedd, & K.-U. Schrogl (Eds.), Cologne commentary on space law. Vol. 1, outer space treaty (p. 256). Carl Herymanns Verlag.
Margariti, S. (2017). State sovereignty, cosmopolitanism and the international criminal court. In Defining international terrorism (Vol. 15, pp. 27–61). T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-204-0_2
Miller, D. (2007). National responsibility and global justice. Oxford University Press.
Moka-Mubelo, W. (2017). A cosmopolitan human rights regime. In Reconciling law and morality in human rights discourse (Vol. 3, pp. 169–199). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49496-8_7
Nagel, T. (2005). The problem of global justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), 113–147.
Naldi, G. J. (1990). The extraterritorial application of National Laws edited by Dieter Lange and Gary born. Arbitration International, 6(2), 178–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/6.2.178
Nathwani, N. (2000). The purpose of asylum. International Journal of Refugee Law, 12(3), 354–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/12.3.354
Paliouras, Z. A. (2014). The non-appropriation principle: The Grundnorm of international space law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 27(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156513000630
Paterson, C., & Breu, S. U. (2019). Law, ethics and society: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi University Press.
Pellet, A. (2006). Comments in response to Christine Chinkin and in defense of jus cogens as the best bastion against the excesses of fragmentation. Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 17, 83–90.
Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics, 103(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/293470
Pogge, T. (2012). Cosmopolitanism: A path to peace and justice. The Journal of East-West Thought, 4(2), 9–32.
Randall, K. C. (1988). Universal jurisdiction under international law. Texas Law Review, 66, 785–788.
Rathore, E., & Gupta, B. (2020). Emergence of Jus Cogens principles in outer space law. Astropolitics, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2020.1723353
Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples: With “the idea of public reason revisited”. Harvard University Press.
Simma, B. (1994). From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 250. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789041104199_02
Svec, M., Bohacek, P., & Schmidt, N. (2020). Utilization of natural resources in outer space: Social license to operate as an alternative source of both legality and legitimacy. Oil, Gas & Energy Law, 1. Available at www.ogel.org/article.asp?key=3872
Taylor, P. (2019). The common heritage of mankind: Expanding the oceanic circle. In The future of ocean governance and capacity development (pp. 142–150). Brill/Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004380271_025
Tomuschat, C. (2015). The security council and jus cogens. In E. Cannizzaro (Ed.), The present and future of jus Cogens. Sapienza Università Editrice.
UN COPUOS Legal Subcommittee. (2021). Status of International Agreements relating to activities in outer space as at 1 January 2021 (A/AC.105/C.2/2021/CRP.10). UN COPUOS Legal Subcommittee.
United Nations. (2017). International space law: United Nations instruments. UNOOSA.
Viikari, L. (2012). Natural resources of the moon and legal regulation. In V. Badescu (Ed.), Moon. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27969-0
von der Dunk, F. (2015). In F. G. von der Dunk & F. Tronchetti (Eds.), Handbook of space law. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781000366
von der Dunk, F. G., & Goh, G. M. (2009). Article V. In S. Hobe, B. Schmidt-Tedd, & K.-U. Schrogl (Eds.), Cologne commentary on space law. Vol. 1, outer space treaty (p. 256). Carl Heymanns Verlag.
White, M. V. (1982). The common heritage of mankind : An assessment the common heritage of mankind: An assessment. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 14(3), 509–542.
Woolaver, H. (2021). Sovereign equality as a peremptory norm of general international law. In Peremptory norms of general international law (Jus Cogens) (pp. 713–739). Brill/Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004464124_026
Wyatt, S. J. (2019). The responsibility to protect and a cosmopolitan approach to human protection. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00701-0
Zhang, W. ‘Laura’. (2019). Extraterritorial jurisdiction on celestial bodies. Space Policy, 47, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.11.002
Zolo, D. (2000). The lords of peace: From the holy Alliance to the new international criminal tribunals. In B. Holden (Ed.), Global democracy, key debate (pp. 73–86). Routledge.
Funding
This research was supported by the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, grant TL01000181: “A multidisciplinary analysis of planetary defense from asteroids as the key national policy ensuring further flourishing and prosperity of humankind both on Earth and in Space.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Švec, M., Schmidt, N. (2022). International Space Law as the Transiting Path to Cosmopolitan Order. In: Schmidt, N. (eds) Governance of Emerging Space Challenges. Space and Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86555-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86555-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86554-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86555-9
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)