Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Building a compound and collaborative governance framework to improve international space sustainability

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Global Public Policy and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a particular common pool resource (CPR), space has undergone tremendous changes and the current space governance has already shown its negative effects. To promote sustainable space development, this paper aims to establish a new compound and collaborative governance framework. The framework consists of four parts, including institutional arrangements, organizational system, implementation mechanism, and implementation actors. Institutional arrangements for space governance refer to the related laws and regulations, which are core part of the entire system and can be reflected throughout the organizational systems, implementation mechanism, and implementation actors. Organizational systems should contain three levels—international level, regional level, and state level. The implementation mechanism covers five procedures—information sharing, negotiation, collaboration, evaluation, and feedback. And the implementation actors mainly include relevant governments, international organizations, enterprises, experts and scholars, universities and research institutes, news media, and others. In this framework, all implementation actors are associated to formulate a “honeycomb” architecture, which means the actors should avoid the way of working separately and facilitate the implementation of multi-collaboration in space governance so that the true collaboration can be actualized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berkley, R. (1996). Space law versus space utilization: The inhibition of private industry in outer space. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 15(2), 421–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, F. (2007). The changing face of space. Space Policy, 23(2), 69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, I. (1987). Report on reports: Our common future: The world commission on environment and development. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 29(5), 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, B. (1998). Article VI of the 1967 Space Treaty revisited-‘International responsibility’, ‘national activities’, and ‘the appropriate State.’ Journal of Space Law, 26(1), 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, G. (1951). The coefficient of resource utilization. Econometrica, 19, 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich, A. (Ed.). (2018). Space resource utilization: A view from an emerging space faring nation (vol. 12). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, E. (1979). Consensus decision making by the United Nations Committee on the peaceful uses of outer space. Journal of Space Law, 7, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Q. F. A. (2009). Compound Governance: A new perspective to breakthrough contradictions between regional economic integration and the administrative regional economy. South China Journal of Economics, 6, 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (2009). The tragedy of the commons. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 1(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, R. C. (2012). Space policy in developing countries: The search for security and development on the final frontier. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iliopoulos, N., & Esteban, M. (2020). Sustainable space exploration and its relevance to the privatization of space ventures. Acta Astronautica, 167, 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakhu, R. S., & Pelton, J. N. (Eds.). (2017). Global space governance: An international study. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasentuliyana, N. (1999). International space law and the United Nations. Brill Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, S., & Zhao, Y. (2018). The aftermath of the US space resource exploration and utilization act: What’s left for China? Journal of East Asia and International Law, 11(1), 9–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallender-Umezu, P. (2013). Enacting Japan’s Basic Law for space activities: Revolution or evolution? Space Policy, 29(1), 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, J. S. (2018). Institutional framework for the province of all mankind: Lessons from the international seabed authority for the governance of commercial space mining. Astropolitics, 16(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krepon, M. (2007). A code of conduct for responsible space-faring nations. Space Security and Global Cooperation, 55, 165–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. (2016). The international context: Russia, Ukraine and the drift to east-west confrontation. International Critical Thought, 6(4), 623–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga, M. D. (2009). Between blind faith and deep skepticism: The “weaponization of space” and the Canadian debate on ballistic missile defense. In N. Bormann & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Securing outer space: International relations theory and the politics of space (pp. 136–154). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, M., & Badescu, V. (Eds.). (2014). The international handbook of space technology. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, P. A. (2012). The CPR approach to space sustainability: Commentaries on Weeden and Chow. Space Policy, 28(3), 173–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migaud, M. R., Greer, R. A., & Bullock, J. B. (2021). Developing an adaptive space governance framework. Space Policy, 55, 101400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowthorpe, M. (2004). The militarization and weaponization of space. Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (2009). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups, second printing with a new preface and appendix (Vol. 124). Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oye, K. A. (Ed.). (1986). Cooperation under anarchy. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace, S. (2009). Challenges to US space sustainability. Space Policy, 25(3), 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandit, R. (2010). India to gear up for ‘Star Wars’. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-to-gear-up-for-star-wars/articleshow/5970384.cms?referral=PM. Accessed 16 Sep 2020

  • Paul, D. (2019). Space: The final legal frontier. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/31/space-final-legal-frontier/. Accessed 16 Sep 2020

  • Pekkanen, S., & Kallender-Umezu, P. (2010). In defense of Japan: From the market to the military in space policy. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pelton, J. N., Madry, S., & Camacho-Lara, S. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of satellite applications. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peña, C. V., & Hudgins, E. L. (2002). Should the United States “Weaponize” Space?: Military and commercial implications. www.jstor.org/stable/resrep04987. Accessed 16 Sep 2020

  • Percy, T. K., & Landrum, D. B. (2014). Investigation of national policy shifts to impact orbital debris environments. Space Policy, 30(1), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qisong, H., & Lin, N. (2012). On the dilemma of governing space security and its countermeasures. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Social Sciences Edition, 25(1), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, D. H. (1972). The problem of social cost revisited. The Journal of Law and Economics, 15(2), 427–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R. S. (2015). China, the United States, and the Soviet Union: Tripolarity and policy making in the Cold War. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 28, 387–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. (1998). Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrogl, K. U., Mathieu, C., & Lukaszczyk, A. (Eds.). (2009). Threats, risks and sustainability-answers by space (vol. 2). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. (2008). The great power ‘great game’ between India and China: ‘The logic of geography.’ Geopolitics, 13(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starr, H. (2015). On geopolitics: Space, place, and international relations. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • The European Space Agency (ESA) (2007). ESA Transmits First-ever Telecommands to Chinese Satellite. http://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/ESA_Ground_Stations/ESA_transmits_first-ever_telecommands_to_Chinese_satellite. Accessed 16 Sep 2020

  • The European Space Agency (ESA) (2020), Space Debris by the Numbers (Information Correct as of February 2020). https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Space_Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Space_debris_by_the_numbers. Accessed 16 Sep 2020

  • The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) (2020). Long-term sustainability of outer space activities. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/topics/long-term-sustainability-of-outer-space-activities.html. Accessed 16 Sep 2020

  • Thompson, A. (2006). Management under anarchy: The international politics of climate change. Climate Change, 78(1), 7–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66, 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tronchetti, F. (2013). The PCA rules for dispute settlement in outer space: A significant step forward. Space Policy, 29(3), 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) (2020). Treaties Database Home. http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/. Accessed 16 Sep 2020

  • Waltz, K. N. (2010). Theory of international politics. Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, P., Jansen, L., Van Grootveld, G., Van Spiegel, E., & Vergragt, P. (2017). Sustainable technology development. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weeden, B. (2012). The economics of space sustainability. The Space Review. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2093/1. Accessed 16 Sep 2020

  • Weeden, B. C., & Chow, T. (2012). Taking a common-pool resources approach to space sustainability: A framework and potential policies. Space Policy, 28(3), 166–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L. (2011). Classical models of institutional change methods and a new intellect-driven multidimensional punctuation (IMP) framework. The Journal of Jiangsu Administration Institute, 1, 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L. (2012). Building a knowledge-driven society: Scholar participation and governance in large public works projects. Management and Organization Review, 8(3), 585–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L. (2018). Chinese schools of wisdom on conflict resolution and their relevance to contemporary public governance: A contingent framework. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 12, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L., & Wu, J. (2010). Seven design principles for promoting scholars’ participation in combating desertification. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 17(2), 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zartman, I. W. (Ed.). (2009). Imbalance of power: US hegemony and international order. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C., & Zhang, W. (2016). Spectrum sharing for drone networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 35(1), 136–144.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Key Project of the National Social Science Fund of China (18VZL001) and the Key Project of the National Social Science Fund of China (14ZDB143). The author would like to thank Professor Zhiyong Lan and late Professor Vincent Ostrom for comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Government, Institute of State Governance Studies, and Institute of Public Governance, The Leo KoGuan Building, Peking University, No. 5 Yiheyuan Road, Beijing, 100871, China

    Lihua Yang & Zhuanjia Du

  2. School of Public Administration and Workshop for Environmental Governance and Sustainability Science, Beihang University, No. 37 Xueyuan Rd, Beijing, 100191, China

    Cheng Cheng & Pengyun Shen

Authors
  1. Lihua Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhuanjia Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheng Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pengyun Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lihua Yang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, L., Du, Z., Cheng, C. et al. Building a compound and collaborative governance framework to improve international space sustainability. GPPG 1, 202–224 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-021-00018-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-021-00018-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation