However, commercial enterprises are unlikely to dictate future international cooperation in space. According to current international space law, any company that operates in space does so as an extension of —and under the jurisdiction of—its home nation’s government.
The dominance of states over companies in space affairs has been starkly exemplified through the Ukraine crisis. As a result of state-imposed sanctions, many commercial space companies have stopped collaborating with Russia.
Given the current legal framework, it seems most likely that states—not commercial entities—will continue to dictate the rules in space.
Space blocs for collaboration or conflict
I believe that going forward, state formations, such as space blocs, will serve as the major means through which states further their national interests in space and on the ground. There are many benefits when nations come together and form space blocs. Space is hard, so pooling resources, manpower, and know-how makes sense. However, such a system also comes with inherent dangers.
History offers many examples showing that the more rigid alliances become, the more likely conflict is to ensue. The growing rigidity of two alliances—the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance—at the end of the 19th century is often cited as the key trigger of World War I.
A major lesson therein, is that as long as existing space blocs remain flexible and open to all, cooperation will flourish and the world may yet avoid an open conflict in space. Maintaining the focus on scientific goals and exchanges between and within space blocs—while keeping political rivalries at bay—will help to ensure the future of international cooperation in space.
Svetla Ben-Itzhak is an assistant professor of space and international relations at Air University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
