The idea that outer space is a “global commons” has been a topic of contentious debate among policymakers, legal scholars, and collective action theorists. Some argue that officially recognizing outer space as a global commons is necessary to promote responsible stewardship and sustainability. Others fear that this designation could discourage private investment in space activities or would be too vague to effectively guide space governance.
To shed light on these debates, a recent study by Pauline Pic, Philippe Evoy, and Jean-Frédéric Morin empirically examined how space actors actually use a global commons framework in their institutional arrangements. The researchers analyzed a collection of 1042 space arrangements, looking for references to concepts related to the notion of global commons. Their findings reveal that a cohesive global commons perspective has yet to be clearly articulated and institutionalized in the governance of outer space.
Limited Use of Commons-Related Principles
One of the study’s most striking observations is the infrequent use of the term “global commons” and related principles in space arrangements. Out of the 1042 agreements analyzed, the phrase “global commons” does not appear at all. Only 20 arrangements, less than 2%, incorporate one of three closely related concepts: “common heritage of humankind,” “province of humankind,” or “common interest of all humankind.”
Among these principles, “common interest of all humankind” is the most frequently used, appearing in 12 arrangements. However, it is employed in a formulaic way, consistently appearing in clauses promoting the peaceful use of outer space. The more ambitious concepts of “province of humankind” and “common heritage of humankind,” which garner significant attention from legal scholars, only appear in 9 and 3 arrangements respectively.
The arrangements that do employ a commons-related principle tend to be older, multilateral agreements. Bilateral arrangements, which are more numerous and more recent, rarely use this framing. Additionally, arrangements involving the most powerful spacefaring nations are less likely to incorporate commons-related language compared to those concluded by organizations based in countries with more modest space capabilities.
Lack of Consistent Regulatory Implications
Legal scholars often debate the regulatory implications that should flow from designating outer space as a global commons, such as ensuring open access, prohibiting appropriation, establishing a supranational management authority, sharing benefits, using space exclusively for peaceful purposes, and preserving space for future generations. However, the study finds that employing a commons-related principle in an arrangement does not consistently correspond with the inclusion of these potential regulatory elements.
The idea of using outer space for “peaceful purposes” is the most widely accepted, appearing both in arrangements that use a commons framing and those that do not. Other potential implications, such as provisions for free access, preservation, and benefit sharing, appear less frequently and no more often in arrangements with a commons perspective than in those without.
Only a handful of arrangements that employ commons-related language also explicitly prohibit appropriation of space resources. And the few that provide the most detailed articulations of a commons regime, such as the Moon Agreement, have failed to gain widespread acceptance, especially among major spacefaring powers.
Discussion and Implications
These findings suggest that the emphasis policymakers and scholars place on whether outer space is officially labeled a global commons may be overstated. The current legal framework does not consistently treat space as a commons, and the few exceptions are inconsistent in what that designation entails.
While collective action theorists often assume that space resources are nonexcludable, making them prone to overexploitation, this study indicates that not all space actors perceive them this way. The Outer Space Treaty’s provision that space should be accessible to all has not translated into a clear, shared understanding that space and its resources cannot be appropriated.
The study’s results align with a constructivist perspective that the status of outer space is a contested social construct, not an inherent fact. The meaning of outer space as a global commons is still being negotiated through social interactions, including the creation of space arrangements. However, this meaning-making process appears heavily shaped by power dynamics, with the preferences of major spacefaring states prevailing over attempts by developing nations to institutionalize a stronger commons regime.
As the number of both public and private space actors grows and space activities expand, building effective governance frameworks will be critical. Pic, Evoy, and Morin conclude that the “global commons” label, while analytically useful, does not yet represent a clear or agreed upon approach for guiding these efforts. Their analysis suggests that a cohesive commons perspective will not emerge organically from current trends, but would need to be more proactively articulated and institutionalized.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this study demonstrates that the status of outer space as a global commons remains an unsettled question – not because of uncertainty about the physical attributes of space, but because of ongoing political contestation over its social meaning and appropriate management. While a commons framing intuitively resonates with many who are concerned about the responsible and equitable use of space, it has not been embraced in a consistent way across the growing web of space governance arrangements.
As space activities continue to expand and diversify, involving an ever-wider range of both public and private actors, developing shared understandings and rule frameworks to assure the long-term sustainability of the space environment will only become more pressing. The limited and inconsistent use of a commons framework to date suggests that achieving this goal will require proactive efforts to build consensus around what a global commons entails and how its core principles can be translated into practice.
By empirically investigating how the notion of a global commons actually manifests in the agreements that govern space activities, rather than just in scholarly and policy discourse, Pic, Evoy, and Morin provide a valuable reality check. Their work highlights the need for the international community to go beyond high-level rhetoric and more rigorously grapple with how to institutionalize shared responsibility and cooperative management of space for the benefit of all humankind. Whether through a reinvigorated commons paradigm or alternative approaches, rising to this challenge will be critical as humanity becomes an increasingly spacefaring species.
