You Can't Take the Sky from Me: A Gramscian Interpretation of the Common Heritage of Mankind Principle in Space Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common heritage of [hu]mankind (CHM) principle is an element of the Moon Treaty of 1979 that was foreshadowed by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. However, its precise content and legal implications have been the subject of conflicting interpretations. This paper will apply a Gramscian analysis to the formation of international law. Gramscian theory is a school of neo-Marxist International Relations (IR) theory that focuses upon the ways in which a dominant historic bloc (called the “hegemon”) maintains control over other groups. This paper applies Gramscian theory to the power dynamics in international law in order to gain insight into the current state of the CHM principle as it applies to space resource law. The CHM principle has had little impact on the development of space law. Although existing space treaties enshrine CHM to varying degrees, the principle is too vague in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to have had much impact, and no major space powers are parties to the 1979 Moon Treaty. Given the dominance of space travel in the 20th century by imperialistic superpowers, any interpretation of the CHM principle is consonant with the preservation of hegemony.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".