Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanity has reached a critical point in its history. Technological advancements herald a great renaissance for humanity’s reach to the stars. States and private companies plan commercial and other activities in space and upon celestial bodies, demonstrating that humankind can become an inter-planetary species. Such planning occurs in accordance with the prevailing space law regime and, notwithstanding the undeniable ambition of the planners, it is evident this space law regime does have gaps and ambiguities that must be addressed before these endeavours can be meaningfully fulfilled. This article examines the legal regime encapsulated by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (‘OST’) (ratified by all major space-faring nations) and explores ways in which specific OST provisions can give rise to temporary proprietary and jurisdictional rights, which can be used to avoid future conflict in space. The authors contend that these provisions provide rights of control to States so as to manage ‘facilities’, to exercise jurisdiction and to observe rights of ‘due regard’ that in turn establish basic legal boundaries. Such boundaries, it is argued, permit confidence and certainty in the conduct of commercial and other activities upon celestial bodies, enabling competing States and companies to delimit areas in which they conduct their operations. Additionally, the article examines the capacity of military forces to operate on these celestial bodies so as to undertake a peacekeeping type role consistently with the provisions of the OST. Such a function is argued to be necessary, given the unique attribution mechanism of the OST that can give public legal significance to the acts of private companies. It is an underlying theme of this article that respecting legal boundaries on the Moon and other celestial bodies while engaging in commercial activity can create good neighbours which in turn can underpin a peaceful, stable and cooperative space environment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".