Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Against the broad background of existing “Earth law”, this article aims to provide an initial assessment of existing “Space law” to start the conversation about what is still needed from a legal perspective to best facilitate the ongoing “commercialisation of Outer Space”. This article considers the ongoing commercialisation of Outer Space primarily from a legal perspective, investigating the rol law (Earth law as well as Space law) and so‐called “space lawyers” may be able to play in it. The focus of the article is to, first and foremost, raise some key questions that need (legal) consideration, without attempting to already provide answers to any of those questions. The article starts by addressing the relevance now of commercialisation of Outer Space and therefore the question asked in the title. It then goes on to briefly explore the existing Space law, highlighting separately the most relevant Space Treaties and Space Principles. Against that background, the article then reflects on what (if any) guidance this provides on the key concept of Space Property. In addition, the article also briefly addresses the 2001 Cape Town Convention on international interests in mobile equipment and explains why this convention, and in particular its Space Protocol, are also very relevant to consider in the context of the commercialisation of Outer Space. Finally, the article provides its initial assessment and ends with a number of concluding remarks.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.070 |
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".