The dilemma of national security and international cooperation in outer space: space technology trade and proliferation controls and their impact on global civil space cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis space technology trade and proliferation controls are analyzed, focusing on two substantive issues that illustrate the challenges and opportunities of reform.The first substantive issue examined is the challenge of domestic law and policy reform in light of international regulatory divergence.This issue is examined through a case study of the U.S. commercial communication satellite export control regime.The second issue is the international implications of space technology trade and proliferation control on global civil space cooperation.The unifying demonstration of this doctoral thesis is that States operate in an international legal system that perpetuates a self-justified security dilemma whose basis originates in the sovereign legal right of States to produce, procure, and maintain space technologies of a military nature.As a result, the international legal system governing space technology trade and proliferation creates a tension between perceived national security needs and the benefits of global cooperation.The old adage -it takes a village‖ is certainly apt with regards to doctoral studies.This manuscript could not have been completed with the support and friendship of countless persons.Most importantly has been the enduring love and support of my parents Dr.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".