The International Space Station: Peaceful Common Ground for Adversaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2022, Europe and the United States faced fundamental changes in international economic and diplomatic relations due to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Yet, the NATO-Russia split has excluded the International Space Station (ISS), where the U.S., Japanese, Canadian, and European space agencies continue cooperation with Russia. To understand how adversaries maintain peaceful relations in some institutions, I utilized two political science theories – structural realism and neoliberal institutionalism – to analyze factors influencing cooperation. Findings on the ISS’s political dynamics offer strategies to pressure space-faring nations into peaceful relations, allowing for other nations and NGOs to access space resources for all of humanity’s benefit. My project consists of historical and current policy analysis of U.S. ambitions for a space station. I reviewed government documents, peer-reviewed journals and periodicals for information on the ISS. I identified three periods to test: initial agreements made without Russia (1988), revised agreements with Russia (1993), and 2022 NATO-Russia split. I applied key concepts from the above-mentioned theories to explain why the U.S. did or did not cooperate with Russia. For structural realism, I hypothesized that the U.S. would cooperate with Russia if it views the ISS as a material capability and has no relative gains issues. For neoliberal institutionalism, I hypothesized that the U.S. would cooperate, if the ISS is an institution and cooperation is necessary for its function. Political science research on outer-space is limited despite its growing civil and military importance. Although scholarship exists that applies realist theories, I could not find research that utilizes neoliberal institutionalism to explain governmental actions relating to the ISS. Thus, my project offers a novel suggestion that the ISS is an institution that has taken on a life of its own, necessitating cooperation between space-faring adversaries regardless of terrestrial politics. The ISS is model for peaceful common ground.
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".