The Big Bang of space governance: towards decentralized regulation of space activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates the nature and architecture of space governance and how it evolved and can and will evolve further, given the absence of a global government or supreme authority.In other words, it investigates how human space activities are steered, notably how the principles and rules applicable to these activities are established, implemented and reformed.The thesis demonstrates that after an initial period of successful development of space governance featuring institutions building and the adoption of space law treaties, from the early days in the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, space governance, as developed by those institutions, has largely been stagnated.This long stagnation is a result of the decline in the rule-making capacity of the main institutions, comparable with the general trend in global affairs.The consequence is that even the most important issues, e.g., space debris, militarization, and utilization of space natural resources, are left insufficiently addressed.The thesis then provides the necessary historical background and the theoretical and methodological tools for the discourse on space governance and its reform.It reviews the emergence and development of global governance and the birth and evolution of the study thereof.The thesis follows with analysis of the structure of space governance and reviews theories of decentralized governance, aiming to suggest a feasible, effective and dynamic model for space governance that will enable a continuous evolution thereof.The thesis is therefore about the architecture of global space governance and not about the content of the norms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".