The legality of self-defense regarding dual-use space objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTOuter space has become more congested, competitive and contested. Everyday functions depend on space-based assets to perform simple feats that allow you to carry on your day. This same forum is also where the most advanced militaries in the world plan to apply force and dominate the battle space to defeat any hostile action against it. Self-Defense, individual or collective, are highly dependent on a State's ability to develop technology and employ it successfully to counteract any threats. Weapons development is evitable, but like nuclear weapons, such weapons can create peace and stability through deterrence. The implications of a new defensive paradigm and dynamic military applications will globally challenge space governance surrounding the existing legal frameworks under international telecommunications law, international space law and international humanitarian law.This thesis addresses these and related issues in three chapters. Chapter One lays out the operational framework that is applied to outer space, the various threats to space-based assets and the assertion of self-defense. Chapter Two provides an overview of U.S. and Chinese Space Policy to include each State's position on dual-use technology, militarization and perspective on the "peaceful uses" of outer space. Chapter Three examines the legal authorization of what force can be applied in self-defense in and through outer space from a military and commercial perspective. This paper covers how commercial entities could apply force and exercise the right to protect a State's critical infrastructure and the inability of the international community to intervene and provide solutions to issues of physical harm and interference.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".