Section 2 - Diplomatic implications and cooperation

Rivalry serves as a driving force in the exploration of space and oceans, but certain challenges (discovery, management, preservation) cannot be tackled alone. Therefore, States must cooperate to pool their resources.

Furthermore, rivalries require common laws to regulate the exploration, exploitation, and protection of new spaces: negotiations at both the global (UN) and regional (regional cooperation organisations) levels.

States thus act as both catalysts and arbitrators in the rush towards these new frontiers. Why and how should cooperation be pursued for the discovery, exploitation, and protection of space or oceans?

#1. Cooperation for advanced research: the International Space Station (ISS)

#A. Brief history of the ISS: a multilateral project

In the 1970s, the first space station projects emerged. For example, the USSR launched Salyut 1 in 1971, marking the first station, while the US Skylab (1973-1979) faced failure.

During the 1980s to the 1990s, the Soviet Union's Mir station stood as the sole station, already hosting collaboration among astronauts from outside the Eastern Bloc (France, Germany, UK), and even the US starting from 1995. For instance, French astronaut Jean-Loup Chrétien set foot on Salyut 7 in 1982.

By the late 1980s, the USA proposed to their allies (European countries, Canada, Japan) to cooperate on an ISS project, with each contributing a part. In 1993, Russia joined the ISS project.

In 1998, the ISS was launched, with a Russian module being progressively docked with other modules over a decade. The ISS was occupied from 2000 and completed in 2011. It took over 40 flights to assemble all parts of it.

The future of the ISS is uncertain, possibly extending until 2030, as geopolitical tensions on Earth among powers catch up with it. Collaboration has addressed four major challenges: financial, technological, scientific, and geopolitical.

#B. Mutualising financial resources

During the 1960s, the USA's priority was the Apollo Program. In the economic crisis of the 1970s, the USA allocated less money to the space budget, leading to the abandonment of the Skylab laboratory in the mid-1970s. The USA needed to cooperate to share the cost of a space station:

  • With allies such as Europe, Japan, Canada, as the wealthiest States in the Western Bloc, associated with the project by the late 1980s.
  • With Russia, which lacked financial resources after 1991. Thanks to the reconciliation with its former rival, the USA, Russia could launch the final two modules of its Mir station.

Construction and maintenance were achieved through the cooperation of:

  • 16 countries (USA, Russia, Brazil, Japan, Canada, and 11 European States)
  • 5 space agencies: NASA (USA), ESA (Europe), Roscosmos (Russia), CSA (Canada), and JAXA (Japan).

#C. Pooling technological resources

Western countries excel in both training and technology (e.g., the Canadian Canadarm articulated arm, or SRM, Shuttle Remote Manipulator System). However, from 1993, the USA sought to leverage Russia's unparalleled experience in space stations and cooperation: from Salyut (the first station) to Mir (the sole station since the 1980s), where numerous technological challenges, such as assembling parts in orbit, were overcome.

#D. Joint scientific efforts

Joint efforts were made to build:

  • An Earth and astronomical observatory
  • A microgravity laboratory for experiments crucial to a future mission to Mars. For instance, the American program “Journey to Mars” aims at producing oxygen and autonomous energy resources, radiation protection, and space suit development.
  • The ESA Columbus research laboratory, specialised in physics and life sciences. EU's Energy program focuses on space nutrition. These applications also have reusable benefits on Earth, including medical innovations and economic dividends.

#E. Addressing geopolitical issues: integrating Russia after 1991 and avoiding dependence on Russia after 2011

#a) Integrating Russia after the Cold War through cooperation

In 1991, the United States took on the mantle of “the burden of leadership”, as stated by President Clinton, within a “New World Order” founded on their global influence and commitment to multilateralism. The involvement of Russia was deemed essential due to concerns that its engineers might transfer their expertise to adversarial nations like Iran, facilitating the development of nuclear missiles.

As part of its collaboration on the ISS, Russia terminated the Mir space station (deorbited in 2001) and facilitated the transportation of astronauts from various countries to the ISS using its Soyuz shuttles.

#b) Today's new geopolitical challenges

In 2011, the US space shuttles were retired. The USA found themselves in a paradoxical situation: a space superpower dependent on Russia to send its astronauts into space.

This imbalance was unacceptable for the USA, prompting them to turn, from 2016, to the private sector by funding New Space initiatives. For example, SpaceX's Dragon 2 (or Crew Dragon) has been transporting astronauts to the ISS since 2020.

#c) Space power interpendence: cooperation continuity

Since the war in Ukraine in 2022, the USA and Europe have imposed economic and diplomatic sanctions against Russia. However, cooperation on the ISS persists: Russian Soyuz shuttles transport Americans, and SpaceX shuttles transport Russians.

However, with the ISS expected to end around 2030, potential replacements include:

  • National stations like the completed Chinese Tiangong space station, and the Russian ROSS project (Russian Orbital Space Station).
  • Stations resulting from cooperation between Western allied countries and the private sector, such as Starlab.

This reflects the existing geopolitical tensions on Earth.

#2. Rivalry and cooperation in the sharing, exploitation, and preservation of ocean resources: from the creation of EEZs to the joint management of biodiversity

Numerous maritime tensions exist today for often combined reasons: boundary delineations, respect for fishing and exploitation rights, and freedom of navigation.

To prevent and resolve these conflicts, States seek common rules known as International Law of the Sea, which covers all the world's maritime spaces and their uses: it is the only international law that applies worldwide.

This law encompasses:

  • Navigation and overflight
  • Exploration, exploitation, and conservation of resources
  • Protection, preservation, and marine scientific research

#A. Rivalry led to cooperation: a brief history of International Law of the Sea

The development of international maritime law is an ancient process of negotiations, regularly contentious.

In the modern era, the "freedom of the seas" was accepted by European powers, following the recommendations of the Dutch jurist Grotius, in his treatise Mare liberum in the 17th century. The development of high seas fishing in the 19th century and offshore hydrocarbon exploitation in the 20th century questioned the appropriation of the sea. In the first half of the 20th century, the League of Nations failed to codify an initial international law of the sea: States disagreed on the width of the territorial sea.

From the 1950s, international cooperation on maritime law began under the impetus of the UN:

  • 1958: The first UN Conference on the Law of the Sea established the principle of the territorial sea under the full sovereignty of a State.
  • 1960: Failure of the second conference, as some States wanted to set their own sovereignty limits.
  • 1967: Arvid Pardo's call (Malta's representative at the UN, the “father” of UNCLOS) for an “Ocean Constitution to build a more peaceful, cooperative, and equitable world.”
  • 1982: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in Montego Bay, Jamaica.

The success of UNCLOS hinges on achieving a delicate balance between the rights of coastal States and those of other States, which was achieved through extensive diplomatic negotiations. These negotiations spanned eleven meetings from 1973 to 1982 and involved diplomats from 160 States. UNCLOS came into effect in 1994 following ratification by the parliaments of approximately 60 States, and currently boasts 157 signatory States.

#a) Rights of the States

Coastal States are granted a zone of political sovereignty, which includes the territorial sea (with the right of innocent passage) and an economic rights zone known as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), extending up to 200 nautical miles. Additionally, the extension of the continental shelf, up to 350 nautical miles, is subject to examination by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).

For States operating within the maritime zones of other States, specific rights are defined, encompassing navigation, research, and cable laying activities.

Furthermore, all States possess certain rights in maritime spaces beyond the legal jurisdiction of any single State.

#b) Duties of the States

States should ensure the protection and preservation of the marine environment involves establishing measures such as setting fishing quotas and creating Marine Protected Areas.

They should address conflicts through peaceful means rather than resorting to warfare is crucial. The establishment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in 1996 exemplifies this commitment, as it has adjudicated approximately 30 cases, including the Chagos, ruling in favour of Mauritius.

However, certain nations, particularly those with pro-exploitation stances like the USA, have refrained from ratifying UNCLOS to avoid being subject to the jurisdiction of such tribunals.

#C. Managing the preservation resources and ruling exploitation of the High Seas

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) accounts for 35% of maritime spaces, while the High Seas represent 65% and nearly half of the total surface area of the globe.

#a) Definition of High Seas

Regarding the High Seas, UNCLOS makes a clarification:

  • The water column enjoys total freedom. However, this doesn't preclude management by regional organisations (for instance, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation).
  • The Area Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) (seabed and subsoil) is called a “common heritage of mankind” managed by the international community through the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which can regulate activities.

#b) Intensifying rivalries regarding the exploitation of the ABNJ

Technological progress has allowed the exploitation of subsoil resources at deeper depths.

There are emerging economic prospects as private and public entities recognise the biodiversity wealth, with only 10 to 20% being known, leading to the development of new patents in fields such as health and chemistry.

The increasing demand for mineral resources from developing economies is driven by population growth and prosperity, with 85% of mineral resource reserves situated on the ocean floor.

Current exploitations are yielding diminishing returns due to decreasing resource concentrations and rising exploitation costs.

Geopolitical uncertainty surrounds the supply of crucial raw materials for industries. China holds 80% of rare-earth elements (REE), leading to concerns about reliance on a single source.

#c) 2023 BBNJ Agreement: international cooperation to preserve biodiversity

The lack of legal status for the High Seas in UNCLOS underscores the challenge of international cooperation. Negotiations divide developed nations and those in development and/or lacking access to the sea. They fear the “first come, first served” principle: resources exploited without them benefiting due to patent filings or destruction (over-exploitation, climate change, pollution, etc.), exacerbating Global North and South inequality.

In June 2023, all 193 UN member States, as the Intergovernmental Conference on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, unanimously accepted the first international agreement for High Seas protection, following nearly 20 years of discussions, 5 conferences, and 4 years of negotiations.

Approximately 340 commitments were made, including protecting 30% of land and oceans by 2030 and establishing maritime corridors for merchant ship traffic. However, ratifications are still pending.