An Analysis of Space Exploration with Regards to IR Theory

1969 was an important year for humanity. The moon landing was an important marker for human exploration of space as well as a sign of great advancement in scientific capabilities. Following the signing of the Outer Space treaty in 1967, space was restricted to purely peaceful purposes, but despite this restriction the US and USSR found the race to space worth the expense. Now, in the 21st century, the Soviet Union has fallen but the interest in space exploration has continued to be an important factor in the world. Space is a unique field because of the preset rules that the world has agreed on. Recently, we have seen an increase interest in space travel from countries and groups other than the old cold war foes. This change has culminated in a Chinese mission to the moon, a European Union landing on a comet, an Indian mission to Mars, and private enterprises branching into space travel and colonization as well as mining operations. What do these new ventures in to space mean for international relations? Do new ventures into space represent shifts in international affairs towards a more united humanity, along the lines of Liberal thinking, or will the technological advancements of today result in yet another war, as Realist thought suggests?

Firstly, one must look into the actors in space exploration. In IR theory, we can look at the three levels of analysis: individuals, states, and international systems to determine the types of actors. On the individual level, we can see many people who advocate for the further exploration of space. Scientists, authors, and interested individuals have advocated for the exploration of space for decades. The reasons for exploration are diverse from individual to individual. Some point to exploration for the technology and knowledge that we can find in space. Others point to population control and protection of humanity from stagnation and natural disasters.

The next level of analysis, the state, is influenced by the individuals, but also influenced by the affairs of the state. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, observed:

A review of history’s ambitious projects — those that have garnered an uncommonly large fraction of a nation’s gross domestic product — demonstrates that only three drivers have been sufficient to create them: defense (e.g. Great Wall of China, Manhattan Project, Apollo Project), the promise of economic return (e.g. Columbus Voyages, Magellan Voyages, Tennessee Valley Authority), and the praise of power (e.g. Pyramids, Cathedrals, Palaces). (Tyson)

The state has more issues to consider than exploration’s lauded benefits. Dr. Tyson makes an excellent point in stating that the driving force for many state funded projects have specific goals involving defense, money, or power. Exploration is a gamble. The rewards are not always tangible or guaranteed. Space exploration in the Cold War era was fueled by a desire to show dominance in the world. The United States and the Soviet Union each wanted to prove their superiority in the bipolar world. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, space exploration has been predominantly an American lead expedition. The American hegemon has been the primary driving force behind space exploration.

In recent years, the American hegemon has begun to transition into a multipolar system. Whether the system will ultimately result in another hegemon, a bipolar, or a multipolar system, is beyond the scope of this paper, but the changing dynamics of the world has resulted in some changes in the international system towards cooperative enterprises. The International Space Station, a collaborative exploration mission, between several nations, has shown the ability of several major powers to collaborate on international projects. Also, the European Space Agency has combined the space programs of several nations. However, the state actors, thus far, have been the primary actors in the realm of space exploration.

Now, international relations theory can offer us several insights into the recent changes in space exploration that we have seen in the recent months on a state level. China has become more involved in space, as has the EU and India, while America’s program, while remaining the most active, has lessened its involvement. The individual players within the myriad of nations have not changed much. Scientists and authors continue to create a fascination with what lies in space. However, space exploration is expensive. For example, the Endeavor cost 1.7 billion dollars according to NASA’s website. This figure is for the ship alone and does not take into account the cost of fuel, supplies and other expenses that a relatively simple trip to the International Space Station entails. Since the benefits of space exploration are less instantaneous than many other forms of investment, garnering the funds to proceed with the programs have been difficult to receive when compared to getting funding for military, welfare, general expenses which tend to have short term returns. However, space exploration does appear to be a method of showcasing ones economic abilities. A state that can afford to build and spend money for a space program has more prestige.

A realist view of international relations tends to include the belief that war is inevitable. A liberal view suggests that war isn’t inevitable and that peace can be lasting. How does space exploration fit into these views of international relations? To grasp this we can look at several different ways of looking at the situation.

First, the security dilemma. Space exploration naturally brings about technological advancements. Now, the security dilemma looks at whether an action by a state is offensive or defensive and who has an advantage. According to Robert Jarvis, “[t]echnology and geography are the two main factors that determine whether an offense or defense has the advantage.” (Jarvis, 419) Space technology involves improvements in propulsion systems, surveillance, and computing. This means that a country involved in space technology has an advantage over other countries. The complexity of the security dilemma is that it is extremely difficult for one nation to interpret another nations actions. For this reason the world should tend towards a balancing of power where alliances and arms races occurs. A parallel can be seen in how the 1960s space race involved two major powers attempting to gain an upper hand.

The security dilemma doesn’t always lends itself towards warfare, nor does it completely encapsulate the complexities of international relations. Another way of looking at the state actors is to consider power transition theory. Power transition theory looks at how states all vie to be the hegemon of the world. Currently, the United States is the dominant power but some IR theorist think that we may be seeing the start of the US loss of power and the rise of China. We have seen something similar happening in the area of space exploration as the United States has drawn back its space program slightly while the EU, India, and China have increased their programs. China has been steadily increasing its military and also expanding its reach into space, with some talk of eventually settling on the moon for population control. However, the current power balance doesn’t seem to suggest a war between the great powers. Rather, despite the decline of the US and the rise of China, we are seeing increased sharing of space information between nations.

Since neither of these ideas seem to fully encapsulate what the increase in space exploration entails, a look into liberalism pertaining to international relations might help us understand and access space exploration. Liberalism focuses on the idea that human nature is “basically good and that people can improve their moral and material conditions.” (Mingst and Arreguin-Toft, 86) Liberalism assumes that lasting peace is possible and that humanity will work to better itself. Looking at space exploration, we can see several ways that the liberal ideology can be supported. Firstly, the space treaty of 1967 restricted space to humanities joint efforts. Secondly, the ISS and European Space Agency each show ways that multiple countries can work together to achieve a goal. Joint missions, despite the political difference of countries, offer a chance for the countries to work for joint benefit. Why do these countries work together rather than work alone? The prisoner’s dilemma offers an explanation because the scenario of cooperation vs self-interest is played out multiple time, which increases the chances of cooperation. On the international stage, interactions take place almost daily, especially in space exploration since the cost of space exploration is rather large. Now, like any theory, liberalism isn’t a perfect theory, but the theory has a certain amount of sway when considering space exploration. The fact that a treaty exists is a testament to the possibility of joint workings for space exploration, and the way that most agencies share their projects across national lines seems to transcend the normal state boundaries.

Another way that liberalism accounts for space exploration is in the concept of international institutions. In recent years we have seen an increase in private space companies. Mars One, for example, is an independent company in the Netherlands which has a plan to construct a self-governing colony on Mars by 2025. SpaceX, Boeing, and other groups are also looking into and testing their own space programs for varying reasons ranging from mining, scientific inquiry, tourism, and more. Now, realism tends to ignore nonstate actors, but liberalism does accept that other groups can gain power. These groups are working with the states and sharing information, but they also plan to utilize their gains to increase their power in the world. So, there is a precarious balance between profits and human knowledge, but, for the moment, more seems to be shared than not since the Space Treaty does require the state to authorize nonstate actors to go into space.

The Space Treaty will not be eternally acceptable. While states aren’t allowed to claim property, there is ambiguity as to whether individuals or companies can. Eventually, humans will begin reaching beyond the Space Treaty’s jurisdiction. Space exploration, while a novelty now and a sign of prestige, will soon become more important for humanity. The increasing action of the states and private groups in space suggests that the era of space exploration has only just begun. The possibility of attaining new resources, increasing economic and technological abilities, and possibly finding new resources or solutions to our current problems. Liberalism suggest that our world’s nations may be able to work together in the face of space exploration, as they have already begun to do on some scale. Realism warns us that if we are not diligent, we might find ourselves facing another war attempting to remove the United States from its current world dominance. Such a war between two competing great powers would be disastrous.

The true answer to what space exploration will mean for the world of international relations will be answered in the coming years. For now, it looks as if the Liberal view is the prevailing view. The level of cooperation between states at the moment and with other nonstate actors is a positive sign. The idea that space exploration will benefit all of humanity has been a concept we see explored in many places. From Star Trek to the advocacies of Dr. Tyson and other scientists there is a strong voice among the individual actors of the world for a world where space exploration brings humanity together. States seem to cooperate, along with institutions and other companies, for the better good of humanity. The international community has a treaty that currently restricts space to human benefits.

For now, space exploration seems to be leading humanity to a more united and longer lasting peace. Space exploration may be our chance to achieve a world where joint cooperation is more common than individual countries working on their own and creating a security dilemma that could lead to war. The story of humanity and space is only beginning, and the international community will have to adapt to new and more complicated circumstances, but the course of join cooperation in space proves that we can make peace and find common ground.

Bibliography

Dick, Steven J. Why We Explore. 2005 May 2. <http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_10.html>.

Jarvis, Robert. “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma.” Essential Readings in World Politics (2014): 410–424.

Mars One. Mars One. n.d. <http://www.mars-one.com/>.

Mingst, Karen A. and Ivan M. Arreguin-Toft. Essentials of International Relations. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2011. Book.

NASA. International Space Station. Ed. Mark Garcia. 2014. <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/#.VIZRbTHF9bI>.

— . Kennedy Space Center. Ed. Jeanne Ryba. 2011. <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1>.

Tyson, Neil DeGrasse. Reaching for the Stars: Americas Choice. 2003 April 1. December 2014. <http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2003/04/01/reaching-for-the-stars-americas-choice>.

UNOOSA. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies. 2014. <http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html>.

e to fruitik ���: