Governing Lunar Settlements

Abstract

Harold K Harry McGinnis

Discussions about the future of space exploration have yet to address human settlement in outer space seriously. Human settlement is the growth of a civilization in outer space; it is the presence of a society that has advanced to such a degree that it has developed a culture and a way of life in a particular area [1].

Governance refers to developing management styles when private-public boundaries are not clear. Also, governance concerns collective decision-making, including public and private actors [2]. A system of governance must be created for the people and institutions planning to explore and develop the Moon. The structure of the lunar government and the timing of its creation are of critical importance. Lunar governance will commence with small groups of colonizers desiring quick solutions to their concerns. Some colonizers will prefer management on behalf of agencies from other countries. Wojtowicz and Szocik caution that we must craft the self-government form to regulate “social hierarchy, power distribution, decision-making approaches, kinship structure, and resource management” (p. 1) [3].

Models from public administration are critical for crafting governance models for lunar settlements. Applying public administration theory to lunar settlements involves using the theory’s existing principles to address the unique challenges of space governance. This includes considerations for “resource constraints, environmental conditions, community dynamics, and international collaboration,” among other concerns. As technology advances and affects space governance, we must reinvent public administration theories for lunar governance’s ever-changing needs. Zancan et al. caution that “the literature lacks a comprehensive outline of the roles and responsibilities across diverse project participant groups beyond the internal governance structures of space agencies” (p. 518). There must be an evaluation of paradigms to space settlement governance models that provide a greater understanding of how the Moon will be settled [4].

Countries planning lunar missions must collaborate and prepare protocols to avoid potential conflicts. “The ongoing development of such measures within the International Lunar Network, a collaborative initiative promoting calm and cooperative lunar exploration, underscores the significance of international collaboration in space governance” [5]. Del Canto Viterale raises numerous questions about governance and how power and decision-making are collaborated between lunar colonists (pp. 1-2) [6]. The governance of space activities has become “more fragmented, decentralized, and distributed across multiple levels or arenas, which require new examinations and explanations. Human habitats, whether on Earth or established from it, all need a form of administration according to some rules” [7]. Any governance model must include governance networks to curtail the effects of fragmented administration.

The traditional approach in space missions involves direct rule over the settlement by a mission leader or agency from Earth. We must be cautious that current military-based models will not be applied to governing lunar settlements when inhabitants are from countries with democratic principles [8].

The Space Generation Advisory Council states that a governance structure must be based on “(1) multi-stakeholder dialogue, (2) open-access and open opportunities, and (3) capacity building to be assimilated into future regulatory considerations” (p. 34) [9]. Schmidt and Bohacek suggest that space colonization must be founded on principles, rules, and norms, including a peaceful, stable, sustainable, and ethical society (p. 7) [8].

Exploration and use of the Moon depends upon the collaboration and interconnectivity of lunar colonists, a principle included in the Outer Space Treaty. The three elements of such governance, as identified by Horton, are “(1) become a permanent body with publicly shared precedent and reasoning, (2) create binding decisions with an appropriate enforcement mechanism, and (3) provide a forum for not only resolving disputes but also sharing information and discovery during space exploration” (p. 655) [10].

Miller states that outer space can be redefined as “the space outside of a celestial body’s gravity well relative to a state’s presence and perspective on that particular celestial body [1].” This model of celestial subjectivity changes the assumptions in our legal perspective of the universe by not permitting country competition for resources [1]. The celestial subjectivity model should be “interpreted so that outer space is subjective, depending on the location of a state, encompassing all celestial bodies outside of that state’s planetary gravity well” [1].

The Moon fits under the Celestial Subjectivity model. Moons are within the overall gravity of their planets, making them “eligible for national appropriation. If the underlying principle is to allow national appropriation, but national appropriation beyond a state’s planetary gravity” is disallowed, how can national appropriation occur. Applying this model to Article II, a country cannot claim sovereignty over the Moon [1].

To reward as many lunar settlers as possible, Collins suggests a model of “bounded first possession by landfall.” Bounded possession models offer the rights to lunar land, allowing settlements to develop their resources yet reserving land for future lunar settlers [11]. For some time, the Moon and its resources were res communis. However, the private sector has sought to alter this principle and interpret it as res nullius, where a lunar settlement does not belong to anyone unless someone seizes it [12]. It is about a possession leading to property and its resources, such as occupation, in which the possession becomes private property.

Unfortunately, the space treaties do not recommend a specific space governance model. The Moon Agreement did not include all nations wanting to colonize the Moon. Space settlements must consider a multilevel governance framework bounded by collaborative networks. This governance model names the primary stakeholders at each level of analysis within the network, specifying stakeholder roles, powers, and goals and recognizing the collaborative governance generated among them.

Several models of lunar governance are discussed, including direct democracy and kibbutzim, collaborative governance and governance networks, polycentric governance and multi-level governance (MLG), and adaptive governance.

In this paper, several models of lunar governance are discussed, including direct democracy and kibbutzim, collaborative governance and governance networks, polycentric governance and multi-level governance (MLG), and adaptive governance.

PDF