September 20th, 2021 |
By Jonathan Thorvilson
If you’ve seen the CBS hit show Survivor (a reality game show in which contestants are essentially forced to live, work, survive, and compete with one another in an abnormal and often adverse environment), then you’re likely well aware that each and every episode is riddled with conflict and dispute. And why wouldn’t they be? After all, observing how these disputes play out, and how they are ultimately settled, is a significant reason reality TV can be so entertaining, for better or worse.
A large part of the entertainment surrounding this in-show conflict arises from basic two sources, one is the aforementioned harsh environment, and the other is the fact that there are few if any guidelines afforded to contestants on how to settle such disputes. With people in an unfavorable environment, accompanied with few rules, the conflict comes quick, and the clean-up is in turn fun to watch.
These two factors contribute greatly to the entertainment value of the show, unfortunately for everyone, however, these characteristics are also eerily reminiscent of some facets of the outer space domain. It’s unfortunate because, as alluded to, an unforgiving environment coupled with an ill-defined set of rules is a forge for conflict. Conflict that generally plays out quite dramatically.
We know space is hard, this is a constant that simply will not vanish anytime soon. What is not a constant, however, is the underdefined and inadequate rules, guidelines, procedures, and agreements accompanying the ruthless realities of space. We certainly cannot change the nature of outer space itself, but to not address the lack of dispute resolution mechanisms, and the obvious need for such mechanisms, would be, in this author’s opinion, irresponsible.
This perceived need to address conflict resolution in space is not simply limited to space-nerds with an affinity for less-than-tasteful TV, either. Sean W. Hadley Esq., Beyond Earth Institute co-founder and Chief Operating Officer, believes that addressing this challenge will be an important contributing factor to the expansion and success of the space industry.
“We see the absence of buy-in to workable dispute resolution mechanisms as a potent risk to successful space exploration and long-term human presence,” said Hadley. “For some entities, having a workable conflict resolution mechanism might result in more willingness to operate beyond low earth orbit due to meaningful risk reduction.”
Given continued efforts to develop norms of behavior in space, such as the Artemis Accords or the United Kingdom’s recent UN draft resolution, Hadley is not alone in these ideas.
Existing mechanisms such as the Outer Space Treaty remain too ambiguous, while other current frameworks for dispute resolution, such as national laws, bi or multi-lateral agreements, and various pieces of international soft law, lack either the participation, or the power, to enforce the necessary procedures required to adequately resolve conflict.
Without the addition of any viable dispute resolution frameworks outer space actors may eventually find themselves in vulnerable and unappealing positions, making for potentially good reality TV but inappropriately negative results for space activities. Instead, steps should be taken to craft a feasible and effective framework for dealing with the inevitable future disagreements in space.
The Beyond Earth Institute is actively taking these first steps. As Hadley explains, “The traffic is still fairly light beyond low earth orbit and more sparse the farther out we go. However, at Beyond Earth we see resolving this issue as allowing for even more activity.” And evidenced by the fact that increasing space activity is an idea engrained in the United States’ National Space Policy, this effort should be received as worthwhile.
Crafting an adequate plan for conflict resolution in space will take dedicated thought and effort, but such a mechanism will be well worth the amount of time and energy put into it. A workable dispute resolution framework will encourage increased space activity while mitigating the negative effects of prolonged or unaddressed disagreements.
These negative effects are undesirable and would hamper progress in the space domain, but they are also largely avoidable. As stated, finding a viable strategy for dispute resolution will limit these negative effects. Although they might make for entertainment from time to time, the consequences of potential disputes should be left to play out on Survivor Island. Space doesn’t need that kind drama and entertainment, so let’s strive to make the cosmos just a little more boring.
