Abstract
The unique character of planetary defense requires an adequate governance model. There is no reason to believe that the current mode of global governance based on geography, not function, is applicable to address spatially unbounded issues. To bridge the lacking effectivity and accountability of the global system dominated by nation-states, we look to cosmopolitan and critical security theory. Following the dissemination and analysis of deficiencies of international organization and contemporary global governance, we move to describe a three-layer Planetary Council as a structure for managing planetary defense. Our proposed structure aims to start the debate on how we organize collective efforts to ensure not simply human survival but rather all-human flourishing. The application of cosmopolitan theory aims to positively change our collective behavior as a species and develop a new norm to Defend Earth that is useful for other areas of human activity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We would like to thank Pete Worden here, as it was him who proposed the term Planetary Council in Prague in June 2018 just before the publication of this volume. We spent several days with long-lasting inexhaustible and extremely inspirational discussions.
- 2.
The requirement to act quickly does not necessarily go along with democratic quality. However, we do not plan to elaborate on democratic quality in detail. In the literature, the concept generally measures freedom, the rule of law, vertical accountability, responsiveness, equality, participation, competition, and horizontal accountability (Diamond and Morlino 2004).
- 3.
Deficit of democratic quality.
- 4.
Adopted as a global Asteroid Day by UN in 2016.
- 5.
US NASA PDCO—Planetary Defense Coordination Office will probably (proposed in time of writing) receive $150M in 2019 while it was working with a budget of $60M in 2017, $50M in 2016 and $4M in 2010.
- 6.
- 7.
The European Union also uses decisions that apply to selected actors, recommendations that are not binding, and options for possible statements made by anybody. For details see https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en.
References
Adler, E., & Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program. International organization, 46(01), 367. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001533
Archibugi, D. (2004). Cosmopolitan Democracy and Its Critics: A Review. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 437–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066104045543
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International organization, 53(4), 699–732.
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules of the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Beck, U. (2006). The cosmopolitan vision. Polity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Booth, K. (2007). Theory of World Security. Cambridge University Press.
Burke, A. (2013a). Security cosmopolitanism. Critical Studies on Security, 1(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2013.790194
Burke, A. (2013b). The good state, from a cosmic point of view. International Politics, 50(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2012.28
Burke, A. (2013c). Security cosmopolitanism. Critical Studies on Security, 1(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2013.790194
Burke, A. (2015). Security cosmopolitanism: the next phase. Critical Studies on Security, 3(2), 190–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2015.1065109
Dahl, R. A. (2001). Is Post-national Democracy Possible? In S. Fabbrini (Ed.), Nation, Federalism and Democracy. Bologna: Trento: Editrice Compositori.
Dellmuth, L. M., Gustafsson, M. T., Bremberg, N., & Mobjörk, M. (2018). Intergovernmental organizations and climate security: advancing the research agenda. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.496
Deudney, D. (2007). Bounding power: Republican security theory from the polis to the global village. Princeton University Press.
Diamond, L. J., & Morlino, L. (2004). An Overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0060
Dryzek, J. S. (2016). Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a Changing Earth System. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 937–956. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000453
Floyd, R. (2007). Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: bringing together the Copenhagen and the Welsh Schools of security studies. Review of International Studies, 33(2), 327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021050700753X
Floyd, R. (2011). Can Securitization Theory be Used in Normative Analysis? Towards a Just Securitization Theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418712
Gourevitch, P. (1978). The second image reversed: the international sources of domestic politics. International Organization, 32(4), 881–912. http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=4305592. Accessed 5 March 2014
Hale, T., Held, D., & Young, K. (2013). GRIDLOCK: Why Global Cooperation is Failing when we Need it Most. Cambridge: Polity.
Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford University Press.
Held, D. (2010a). Reframing Global Governance: Apocalypse Soon or Reform! In G. W. Brown & D. Held (Eds.), The Cosmopolitanism Reader (pp. 293–211). Polity.
Held, D. (2010b). Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. Polity.
Jakhu, R. S., & Pelton, J. N. (2017). Global Space Governance: An International Study. (R. S. Jakhu & J. N. Pelton, Eds.). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54364-2
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
Kasa, S. (2013). The Second-Image Reversed and Climate Policy: How International Influences Helped Changing Brazil’s Positions on Climate Change, 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5031049
Kastenhofer, K. (2011). Risk Assessment of Emerging Technologies and Post-Normal Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(3), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910385787
Kessler, O., & Guillaume, X. (2012). Everyday practices of international relations: People in organizations. Journal of International Relations and Development, 15(1), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2011.29
Marchetti, R. (2007). Global governance or world federalism ? A cosmopolitan dispute on institutional models Cosmopolitan Dispute on Institutional Models Ã, (December 2014), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820600816282
Mayer, M., & Acuto, M. (2015). The Global Governance of Large Technical Systems. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 43(2), 660–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814561540
Moravcsik, A. (2002). In Defence of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00390
Nagel, T. (2005). The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), 113–147. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558011.
Nyman, J., & Burke, A. (2016). Ethical Security Studies: A New Research Agenda. (J. Nyman & A. Burke, Eds.). Routledge.
Pogge, T. (2008). World Poverty and Human Rights (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
Rodrik, D. (2007). The inescapable trilemma of the world economy. Dani Rodrik’s Weblog.
Roe, P. (2012). Is securitization a ‘negative’ concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics. Security Dialogue, 43(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010612443723
Rychnovská, D., Pasgaard, M., & Berling, T. V. (2017). Science and security expertise: Authority, knowledge, subjectivity. Geoforum, 84(June), 327–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.06.010
Samenow, J. (2018). Red-hot planet: All-time heat records have been set all over the world during the past week - The Washington Post. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/07/03/hot-planet-all-time-heat-records-have-been-set-all-over-the-world-in-last-week/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.57d5a43cb75f. Accessed 6 July 2018
Schmidt, N. (2016). The Birth of Cyber as a National Security Agenda (PhD Thesis). Charles University.
Schmidt, N. (2017). Planetary Defense as a Gateway to Space for Commercial and Deep Space Exploration. New Space, 5(4), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1089/space.2017.0005
Schmidt, N. (2018). The political desirability, feasibility, and sustainability of planetary defense governance. Acta Astronautica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.06.037
The White House. (2018). National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp. Accessed 6 July 2018
United Nations. (2016). The World’s Cities in 2016: Data Booklet. Economic and social affair, 29. https://doi.org/10.18356/8519891f-en
Wendt, A. (2003). Why a World State is Inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), 491–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/135406610394001
Winner, L. (2003). Do artifacts have politics? Technology and the Future, 109(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/20024652
Zolo, D. (2000). The lords of peace: from the Holy Alliance to the new international criminal tribunals. In B. Holden (Ed.), Global Democracy, Key Debate (pp. 73–86). London and New York: Routledge.
Zürn, M. (2000). Democratic Governance Beyond the Nation-State: The EU and Other International Institutons. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 183–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006002002
Zürn, M. (2018). A Theory of Contested Global Governance, 9(1), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12521
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the grant awarded by the Technological Agency of the Czech Republic, project TL01000181: “A multidisciplinary analysis of planetary defense from asteroids as the key national policy ensuring further flourishing and prosperity of humankind both on Earth and in Space,” and co-funded by the Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schmidt, N., Boháček, P. (2019). Dawn of Cosmopolitan Order? The New Norm of Responsibility to Defend Earth and the Planetary Council. In: Schmidt, N. (eds) Planetary Defense. Space and Society. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01000-3_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01000-3_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00999-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01000-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)