Advertisement

Dawn of Cosmopolitan Order? The New Norm of Responsibility to Defend Earth and the Planetary Council

  • Nikola SchmidtEmail author
  • Petr Boháček
Chapter
Part of the Space and Society book series (SPSO)

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.

Keywords

Cosmopolitanism Global governance Planetary Council Planetary defense Political theory Responsibility to Defend Earth 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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/S0020818300001533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archibugi, D. (2004). Cosmopolitan Democracy and Its Critics: A Review. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 437–473.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066104045543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International organization, 53(4), 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules of the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (2006). The cosmopolitan vision. Polity.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
  6. Booth, K. (2007). Theory of World Security. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, A. (2013a). Security cosmopolitanism. Critical Studies on Security, 1(1), 13–28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2013.790194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke, A. (2013b). The good state, from a cosmic point of view. International Politics, 50(1), 57–76.  https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2012.28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke, A. (2013c). Security cosmopolitanism. Critical Studies on Security, 1(1), 13–28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2013.790194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke, A. (2015). Security cosmopolitanism: the next phase. Critical Studies on Security, 3(2), 190–212.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2015.1065109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahl, R. A. (2001). Is Post-national Democracy Possible? In S. Fabbrini (Ed.), Nation, Federalism and Democracy. Bologna: Trento: Editrice Compositori.Google Scholar
  12. 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.496Google Scholar
  13. Deudney, D. (2007). Bounding power: Republican security theory from the polis to the global village. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, L. J., & Morlino, L. (2004). An Overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20–31.  https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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/S0007123414000453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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/S026021050700753XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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/10.1177/0967010611418712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hale, T., Held, D., & Young, K. (2013). GRIDLOCK: Why Global Cooperation is Failing when we Need it Most. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  20. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Held, D. (2010a). Reframing Global Governance: Apocalypse Soon or Reform! In G. W. Brown & D. Held (Eds.), The Cosmopolitanism Reader (pp. 293–211). Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Held, D. (2010b). Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. Polity.Google Scholar
  23. 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/10.1007/978-3-319-54364-2Google Scholar
  24. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. 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/su5031049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kastenhofer, K. (2011). Risk Assessment of Emerging Technologies and Post-Normal Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(3), 307–333.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910385787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.2011.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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/10.1080/13600820600816282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer, M., & Acuto, M. (2015). The Global Governance of Large Technical Systems. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 43(2), 660–683.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814561540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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/10.1111/1468-5965.00390Google Scholar
  31. Nagel, T. (2005). The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), 113–147. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558011.
  32. Nyman, J., & Burke, A. (2016). Ethical Security Studies: A New Research Agenda. (J. Nyman & A. Burke, Eds.). Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Pogge, T. (2008). World Poverty and Human Rights (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  34. Rodrik, D. (2007). The inescapable trilemma of the world economy. Dani Rodrik’s Weblog.Google Scholar
  35. 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/10.1177/0967010612443723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.2017.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Schmidt, N. (2016). The Birth of Cyber as a National Security Agenda (PhD Thesis). Charles University.Google Scholar
  39. 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.2017.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. The White House. (2018). National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp. Accessed 6 July 2018Google Scholar
  42. United Nations. (2016). The World’s Cities in 2016: Data Booklet. Economic and social affair, 29.  https://doi.org/10.18356/8519891f-en
  43. Wendt, A. (2003). Why a World State is Inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), 491–542.  https://doi.org/10.1177/135406610394001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Winner, L. (2003). Do artifacts have politics? Technology and the Future, 109(1), 148–164.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20024652
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. 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/10.1177/1354066100006002002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zürn, M. (2018). A Theory of Contested Global Governance, 9(1), 138–145.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12521CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social SciencesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of International RelationsPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations