Phd Thesis(Final) Beischl 2018
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Towards an Asian Space Agency? - The whence and whither of Asian interstate relations in the space sector in the 21st century by Christoph Beischl, M.A. Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 2018 1 Declaration I, Christoph Beischl, hereby confirm that all parts of this thesis presented for examination are my own work. Date: - -.- -.- - - - 2 Abstract Despite the known benefits offered by intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) to governments, the inception of the intergovernmental Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization in 2006, as well as various academic proposals for the creation of other space-specific IGOs in Asia in the 21 st century, recent years have still not seen a real engagement amongst Asian governments with dedicated space programmes towards establishing a broad regional space-specific IGO. Within this context, this study has decided to ask whether there is a reasonable potential amongst Asian governments to commence negotiations towards establishing an Asian Space Agency (ASA) – perceived within certain stipulations as a broad IGO-based regional space cooperation mechanism – based on the general political and legal status quo of their space programmes as of 2017. In particular, this study focusses on whether the governments with the most ambitious space programmes and domestic access to leading space technology (development) capabilities in Asia, identified as China, India, Iran, Japan, North Korea and South Korea, currently display such a potential. After all, they might be likely at the centre of an ASA. For that, this study develops and employs a methodological approach based on Moravcsik’s well- established International Relations theory ‘Liberalism’ and a plausible determination of basic political and legal ASA characteristics. At the analytical core is a government-by-government assessment and subsequent specialised comparison of the state preferences (somewhat constituting national interests) underlying the current space programmes of the six selected governments, their major domestic and cooperative space-related measures promoted in the pursuit of these state preferences, as well as their respective basic political and legal framework concerning IGO-based regional space cooperation. In contrast to its confident hypothesis, this study concludes in the end that the present space-related state preference situation amongst the six selected governments is such that there is currently no reasonable potential amongst them to commence negotiations towards establishing an ASA. The most problematic factor for the establishment of an ASA is each government’s respective current second space-related autonomy-oriented state preference. Notably, to finish on a more positive and practical note, this study’s final sections further discuss generally the closest IGO-based regional space agency variant to a fully-fledged ASA about which the six selected governments might reasonably negotiate in the context of their current space-related state preferences. Also, the final sections put forward some general policy and regulatory recommendations that might help to broaden these governments’ (IGO-based) intergovernmental space cooperation in the future. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................10 Abbreviations....................................................................................................................13 List of tables......................................................................................................................17 1 Research context, interest, hypothesis and literature...............................................18 1.1 Research context........................................................................................................18 1.2 Research interest........................................................................................................19 1.3 Hypothesis.................................................................................................................22 1.4 Existing literature......................................................................................................22 2 Methodology.................................................................................................................24 2.1 Theoretical pillar: Liberalism....................................................................................24 2.2 Theoretical pillar: basic political and legal ASA characteristics..............................27 2.3 Methodological approach..........................................................................................32 2.3.1 First step: assessment of the three main explanatory variables............................32 2.3.2 Second step: identification of current space-related mixed-motive games..........34 2.3.3 Third step: evaluation of ASA potential...............................................................35 3 Determination of preeminent Asian governments in the space sector....................37 4 People’s Republic of China (China)...........................................................................43 4.1 Analytical considerations..........................................................................................43 4.2 Main domestic political and legal documents...........................................................44 4.3 Basic domestic decision-making system...................................................................47 4.4 Space-related state preferences.................................................................................49 4.4.1 Special political terminology................................................................................49 4.4.1.1 National rights and interests............................................................................49 4.4.1.2 Chinese Dream and Space Dream...................................................................50 4.4.1.3 Comprehensive national power.......................................................................51 4.4.2 Socioeconomic state preferences..........................................................................51 4.4.3 Political state preferences.....................................................................................53 4.4.4 National security state preferences.......................................................................53 4.4.5 Science and technology state preferences............................................................55 4.4.6 Autonomy-oriented state preferences...................................................................56 4.5 Basic pol. & leg. framework concerning IGO-based regional space cooperation....57 4.6 Major domestic and cooperative space-related measures.........................................59 4.6.1 APRSAF and APSCO..........................................................................................59 4.6.1.1 APRSAF..........................................................................................................59 4.6.1.2 APSCO............................................................................................................60 4.6.2 Remote Sensing....................................................................................................64 4.6.2.1 Major domestic measures................................................................................64 4.6.2.2 Major cooperative measures............................................................................66 4.6.3 Communications and broadcasting......................................................................69 4.6.3.1 Major domestic measures................................................................................69 4.6.3.2 Tianlian – a special domestic measure............................................................72 4.6.3.3 Major cooperative measures............................................................................72 4.6.4 Navigation............................................................................................................74 4.6.4.1 Major domestic measures................................................................................74 4.6.4.2 Major cooperative measures............................................................................75 4.6.5 Science and technology research..........................................................................77 4 4.6.5.1 Major domestic measures................................................................................77 4.6.5.2 Major cooperative measures............................................................................80 4.6.6 Human spaceflight................................................................................................80 4.6.6.1 Major domestic measures................................................................................80 4.6.6.2 Major cooperative measures............................................................................83 4.6.7 Lunar exploration.................................................................................................85 4.6.7.1 Major domestic measures................................................................................85 4.6.7.2 Major cooperative measures............................................................................87 4.6.8 Exploration of other celestial