By - Anirudh TR
The concept of ownership has long pervaded mankind in establishing agreements, boundaries, and control over the property. However what is ownership in itself is a question, not a lot of us ponder about. This article aims to deal with that worry, trying to give a new perspective to the concept of ownership and hence control itself. International relations theorists today argue that perhaps the most important attribute of global order is the concept of sovereignty. Respect for state sovereignty is a necessary check mechanism that deters misuse of power and that is probably why it is treated as a very important pillar of international law. However, an interesting question is to analyze how this concept of sovereignty extends to unclaimed property. Global commons, otherwise known as resources that comprise a common pool of accessibility are an interesting place to start deconstructing this concept from. Let's look at some examples of global commons, the high seas or international waters is an example of a resource in the commonwealth. Similarly, outer space or cyberspace even for that matter may be considered global commons because these are extensive resource pools that may be shared by those who want to benefit out of them. However, the question arises that if resources in the commonwealth exist in theory for usage, then by extension of the same principle, the onus to maintain and protect these resources must logically be shared as well. Here is where reality kicks in, where every actor who has a theoretical stake in exploring these resources may not have the means to sustain them in the longer run. Turning to philosophy might help while dealing with such ethical dilemmas.
Robert Nozick, an American philosopher, writes that wealth or resource which was justified in its method of acquisition and transfer is entitled to the person who acquired it. It is to say that if a resource was acquired in a manner where there was no theft or fraud and there is essentially a free market in obtaining these resources, then such resource is entitled property. To answer how one acquires property, the concept of ownership that comes into existence is intuitive for the most part. With property and resources, we find aspects such as discovery, development, and maintenance attached to its ownership. This means that to qualitatively judge the legitimacy of one's ownership over a resource we need to further answer questions such as whether it was discovered and hence developed and maintained as well. Quite logically, the legitimacy of ownership through discovery is very primitive indeed which is to say that an individual who found little of a resource owns a lot of it seems pretty unfair. However, the latter two aspects of development and maintenance are more long term and hence could be acceptable metrics to gauge ownership. The homestead principle or 'Locke's Theory of Property' essentially unravels this aspect of ownership, where it says "one gains ownership of an unowned natural resource by performing an act of original appropriation, whereby there is a mixing of an already owned resource with an uncrowned resource to develop and maintain the acquired resource". This theory relies on understanding that ownership as a concept does not arise from allocation but the functional attribute attached to maintaining and bettering that resource.If there was a sufficient amount of time, effort, and capital invested into maintaining a certain resource, then by extension of the homestead principle, that resource may be claimed in so far as there is enough of that resource left in the commonwealth. This is to say that one need not own a part of a resource to perform acts of development on it, however consequently if such development and maintenance render this resource utilitarian, then it can be claimed to owe to the investment made. Space-based exploration programs have become necessary parts of national budgets today, and nation-states consider space travel an economic incentive on their part. It is, however, undeniable that space travel itself causes a lot of physical damage to outer space by dispersing a lot of debris.
The Kessler syndrome is a phenomenon that takes place with such debris particles, wherein repeated collision cascading amidst these debris particles leads to a geometric progression in debris quantity. Needless to say that the lower earth orbit is being rendered increasingly unusable by this debris and there is an imminent need to initiate debris clearing procedures. A bit of game theory would quickly make us understand this is indeed the case of 'the tragedy of the commons', a situation where individuals end up acting in self-interest and do not play the game at the end. Analogically, states do not want to initiate debris clean up launches to high first costs and arguably low dividends, however, the situation isn't getting any better up in space. Therefore at some stage, there must be a good samaritan who must step up, and let us call that state X for the sake of this article. X is a state which has a capable space agency, enough in wealth to afford the first costs and greater stake objectively owing to their activities in the past as well. Nature has it that some states were topographically endowed with wealth, be it vast areas of land or archipelagoes with mines. One cannot idealistically argue for equality because it is practically impossible nor can they argue for equitability because states are entitled to their land. Nozick's principle aids this premise and in that, it concludes that modern-day state influence arising out of topographic entitlement, years of trade, and a long-standing global consent amounts to justified entitlement. Therefore, X circumstantially had to be that samaritan because they were the most capable. Now an interesting aspect springs up when we look at it through Locke's lens. We see that with time, state X will have taken a substantial amount of space expeditions to rectify this problem.
Analogously we find that through multiple efforts and investments to clear up space debris, through their clearance system, they contributed to the development of those areas in the orbit which they have effectively remedied. Therefore it can be argued that since there is a customization of development and maintenance practices towards a certain resource, in this case, the lower earth orbit, that part of the larger commonwealth of outer space may be entitled as a property of this state X. Furthermore, a critical analysis would yield us a fascinating result that, state X, having used a recurrent technological tool to remove the problem, has enfranchised a sense of recurrence in the method of action as well. This can then intuitively be extended to saying there is a development of that technology in itself thereby making them entitled to the method of action as well, Much like how customary law gains importance through recurrent acceptance and practice, we see a sense of implicit acceptance and obvious recurrence in defining ownership before the establishment of the property itself.
A compelling case that aims to redefine the concept of sovereignty in the modern age is seen quite explicitly whilst trying to explain state action on a philosophical account. There are if any, a very few absolute truths that history has brought forth to us and theoretical claims made by philosophers are to a large extent contested truths. However, turning back to moral philosophy is indeed important as such ethical dilemmas are very repetitive through time immemorial, and give us a case to argue against conventionality. To what extent this argument is relevant might be questionable but what is important is to realize that it nonetheless is arguable which gives the case gravity. In today's quasi liberal paradigm where states care more about self welfare over communal good, such a case of justified entitlement may just as well be the deciding factor in who is, truly the Leviathan or in modern-day lingo, " A Superpower"
Comments