Star Wars: Episode X

(1)

STAR WARS:

EPISODE X

-

THE DARK SIDE OF

THE MOON

ABSTRACT:

A 21st_{century space race is on the verge of beginning, as future space exploration and exploitation}

by an increasing array of interested state and non-state actors is coming closer to reality. Colonies on celestial bodies, men on Mars, the building of space infrastructures and asteroid mining for valuable resources are all examples of these future space activities. In combination with the multiplicity of future space actors, outer space could become a strategic domain that is prone to international conflict. This research focused on the question: How are the international governance structures on the prevention of conflicts regarding future space exploration and exploitation taking shape and how can these be interpreted from scientific perspectives? These scientific perspectives included relevant perspectives from International Relations (Realism, Liberalism and

Constructivism) on the one hand, and global governance on the other hand. Outer space is increasingly becoming essential for many interests of many states and people, and it will require balanced strategies and operations to ensure a peaceful outer space domain in light of future space exploration and exploitation. Outer space has the potential to become an important security domain of the future, and I therefore furthermore assert that it should deserve more scholarly attention.

Johnno Spoorendonk (s1685856) Supervisor: Dr. Jaap Reijling

Leiden University Second assessor: Dr. Joery Matthys

(2)

Johnno Spoorendonk – Master’s thesis

2 Star Wars: Episode X

-

The Dark Side of the Moon

Master’s thesis: Star Wars: Episode X – The Dark Side of the Moon

Version: Final version

Research conducted by: Johnno Spoorendonk

Student ID: s1685856

University: Leiden University

(The Netherlands)

Faculty: Governance and Global Affairs

Programme: Crisis and Security Management

Degree: Master of Science (MSc)

Programme starting date: 1 February 2016

Supervisor: Dr. Jaap Reijling

Second assessor: Dr. Joery Matthys

(3)

3 PREFACE

To start with: This document does not contain the screenplay of the 10th_{episode of the Star}

Wars franchise. The ‘’X’’ in the title of this thesis does not refer to the Roman numeral ‘’10’’,

as Roman numerals are commonly used to denote the Star Wars installments. Also, this document does not contain a review of the legendary 1973 Pink Floyd album The Dark Side

of the Moon. As much as I would have loved to digress about some of the album’s songs like Time or The Great Gig in the Sky, choices simply had to be made. I’m sorry in advance if I

disappoint any Star Wars and/or Pink Floyd fans with this message, but I have to admit that I think many people are relieved to see that I don’t am serious about writing literary works.

What is Star Wars: Episode X – The Dark Side of the Moon for kind of document then? It is a master’s thesis in the Master of Science programme of Crisis and Security Management at Leiden University, written as a report of a research that is conducted in the past months. This research revolved around future notions of outer space, as it is becoming increasingly more interesting for states and non-state actors to engage in space exploration and exploitation. Outer space is perceived to become more important for many strategic interests of a growing array of different actors: Security, economy, politics, revenues, nationalism, prestige and power in general are a few of those strategic interests. Colonies on celestial bodies, men on Mars, the building of space infrastructures and asteroid mining for valuable resources are all examples of these future space activities that fall within space exploration and exploitation. Because there at the moment is no adequate governance regime for governing these kinds of outer space activities, outer space is a domain prone to international conflict (referring to the

Star Wars part). And although outer space has many great opportunities to offer, it also has a

seam side that entails many disadvantages (referring to the The Dark Side of the Moon part). And because it is hard to say if conflicts will happen, when they will happen, where, how, what and so on, we face a theme that is shrouded in uncertainty and unknown vagueness (referring to the X part). Taken together eventually, this explains the title of this document:

Star Wars: Episode X – The Dark Side of the Moon.

Although this sounds as a futuristic topic to focus a research on (according to some: Too futuristic), I argue that it is more than ever important to be aware of the fact that outer space is a place where many things happen and could happen. Naiveté and ignorance are powerful

(4)

4

assassins in the human minds, while imagination is the thing that keeps the mind and the man alive in many cases.

It is therefore that I will mention a Dutch documentary that was broadcasted on television by the time of December 2015, which was about practically the same topic as this thesis. The documentary of VPRO Tegenlicht – Race naar de ruimte (freely translated: ‘’Race to space’’, accessible via http://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/2015-2016/race-naar-de-ruimte.html at the time of writing) formed one of the biggest inspirational sources for me to conduct a research on this topic. It opened my eyes on this topic for the first time. In hindsight, I also want to praise and compliment former Leiden University PhD candidate Ms. Megan Anderson. A couple of weeks before the finish of this thesis, I discovered that she had written the very apt and innovative article Watch this Space on the Leiden Safety and Security Blog (accessible via http://www.leidensafetyandsecurityblog.nl/articles/watch-this-space at the time of writing). This article was written already by the time of 28 April 2014, so that is almost three years before I would finish my thesis on a very related topic. The examples of both the documentary and the blog article denote a great innovative analytic vision in my opinion.

I furthermore have to express my compliments and gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Jaap Reijling. Without Jaap’s constructive criticism, feedback and way of supervision, I would not have been able to yield the thesis you are about to read. The interaction between Jaap and me showed that it is completely possible for a retired armed forces Colonel one the one hand, and a persistent (and sometimes stubborn) student on the other hand, to engage in harmonious ways of co-operation.

Lastly, finishing this thesis marks the end of an educational period that has lasted almost 20 consecutive years during three decades in two centuries. It started at elementary school in 1998, and it now has ended at Leiden University in 2017. One giant leap for a man, one small step for mankind I would say.

Thanks for this opportunity, and good luck with reading.

Johnno Spoorendonk, January 2017.

(5)

5

6

4.1.4 Views on future international relations in space: Constructivism ... 63

4.1.5 Conclusion of the sub-question ... 78

4.2 Operations: International governance for the prevention conflicts ... 80

4.2.1 The governance of what? ... 81

4.2.2 A comparison with sea governance and the International Telecommunication Union ... 88

4.2.3 The global governance of outer space: Views on involved actors and possible forms of governance ... 91

4.2.4 Conclusion of the sub-question ... 100

4.3 Final conclusion ... 102

5. REFLECTION ... 104

5.1 Discussion ... 104

5.1.1 A discussion on the research in this thesis ... 104

5.1.2 A broader discussion ... 105 5.2 On polygamous relationships ... 107 5.3 Recommendations... 109 5.3.1 Scientific recommendations ... 109 5.3.2 Policy recommendations ... 110 REFERENCES ... 112 Interviews ... 118 APPENDICES ... 120

Appendix A: Interview format (English version) ... 120

(7)

7

(8)

8 1. INTRODUCTION

This first chapter introduces the subject and features of this research to provide a context for further study. This chapter will firstly cover an introduction on this research topic in general. Subsequently, the research question will be introduced and the relevance of this research will be discussed. Then the objectives of this research will be clarified, followed by a reading guide for the remainder of this report.

1.1 A general introduction to the research topic

The period of modern-day space exploration and exploitation is coming closer. Humanity is on the verge of a major expansion in human space activity (Moltz, 2014). Moreover, ‘’a twenty-first century space race is on the verge of beginning’’ (Zell, 2006, p. 490). States and private companies are increasingly expressing their intentions to engage in activities regarding the colonisation of planets and other celestial bodies, and the exploitation of the resources that space and its celestial bodies offer for economic purposes. Perhaps this may sound like

(science)fiction, but recent developments made in space exploration denote that the exploitation of natural resources of celestial bodies is about to become feasible (Lefeber, 2016). According to Turk (2012, p. xii), ‘’It is the eve of outer space development, but few people are aware of this’’. Tronchetti (2009) asserts that the possibilities of exploiting the resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies are certainly more realistic than they may sound in the first place, and the first day of modern space exploration and exploitation is approaching fast. Outer space has thus the potential of becoming an international power domain of strategic interests, and this happening will be closer to us than we think.

When taking a look at outer space in history, outer space was already an important strategic power domain during the years of the Cold War when two superpowers got caught up in a struggle for power: The ‘Space Race’ between the USA and the USSR, that furthermore proved the world that space travel was realistic and attainable (Devezas et al., 2012; Tronchetti, 2009; Zell, 2006). The stage of space-faring actors has however changed

significantly in the course of time. Since not only the USA and the USSR (roughly the current Russia) engage in space activities nowadays, the stage of international space-interested actors has increased in complexity (Brouwer, 2015). The current space-faring nations come from several continents and regions from around the globe, consisting of some 80 in total and this number is expected to increase in the coming years (Clapper, 2016). Furthermore, the

(9)

9

growing involvement of private actors for commercial interests is an unprecedented and booming development. Especially the exploitation aspect of space can generate large amounts of (economic) benefits and is said to have the potential to contribute greatly to the

improvement of life on Earth (Tronchetti, 2009).

Significant recent progress with regard to modern-day space exploration and exploitation is made by the USA. The first example of this progress is the launch of the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (also known as the Space Act) by the US Congress in November 2015 (US Congress, 2015). This act enables US private companies to freely explore and exploit space for economic purposes, under legislation and control of the US Government (Lefeber, 2016; Marks, 2016; US Congress, 2015). A second example is the recent approval of the US Government for the plan of private firm Moon Express to venture beyond the Earth’s orbit and undertake a deep space mission on the Moon, a mission that is planned for 2017 (Ioannou, 2016; Moon Express, 2016; Nelson, 2016). This would make Moon Express the first private company in the history of mankind that is entitled to undertake a deep space mission, possibly clearing the path for other private companies to follow (Ioannou, 2016; Moon Express, 2016).

However, the entry into force of this Space Act has already led to discontent among various emerging space-faring countries around the world, as this is perceived to be a unilateral course of action by the US that violates the currently valid law, the Outer Space Treaty by the UN (1967), on the international use of outer space (Bittencourt, 2016). So, the first disputes on the international stage have been manifested already, even though not a single private company has actually ventured in space yet. A globally agreed legal framework on future space activities of exploration and exploitation still is absent (Brouwer, 2015; Peoples, 2010). This legal framework is perceived as indispensable, for space and its celestial bodies are classified as a res communis, a sovereignty-free international area that can’t be possessed or claimed by sole actors (UN, 1967; Von der Dunk, 1996). And this is exactly where the challenges lie when future space exploration and exploitation will be carried out by an

amalgamation of different state and non-state space-faring actors: ‘’Space should not become a free-for-all, and for example the obligatory peaceful purpose of space activities should continue to be respected’’ (Von der Dunk, 1996, p. 7). And as stated by the UN (1967, p. 13): ‘’The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall

(10)

10

be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind’’.

Concerns are therefore rising regarding these future space activities. It is in the first place believed that new developments within space exploration and exploitation can be conducive to life on Earth (Tronchetti, 2009) and that for instance the Moon will make up for an

important part of the Earth’s economy within 15 years (Jain, 2016). Outer space development can furthermore be perceived as an incentive for world peace and equality (Turk, 2012). But the seam side of these developments must not be overlooked. Because a valid question, as stated by Turk (2012, p. xiv), would be: ‘’To whom will the benefits accrue?’’. In light of the aforementioned lack of awareness regarding future space activities, an absent solid

preparation for the beneficial opportunities by many can lead to an ever-greater level of inequality and instability in terms of international conflicts when wealth flows from outer space to (some parts of the) Earth, with some countries only recognising the problem when it is already too late (Turk, 2012; O. Bittencourt, personal communication, November 8, 2016). Therefore, there is an urgency for an international regime in order to organise the governance of future space exploration and exploitation appropriately when these activities are becoming feasible (Tronchetti, 2009; UN, 2016b).

Security issues pertaining to outer space are topics of global debate and concern. NATO rapporteur Ibrügger (2003, p. 1) mentions that ‘’A new security debate on the future status of activities in outer space is emerging’’, and Tannenwald (2004, p. 363) argues that ‘’The future of peace and security in outer space is at a critical juncture’’. As of today, no concrete

governance structures with regard to future space exploration and exploitation have been established on an international level. It is also not sure whether and to what extent the visions of both the predominant and emerging space-faring actors, that will engage in activities of future space exploration and exploitation, will converge or diverge. The intricacy lies in the circumstances that outer space is a res communis that offers beneficial opportunities for many actors, but might therefore at the same time become a stage of international disputes and conflicts because of the many strategic interests that are pursued by these disparate actors (Brouwer, 2015; Turk, 2012; Von der Dunk, 1996). ‘’The legal regime that guides

commercial, military, and scientific activities in space is fragmented and increasingly inadequate to meet the challenges posed by the growing number of actors seeking to exploit space’’ (Tannenwald, 2004, p. 363-364). If outer space as a result of future space exploration

(11)

11

and exploitation must not become an extra-terrestrial free-for-all and must continue to be an environment of peaceful purposes (Von der Dunk, 1996), the more important will it be to establish an international governance regime that enables and supports space-faring actors in doing so.

Although the progress in these developments of space exploration and exploitation will only proceed in gradual steps, outer space thus has the potential to become important again for strategic interests of several actors. This can lead to disputes and conflicts on the international stage and can furthermore influence the entire concept of security. The concept of security can be conceived of as ‘’a low probability of damage to acquired values’’ (Baldwin, 1997, p. 13) or comparably as an ‘’alleviation of threats to cherished values’’ (P. Williams, 2013, p. 6). This concept is in both definitions clearly linked to important values and possible breaches of those values. The human existence up until today is only linked with human life on Earth, but the future endeavours of mankind will possibly not continue solely on planet Earth. Therefore, it will be important to get familiarised with notions of security that also are about things happening outside the terrestrial realm of planet Earth. In other words: How could the concept of security take shape in an outer space context?

1.2 The central research question

This research will be led by a central research question: How are the international

governance structures on the prevention of conflicts regarding future space exploration and exploitation taking shape and how can these be interpreted from scientific

perspectives?

The purpose of this central research question is not to say that conflicts will undoubtedly happen as a result of intensifying space exploration and exploitation. Instead, the purpose is to explore how conflicts can possibly arise as a result of future space strategies and activities, and how they can be prevented via international governance. It implies that international conflicts could form plausible negative ramifications of intensifying space exploration and exploitation in the future.

Sub-questions are part of this thesis, but will be addressed at the end of chapter 2. This is done so because the insights of the theoretical framework in chapter 2 have structured the

(12)

12

environment in which the research was carried out, and have subsequently shaped the type of sub-questions that were relevant for this research.

1.3 Academic and societal relevance

The primary goal of science is to carefully expand the knowledge that is necessary for understanding the reality where mankind lives in, via research conducted along systematic rigor lines (Neuman, 2014). This also involves the ‘seeing’ of things before they can be beheld. It entails the exploring, describing and explaining of events that have happened in the past, are happening at the moment or can eventually be happening in the future. The scientific relevance of this thesis is captured in the exploration of future subjects, events, thoughts and concepts that can contribute to the expansion of our scientific knowledge. In this case: Expanding the knowledge about the concept of security by focusing on an aberrant security domain which will possibly gain importance in the future.

Why is this thesis subject relevant for the fields of public administration in general, and crisis and security management in particular? Public administration is both an academic discipline and a field of practice. Both the discipline and the practice revolve around questions on how to govern, and by what means, in the public interest. The clearest link with public

administration is that outer space is an area of (inter)national interest that has to be governed. It involves the implementation of public government policies, international agreements and has an indispensable political dimension. The field of crisis and security management is about the concept of security and its translation into things that are perceivable in daily life. If security entails the low probability of damage to acquired values (Baldwin, 1997), then the academics and professionals within the field of crisis and security management try to constantly refresh and criticise the meaning of the concept of security, try to approach intricate security issues in order to prevent insecurities from happening or try to adequately respond to insecure situations and crises. The field of crisis and security management is inherently connected to scientific, societal, administrative and political dimensions. This thesis subject traverses all of the aforementioned dimensions and traits of the field of crisis and security management.

Being scientifically relevant is logical regarding the scientific nature of this document, but what societal relevance does this thesis hold? In other words: What impact can this thesis have on society? On the daily life of people? Societal relevance can be conceived of as the act

(13)

13

of answering societal questions, the solving of societal problems and/or the development of different sectors within society by making use of scientific knowledge (Wilbertz, 2013). There are some things that can be said with regard to societal relevance in the case of this master’s thesis: People are part of societies. Societies are part of states. States are part of the world. The world is part of the universe. The engagement of states in space activities implies that societies are involved as well. Government officials, political leaders, space-oriented companies, astronauts and spacemen are essentially all part of the societies around the world. Space activities are costly endeavours and part of official government and corporate policies. Though these are quite broad considerations, they still reflect the connections within societies because acquired knowledge may in this case be contributing to the development of industries and governance practices in the future. Also, outer space as a security domain can affect the lives of many people on Earth, and is thus important for the security interests of societies around the world. This thesis might not directly answer ‘tomorrow’s’ questions or solve ‘tomorrow’s’ problems, but it might lay the foundation for answering questions or solving the problems of ‘next month’.

1.4 Objectives of this research

This research will be conducted in order to explore and raise awareness for future security issues that might have to be taken in account within a certain time. As futuristic as the topic of intensifying space exploration and exploitation with regard to crisis and security issues may sound, it is in my opinion important to proactively research these themes to gain a better understanding of relevant future developments. As already has been said, the scientific reality demands the ‘seeing’ of things before they can be beheld, and this research can be qualified as a try in achieving that. Eventually, this thesis must contribute to the body of knowledge regarding security, by further broadening and deepening the concept of security. This can only be done if new terrain gets explored as well.

The subject of intensifying space exploration and exploitation with regard to crisis and

security issues is not ubiquitous or self-evident as of the year 2017. Questions regarding these themes have not been asked on a large scale so far and it does not occupy an important spot on several international agendas. This thesis can therefore be seen as an exploratory research. Exploratory research, according to Neuman (2014), is research with a primary purpose to examine a new phenomenon or little understood issue, in order to eventually develop

(14)

14

happening right now which are directly relevant for life on Earth, but provides (tentative) questions and (tentative) answers that might prove to be of great importance in the future when the time has eventually come. Objectives of this research thus also entail the

familiarisation with the basic concerns, setting and facts of the subject in general. This can stimulate interest and relevance for further research on the subject, and could spark

discussions between relevant academic and professional actors.

1.5 Reading guide

This thesis is structured as follows: Chapter 2 will cover the theoretical framework and sub-questions used in this research, and is followed by the methodology that will be discussed in chapter 3 in order to give an insight into the empirical framework and research design. The research findings and analysis will be the focal point of chapter 4, and also contains the final conclusion. Chapter 5 will start with a discussion, before going to an elaboration of the conclusions and recommendations. The thesis will formally end with an overview of the consulted sources, and contains two appendices with additional information regarding the conducted interviews in this research.

(15)

15 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter describes the theoretical framework that is used in this research. Pertinent for this research, as regular with most exploratory research, is that there is a certain absence of

validated theories and empirical data. The theoretical framework of this research is therefore based on an amalgamation of theoretical insights and analytical frameworks from several academic disciplines that were perceived to be relevant for the research topic. These

theoretical insights are based on previous studies and theories. This became a necessary thing to do because no unified ‘theories of everything’ existed with regard to the link between intensifying future space activities and security issues. Though these used theoretical insights and analytical frameworks are not necessarily designed for the space-security context that is featuring this specific research and are of course not the irrefutable truth, it still provided guidance and scope for this research. Which theoretical insights and analytical frameworks from which disciplines constitute the theoretical framework of this thesis then?

The subject under study is affiliated with themes about international conflict and co-operation, perspectives and behaviour of relevant actors with regard to the outer space domain in relation to the concept of security and governance structures on the international level. The

multiplicity of modern-day space actors constitutes a far more complex environment than in the bipolar days of the Cold War, when it basically came down to confrontations between the US and the USSR. More actors in space means more complex processes within international relations. The first aspect of this review will therefore be aimed at creating an overview of the views on international relations of the relevant actors involved. The second aspect will then be related to the way actors view the actual structures for governance and conflict prevention with regard to outer space. Subsequently, two main theoretical pillars can be discerned on two different levels within this thesis that constitute the basis of the core analytical research: A strategic pillar (revolving around strategies in international relations) and a more operational pillar (actual governance and conflict prevention).

At first, there is the strategic pillar. The chosen topic first of all holds a strong connection with the field of International Relations (IR, referring to the academic discipline in capital letters), because the topic is about the behaviour between state entities in an international sphere of political and strategic value. International Relations knows a set of different theories in explaining the behaviour of state actors on an international level, and is used to address the

(16)

16

‘big’ questions about international war, peace, conflict and order (Ayoob, 2002). These theories influence the discourse of security studies, public discussions, policy analysis and political debates (COT, 2007). And so, the insights of the three main theories of International Relations are used in this research: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. There exists a tight link between the fields of International Relations and Security Studies (P. Williams, 2013). And especially in the part on Constructivism, two security ‘constructs’ will be included: The concept of security at first, followed by the Constructivist theory of

securitisation. It in this case addresses questions around the perspectives and behaviour that is carried out by relevant space actors regarding (security in) outer space, and can therefore be considered as a part of International Relations. Insights from International Relations were thus important for analysing the topic strategically.

At second, there is the operational pillar. The actual acts of governance and conflict prevention come forth from operational efforts on the international stage. This part will be about the possible governance structures and practices. Theories that surround these efforts can be derived from other instances where it became relevant to prevent conflicts and construct governance structures in order to do so. The rapid economic, political and societal developments since the end of the Cold War have created a world with growing levels of global interdependence, which led to systems of global governance (Barnett & Duvall, 2005; Hall & Biersteker, 2002). Global governance is essentially aimed at the governance of global matters on, for instance, politics, economy, environment and security by a variety of state, interstate and non-state actors (Barnett & Duvall, 2005; Hall & Biersteker, 2002; Rosenau, 1995). The inclusion of global governance insights enabled an analysis on a more practical, operational level of the research topic.

2.1 Strategies: International Relations

There are three significant theories/analytical frameworks from (or connected to) International Relations that have been used in this research: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. These will be explained subsequently.

2.1.1 Realism

I begin with the statement that Realism is not a single theory in the sense that it is not defined by an independent explicit set of propositions and assumptions, but rather is a general

(17)

17

detailed theories (Donnelly, 2000; Walt, 1998). It is an approach that surfaced gradually through the efforts of a series of analysts who have situated themselves within a distinctive, but nonetheless diverse, tradition or style of analysis (Donnelly, 2000). Convention in the scientific world however, as can be perceived in the sizable amount of scientific publications on Realism that circulate nowadays, legitimates to refer to Realism as a theory, so that is how it will be done in this thesis as well.

Realism is one of the three major theories in International Relations, and forms the dominant paradigms in the IR realm along with Liberalism and Constructivism (Ayoob, 2002; COT, 2007). Realism, in essence, revolves around the notion that self-interested state actors are engaged in a strategic struggle for power to enhance their capabilities on an international stage (COT, 2007; Elman & Jensen, 2014; Mearsheimer, 1994). The philosophical

foundations of Realism can be traced back to the Ancient Greece in the vein of historian and general Thucydides, and the Renaissance era in the vein of great thinkers like Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau (COT, 2007). Realism depicts a somewhat pessimistic worldview of international relations between actors, for the international system is seen as a ‘brutal arena’, an international anarchy without a central authority to protect states against each other (COT, 2007; Mearsheimer, 1994; Walt, 1998). This means that states are ought to survive on their own and that every actor strives for being the most powerful actor in an international system where national interests are perceived to be paramount, and these interests are defined in terms of security and power (Mearsheimer, 1994; Morgenthau, 2006; Walt, 1998). This notion of international relations creates an environment where states are struggling for power and security in a relentless competition, which emphasises the prospects for international conflicts (Mearsheimer, 1994; Powell, 1991).

Five Realist assumptions

In an attempt to structure the amalgamation of Realist notions, a number of five assumptions can be discerned according to Mearsheimer (1994). These five assumptions can furthermore explain three types of Realist behaviour by states (Mearsheimer, 1994).

The first assumption is that, in a Realist line of thought, the international system is anarchic. The word ‘’anarchic’’ in this sense doesn’t mean chaos or utter disorder, but refers to the absence of a central governing entity to govern the actors in the international spectrum. In

(18)

18

other words, sovereignty inheres in the individual states and not in a central authority above the states (Mearsheimer, 1994).

The second assumption is that every state, at least to some extent, possesses offensive military capabilities. This gives states hypothetically the means to hurt and potentially destroy each other, as was a dominant line of thought during the Cold War (COT, 2007; Mearsheimer, 1994).

The third assumption revolves around the uncertainty of the world and the mutual distrust that follows (Mearsheimer, 1994). No single state can be a 100 percent sure about the intentions of other states, for states pursue their own interests. Especially not when it comes down to the use of another state’s military capabilities, which is perceived to pose the ultimate threat. This uncertainty leads to an acquired level of mutual distrust among states, even though the mutual intentions of these states do not have to be malign in the first place. However, intentions can change swiftly due to the complex nature of reality. Uncertainty is therefore inevitable when assessing the intentions of others, so that there always is a mutual level of uncertainty among states.

The fourth assumption according to Mearsheimer (1994) simply is that states want to maintain their sovereignty, and are thus driven by survival as the main motive in the international system. An increase of the sovereignty of one state might infringe the sovereignty of another state. This denotes the struggle for power among states.

The fifth assumption is that the level where states are active on, the international level, necessitates strategic ways of thinking and acting (Mearsheimer, 1994). States think strategically to guarantee their survival in the international system, which means that states are instrumentally rational in the choices they make. Nonetheless, miscalculations occur from time to time for states operate in a world of imperfect information where potential opponents might benefit from concealing their true intentions and misrepresenting strengths or

weaknesses.

The security dilemma

Because the states are all competing for security and power, there is an interestingly pertinent paradox linked with the notion of Realism, called the ‘security dilemma’ (COT, 2007). The

(19)

19

security dilemma is derived from the idea that the absence of a central authority in the

international society facilitates a system where ‘the law of the jungle’ prevails (Donnelly, 2000), meaning that the international stage is a disordered free-for-all where states seek for their own survival (Walt, 1998). Because of the ongoing efforts of states to guarantee their own security and survival, states are incited to acquire more and more power to escape the impact of the power of others (COT, 2007). The dilemma that follows then revolves around these questions: Should a state stop its efforts to acquire more and more power with the intention to stabilise the international system, but with the risk of becoming a weak player that cannot guarantee its own survival? Or should a state continue its efforts to acquire more and more power, leading to a more powerful position in the international system but at the same time becoming a bigger threat to other states, and therefore lead to a more instable

international system?

This leads to a vicious circle where the actual possibility of conflicts and insecurity is growing, while the opposite of this was the intention in the first place. Baldwin (1997) therefore asserts that the choice in the dilemma depends on the term of the strategy. A short-run security strategy may conflict with a long-term security strategy, which is illustrated by Baldwin (1997) as follows: A fence, a ferocious dog and a big gun may be useful instruments to protect oneself from the neighbours on the short-term, but on the long-term it might be more sensible to befriend them in order to provide security.

Today’s relevance of Realism

Although Realism nowadays still forms a pertinent paradigm within the sphere of

International Relations and security issues, it is mostly seen as a dominant school of thought during the Cold War (COT, 2007). This would ostensibly mean that Realism is not as relevant today as it was roughly 25 years and longer ago. Nevertheless, Realism still proves to be a relevant theory in the light of modern-day developments and events. I will provide three modern-day examples that can support this statement: Disputes regarding the Arctic,

geopolitical Russian tensions and tensions in the South China Sea. All these examples have to do with the search for international power and strategic interests of individual states, which are unmistakable features of Realism.

The Arctic circle remains a contested geographical area that is subjected to the expansionist ambitions of several countries, including the two ‘classical’ adversaries in the name of the

(20)

20

USA and Russia, but also including Canada, Denmark and Norway (Byers, 2010; The

Economist, 2014). Sovereignty in the Arctic circle is of great strategic importance for states, because climate change, environmental protection, potentially exploitable oil and gas

reserves, shipping routes and security purposes drive these states to claim their part of the Arctic (Byers, 2010). This has led to several disputes in the Arctic so far, ranging from

contested symbolic actions as planting a Russian flag on the bottom of the sea under the North Pole, to provocative violations of the Canadian airspace by Russian fighter aircrafts and intensified combat exercises around the Arctic (Byers, 2010; The Economist, 2014).

The geopolitical Russian tensions regarding the Ukrainian sovereignty and annexation of the Crimea have created the deepest rift in Western-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War (Wolff, 2015). Geopolitics can be understood as the policy-making tool that combines geography, strategy and relative power for own interests (Wolff, 2015). The current

geopolitical tensions come forth out of a complicated mixture of political, historical,

economic and military factors, especially regarding the NATO-Russian relationship (Wolff, 2015). It is a conflict over power and security where the liberal-minded NATO and the geopolitical-minded Russia diametrically oppose each other (Wolff, 2015). Furthermore, the European Union and Russia are quarrelling over the case as well, leading to retaliatory

measures from both sides and chilly relations that are still sustaining as of today, as expressed in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council of the European Union, 2015).

The growing tensions in the South China Sea also depict the power struggles among self-interested states in the modern world. China has started with establishing basic deterrence proceedings with its improved power and capabilities (Fangyin, 2016). The tensions are about groups of islands in the South China Sea that are competitively claimed by China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia at the same time (BBC, 2016). Not just state sovereignty issues, but also trading routes that flow through the contested area create strategic interests for the countries. China is taking the lead in claiming the islands and territorial waters and engages in artificial island-building and intensifying naval patrols. The dispute is complicated due to the interference of the USA in the form of military ships and planes under the claim of ‘freedom of navigation’ operations, leading to mutual accusations of both

(21)

21

The relevance of Realism for this thesis

The three aforementioned examples show that the notion of Realism still is relevant in the modern world. It shows that the modern world knows enough interstate power struggles that could potentially jeopardise international relations and could lead to international disputes and conflicts. Pertinent for this thesis is the fact that these events revolve around contested areas (geopolitics), self-interested state behaviour among divergent actors (multipolarity) and strategic assets (power, security, economic interests). Realism with regard to the topic of future space exploration and exploitation, and potential international conflicts that can arise from these activities, can be used to translate these characteristics it into apt future

applications for the space-oriented topic of this thesis.

To transcend the traditional geopolitical notion (with ‘’geo’’ referring to Earth, ground or land) which is the cause of many international tensions, one can turn to the astropolitical notion (with ‘’astro’’ referring to the domain of outer space) that might form the cause of international conflicts in the future. According to Wang (2009), astropolitics form an extension of the traditional geopolitics in which an instrumental rationality of a state is revealed to pursue its own interests in exploring and exploiting outer space, with a substantial basis in cost-benefit calculation rather than collective identity, common culture or shared discourse as incentive. A clear Realist approach.

The multipolarity of future space actors furthermore creates conditions for a Realist

environment; an anarchic international system. According to Waltz (1979; 1993), a bipolar world provided stability and peace during the entire Cold War, herewith asserting that

multipolarity is prone to instability and therefore prone to international conflicts. Outer space is even more a contentious ‘area’ that belongs to nobody in particular and thus to anybody, especially regarding the array of space actors that want to engage in future space activities. Economic incentives, economic power in other words, might form one of the prime interests of these states in space (Hansel, 2010). On top of all this, space is not governed by any supra-state entity: Again, a condition for a Realist environment.

2.1.2 Liberalism

Liberalism is another major theory within the realm of International Relations (Ayoob, 2002; COT, 2007). Liberalism can be conceived of as the main counterpart of Realism or the

(22)

22

too is not a single theory, but is made up of a broad array of liberal theories (COT, 2007; Dunne, 2014; Walt, 1998). Foundations of Liberalism can be traced back to the notions of great thinkers from the Enlightenment era and 19th century like, inter alia, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Giuseppe Mazzini (COT, 2007; Doyle & Recchia, 2011).

Liberalism can be characterised by the more or less opposite view of Realism. Liberalism mainly revolves around international co-operation and interdependence, and builds further on the premise that people are more benefited by an absence of war (COT, 2007; Walt, 1998). It does not discard the presence of war or conflict in its entirety, but asserts that the world is not all about power games and can be in a state of peace too (COT, 2007). One line of arguing in favour of international interdependence and co-operation is that international economies are more connected to each other, and are therefore more interdependent (COT, 2007; Walt, 1998). This would discourage states from using force against other states, for this might lead to a weakening in the prosperity on either side (Walt, 1998). A second line of arguing is the claim that democratic states are inherently more peaceful than authoritarian states, and that democratic states rarely fight each other (COT, 2007; Walt, 1998). The spread of democracy around the world is therefore seen as the ‘key’ to peace on a global scale (COT, 2007; Walt, 1998). A third line of arguing pertains to the overcoming of ‘selfish’ behaviour by states, by means of international institutions and regimes that encourage states to benefit from larger co-operative gains instead of from smaller immediate individual gains (Walt, 1998). The self-interest of the nation-state is in this fashion subordinated to the collective self-interests of the larger international system, thereby seeing co-operation as a means to diminish antagonism among the actors in the international environment (COT, 2007).

As opposed to the Realist ‘anarchic jungle’ approach where actors seek to survive on their own in the international system, Liberalist notions perceive the international system more as a ‘’cultivable garden’’ (COT, 2007, p. 26) that can be preserved peacefully as long as states co-operate. This can only be accomplished when certain essentials of Liberalism are met. These essentials are aimed at mutual moderation, the ability of self-restraint, a continuous will to compromise and a shared vision towards peace (Dunne, 2014). Unlike Realism, actors are not just searching for power and security by means of aggression and the use of (military) force in a system that is labelled as ‘anarchic’, meaning that no supra-state actor or regime governs the ‘global society’. The importance of the values peace and freedom outranks these concerns for

(23)

23

power in Liberalism, and these values can be pursued when democratic values spread,

international organisations are established and co-operation between actors is effectuated (COT, 2007). Whereas Realism could thus explain the occurrence of conflict, Liberalism is more inclined to explain the occurrence of peace.

Liberalism throughout the 20th_century

There have been some significant changes in the relevance of the Liberalist thought during the 20th century. After the First Wold War, Liberalism influenced public opinions and policy-making elites of Western states in a considerable amount (Dunne, 2014). International politics and co-operation between states on several matters became fashionable. This belief in

Liberalism was short-lived however, for internationalism, international law-making and the League of Nations experienced collapses during the Great Depression of the 1930s (COT, 2007). Liberalism resurged after the Second World War with for example the establishment of the United Nations, and predominant Liberalist notions regarding the reconstruction of post-World War II Europe (COT, 2007; Dunne, 2014). Several European and Atlantic institutions can be seen as good examples of integration by means of international co-operation on shared matters of interest (COT, 2007). Liberalism got out of fashion again however, as the Cold War dominated the world with bipolar power politics for several decades and extinguished the beacon of international hope that once was Liberalism (Dunne, 2014). It was until the end of the Cold War around 1990 that Liberalism experienced a resurgence again, building on the proclamations of Western state leaders about the new world order and building on the insights of scholars during the 1980s and 1990s that stressed the importance of international regimes (Doyle & Recchia, 2011; Dunne, 2014). These international regimes, constituted of

internationally agreed-on rules, norms and decision-making procedures, can be beneficial to states for they enable states to effectively co-ordinate their policies and effectively enable collaboration with regard to international public goods (Doyle & Recchia, 2011).

Liberalism thus repeatedly became an important line of thought as soon as major

confrontations were perceived to have ended (e.g. WWI, WWII and the Cold War). This popularity in waves might provide explanations for why certain events or acts of international co-operation did or did not happen in a certain period. It might in this vein also provide explanations for the future.

(24)

24

Today’s relevance of Liberalism

Since the events of 9/11, Liberalism has suffered serious cracks in its legitimacy as the USA and its (Western) allies waged costly wars against networks and states who were believed to be a threat (Dunne, 2014). The Realist pole therefore regained relevance and the legitimacy and power of the Western-dominated world order has been questioned several times (Dunne, 2014).

Still, the aforementioned relevance of the present international regimes around the world seems at the same time more ubiquitous than ever before as states around the world collectively engage in free trade partnerships, environmental protection and arms control (Doyle & Recchia, 2011). If international co-operation is formulated in multilateral institutions like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the World Trade Organisation (WTO), regimes enhance the information availability among states in a given issue area crucially and this promotes reciprocity and increases reputational costs of non-compliance (Doyle & Recchia, 2011). International regimes further advance international co-operation by reducing strategic competition over relative gains (Doyle & Recchia, 2011). Liberalism can therefore account for the relevance of many international regimes of today’s world. For example, the UN, EU, NATO, NAFTA, WTO, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Union of South American Nations (USAN) can be seen as international regimes from all over the world that promote the Liberalist line of thinking, thereby

displaying the relevance of Liberalism that is still pertinent today.

The relevance of Liberalism for this thesis

The prevention of conflicts as result of future space exploration and exploitation is one of the main focal points of this thesis. As already mentioned in similar words: Whereas Realism has the potential to explain the occurrence of international conflict, Liberalism is more inclined to explain the occurrence of international peace and co-operation. In order to explain a peaceful preservation of outer space, Liberalism might look like the way to go.

The extent of international co-operation between space-faring actors and the potential for the establishment of an international regime regarding the governance of outer space activities might be explained by the prevalence of Liberalist ideas. It is possible that this depends on the ‘wave of popularity’ (referring to the post-WWI, post-WWII and post-Cold War notions) the international community is in at the moment that space exploration and exploitation is

(25)

25

becoming feasible in the perceptions of these space-faring states. Liberalism furthermore can act as a means of comparison regarding the visions of the space-faring nations when

compared with Realism. In this way, analyses and assessments can be made with more precision to examine if these visions are likely to converge or diverge regarding matters on outer space.

2.1.3 Constructivism

Constructivism can be seen as a more pre-eminent radical approach of international relations (COT, 2007). Whereas Realism and Liberalism are inclined to focus on material matters like trade or power, Constructivism underscores the impact of ideas (Walt, 1998). Constructivism is barely a theory in itself, but rather an innkeeper of diverse approaches that stress the importance of ideas, notions, identities and the ‘malleability’ of actors’ interests (Balzacq, 2010; COT, 2007; Walt, 1998). The end of the Cold War legitimated the rise of

Constructivism as both Realism and Liberalism failed to anticipate or adequately explain this event (Walt, 1998). Constructivism had its explanations however. Specific examples include certain ideas of former USSR president Gorbachev, who embraced constructed ideas like

common security, perestroika or glasnost (Walt, 1998).

Constructivism thus emphasises the creation of ideas and identities, how these evolve and how these shape the ways that states act and react in certain situations (COT, 2007; Walt, 1998). Close attention is paid to the prevailing discourse in society that reflects interests and beliefs (Walt, 1998). The post-Cold War era characterised the dissolvement of strict, black-and-white boundaries, and this made identities more salient in general (Walt, 1998). Moreover, ‘’the central issue in the post-Cold War world is how different groups conceive their identities and interests’’ (Walt, 1998, p. 41). Constructivism relates to the way how (political) actors define both themselves as their interests, which leads to modifications in (international) behaviour (Walt, 1998). With regard to the construction of ideas and interests, Weldes (1996) mentions how ‘national interests’ are constructions in itself. National interests emerge out of problem definitions and situation descriptions, in a way that they make sense to the world around state officials and others (Weldes, 1996).

This also goes for security interests, which can be ‘framed’ as well. Security therefore can be seen as a part of Constructivism as well, and I will focus on the concept of security and on securitisation in this vein. Securitisation is said to predominantly examine ‘’how security

(26)

26

problems emerge, evolve and dissolve’’ (Balzacq, 2010, p. 56). Before I dilate upon

securitisation however, I would like to go a step further back and discuss the concept of security, which is in the end constructed in itself. After having provided an understanding of the concept of security, securitisation will be discussed.

The construction of security as a concept

To understand the relevance of the concept of security (in outer space), it will be important to know what the concept of security entails in the first place and how it developed over the years. On the theoretical level, it was important to include the concept of security as defined by Baldwin (1997) and P. Williams (2013). The concept of security regarding outer space can be used to shape ideas, conceptions and plans that actors have with regard to future space exploration and exploitation. As already has been said; future intensifying space exploration and exploitation might furthermore broaden and deepen the concept of security, potentially leading to new insights, definitions, developments and conceptions regarding the concept itself. Therefore, the security questions of Baldwin (1997) are included in order analyse the concept of security in an outer space context.

Security is a thing that matters every day and everywhere (P. Williams, 2013). It saturates societies all around the world and can be irrefutably found in political practice, radio waves, television broadcasts and practically on the corner of every street. As ubiquitous as the word ‘’security’’ may sound and as common it is to use it in everyday life however, security too must be subjected to intense scrutiny from time to time. A part of science is to examine those things that are perceived to be natural, like the concept of security. We briefly go back to ancient times to discover the origins of the word and concept. The word ‘’security’’ can be derived from the Latin word ‘’securitas’’, which is a composition of the words ‘’sine’’ (meaning ‘’without’’) and ‘’cura’’ (meaning ‘’troubling’’, ‘’care’’, ‘’grief’’, ‘’sorrow’’ and ‘’concerns for persons and things’’) according to Neocleous (2000).

Many definitions of security circulate in both the academic world and societies, and there is no definitive agreement on the concept (COT, 2007). But it has to be structured somehow in order to gain a basic understanding of the concept. Security nowadays can be defined as ‘’a low probability of damage to acquired values’’ (Baldwin, 1997, p. 13), or comparably as the ‘’alleviation of threats to cherished values’’ (P. Williams, 2013, p. 6). These broadly defined definitions are ambiguous and open for interpretation, for it depends on the ‘’threat’’ and the

(27)

27

‘’values’’. Hence, security conceptions changed and change over time, making it an

essentially contested concept (Baldwin, 1997).

During the Cold War, security was generally seen as a struggle for power between (blocs of) states and was narrowed down to military threats (Buzan, 1997). The Realist ‘East versus West’ notion was predominant during the entire Cold War, and dominated the concept of security (COT, 2007). Although this conception of state-centred security issues was already scrutinised by Wolfers (1952) in the early days of the Cold War, this conception lasted for 45 years. But a sole focus on the military aspect of security would constitute a too limited scope for the entire concept. Also during the years of the Cold War there were criminal acts, cases of murder, extremely violent acts, hijackings, hostage-takings and other actions against states or multinational organisations, as well as issues regarding environmental and human security (COT, 2007). The first steady dissenting voices came from academics who were preoccupied with peace research by focussing also on the security issues that individual people had, not necessarily states (P. Williams, 2013). Buzan (2007, though first published in 1983) asserted that security should also comprise more individual human factors, with not only a focus on the military and the state. It was only after the end of the Cold War in the beginning of the 1990s that revised conceptions of security got called for on a bigger scale, herewith mooting that the traditional concept had to be extended (Buzan, 1997; B. Miller, 2001).

Thus, the concept of security began to be subjected to attempts of broadening and deepening (COT, 2007; Krause & Williams, 1996). Broadening concerns the extension of security issues to other issues than just military ones. Deepening concerns the extension of entities related to security issues, by either going down or up on the level of analysis relative to the traditional state focus (COT, 2007; Krause & Williams, 1996). Human security for instance, the concept where an individual and his basic needs and cherished values are the central referent object, subsequently became more recognised in the circles of policy-making and science (Paris, 2001). But there is one topic within security that dominates the current 21st century: Terrorism (COT, 2007). Though there already were violent inter- and intrastate acts that were labelled as ‘terrorism’ during the Cold War, (transnational) terrorism began dominating international security agendas from the inception of the 21st century onwards, especially in Western countries (COT, 2007). The 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001, the Bali bombings of 2002, the Madrid bombings of 2004 and the London attacks of 2005 have been forming an impetus to fight terrorism globally ever since (COT, 2007). New waves of terrorist attacks since 2012 in

(28)

28

Western countries like Australia, France, the USA, Belgium and Germany, but also in Russia, Turkey and several Middle East countries fill today’s news items, and countries are

expressing new concerns about the issue of transnational terrorism. As one can see, the constant changes in the concept of security keep sustaining.

The value of security

Security is undeniably important (P. Williams, 2013), and policy agendas are filled with security issues that deserve priority over other issues in many cases (Baldwin, 1997).

Securitisation practises (discussed later) are a great empirical example of this, for securitised issues deserve priority over issues that are not, and securitised issues are seen as instant cases where extraordinary means of addressing these issues are legitimised (Buzan, Waever & De Wilde, 1998). Security is valued by many actors: Individuals, families and states for instance (Baldwin, 1997). It is, however, not the only value that is being pursued by these actors, and the pursuit of security means that other values are sacrificed (Baldwin, 1997). As said, security is mainly about the protection of values in life (Baldwin, 1997; P. Williams, 2013). Because security is also a value in itself, it can thus be seen as a value that enables other values to get pursued. As a necessary pre-condition that enables many values to be enjoyed. But if security only serves other values that are conceived as important, how important is security then in itself? In order to better assess the value of security, Baldwin (1997) asserts that there are three ways, which all have their flaws, of looking at the value of security: Security as a prime value, security as a core value and security as a marginal value.

At first, the prime value approach sees security as the most important value out there (Baldwin, 1997). What would life be without security? People would be subjected to constant dangers and risks in a short life fulfilled with poverty, solitude, nastiness and brutish daily reality according to 17th century philosopher Hobbes (Baldwin, 1997). Such reasoning has led to arguments asserting that security is a prime value, an ultimate goal, a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other cherished values such as freedom or prosperity for instance (Baldwin, 1997). The prime value approach thus implies that security outranks all other values by all other actors. But this assertion is at the same time incompatible with the reality of everyday life, for it does not explain why other values sometimes get priority over security in the allocation of resources and why people in general behave the way they do, which involves the taking of risks at the expense of security (Baldwin, 1997).

(29)

29

At second, there is the core value approach. This approach sees security as one of several important core values (Baldwin, 1997). It explains why people sometimes give priority to other values over security, for security is not the most important value all the time. A striking example of this is the fact that cavemen in the prehistorical era would leave their save cave, and therewith their security, for other values they valued more (Baldwin, 1997). Equally as apt is the fact that mankind leaves the ‘safe’ planet Earth to venture in the territories of the universe. This approach sees security as a fluid, yet still important value, but does not explain why non-core values even get priority over the core value of security.

At third, the marginal value approach sees security as only one of the many competing policy objectives for scarce resources (Baldwin, 1997). Security is a value subjected to The Law of Diminishing Utility. In other words: More security is not necessarily better in general, for more security will lead to more harm. A certain amount of security will be needed to sustain life adequately, but more security than necessary will only do harm because it sacrifices other cherished values. The same values that have to be protected by the value of security itself (Buzan, 1997; P. Williams, 2013). It is thus mostly about finding the right balance between a shortage of security, a situation in where there is perceived to be too less of security, and a supererogation of security, a situation in where insecurity is perceived as well.

Baldwin’s (1997) questions on security

Because security is perceived as very important, but fluid in most cases, Baldwin (1997) introduces seven essential interconnected questions that enable analyses of security in different cases, and can be applied to the greatest variety of security issues. The content of a security issue depends, among others, on the referent object, the referent subject, the means and the values. These are the seven questions in order to specify the concept of security:

1. The first question that Baldwin (1997, p. 13) mentions is: ‘’Security for whom?’’. This question clearly is about the referent object, the entity or entities that have to be

secured. This can either be a specified group of people, individuals, states or other actors.

2. The second question that is mentioned is: ‘’Security for which values?’’ (Baldwin, 1997, p. 13). Because security always goes at the expense of other values that depend on the involved actors in a security issue, it will be important to define those values at stake.

(30)

30

3. ‘’How much security?’’ (Baldwin, 1997, p. 14) is the third question to be asked.

Although there is no such thing as absolute security, one can speak of varying degrees in security.

4. The fourth question is about security ‘’From what threats?’’ (Baldwin, 1997, p. 15), in other words: Who or what is the referent subject? Referent subjects change over time, depend on the involved actors and vary geographically and culturally. Where the ‘communist threat’ is not seen as pertinent anymore nowadays, it was one of the biggest threats to Western countries back in the years of the Cold War. And so it can be that burglars, migrants, terrorists, earthquakes, floods and meteors can all be conceived of as referent subjects.

5. Security ‘’By what means?’’ is the fifth question that Baldwin (1997, p. 16) mentions. In order to attain the envisioned security goal, there is a wide variety of means that can be used or devised.

6. ‘’At what cost?’’ (Baldwin, 1997, p. 16), the sixth question, addresses the literal and figurative costs in the pursuit of security. Literal costs can be financial costs, for the taking of security measures will demand financial choices and capabilities at the expense of others. But more important are the figurative costs in the pursuit of security: The erosion of other values, new impossibilities or the inconveniences stemming from security measures. Important to remember is that security always comes at a price, hereby dismissing some often-expressed statements that ‘costs do not matter’.

7. The seventh and last question is about the time period regarding a security issue: ‘’In what time period?’’ (Baldwin, 1997, p. 17). As long-term and short-term security policies might conflict, it is important to determine the security strategy for a certain period.

Securitisation as a branch of Constructivism

Securitisation holds a tight connection with Constructivism (Balzacq, 2010; Stritzel, 2007). Securitisation entails a comprehensive framework for analysing security in its full breadth, and got developed by Buzan, Waever & De Wilde (1998). These academics are widely known as the Copenhagen School, because they represent an influential school of thought within Security Studies and International Relations (M.C. Williams, 2003). Securitisation must not be seen as a theory in the strict sense of the word, but rather as an analytical framework within Security Studies (Buzan, Waever & De Wilde, 1998). The framework got developed during

Star Wars: Episode X - The Dark Side of the Moon