Search

This review examines critical questions related to whether the outer space is a global common; it also addresses the challenge of achieving balance between the outer space treaty (OST) mandate of compliance with the common interest principle and requirement of providing an environment for the success of commercial lunar enterprises while simultaneously mitigating the possibility of conflict on the Moon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following article critically examines how the structure of international law falls short of embracing common global problems. In this context, the article focuses on the ecological aspects of governance that tend to go beyond state-centric interests. Putting forward an overview of how issues beyond the states' national jurisdiction are addressed in the present structure of international law, the article examines the challenges of incorporating the Earth-centric approach reflected in the Indigenous cosmovision into that body of law. While the analysis does not attempt to provide any conclusive solutions, it argues that the Earth-centric approach cannot be incorporated into the current international legal framework. Although absolutely indispensable for a sustainable planetary process, the approach would require a complete deconstruction of the global legal order or a radical re-organization of the current structure of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inspired by the US government's denial that outer space is a global commons, and the heated discussion in China regarding property rights in outer space resources, this article looks at this controversial term: "global commons". It finds that this term was mostly adopted as a political, rather than legal, term. As a result of the over-emphasis on the implications of global commons on the property rights to outer space resources, states that plan to develop private space mining may avoid calling outer space a global commons. This article argues that this response may not be necessary. It then examines the real purpose of the global commons discourse by analogizing the tragedy of commons and thus puts forward the suggestion to adopt the non-exclusive use standard to govern the activities of space resource extraction by private parties. This solution will allow countries to continue to view outer space as a global commons while liberalizing private parties' activities in outer space resource development and extraction. Moreover, China's initiative of the global community of shared future possesses the potential to serve as the overarching concept to govern its future outer space activities, including space mining. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review examines critical questions related to whether the outer space is a global common; it also addresses the challenge of achieving balance between the outer space treaty (OST) mandate of compliance with the common interest principle and requirement of providing an environment for the success of commercial lunar enterprises while simultaneously mitigating the possibility of conflict on the Moon.

In the face of an escalating Anthropocene crisis characterized by climate change and the degradation of Earth's systems, the necessity or a unified global governance framework is paramount. The United Nations, despite its central role in environmental governance and achievements such as the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals, confronts significant challenges. These challenges include institutional fragmentation, coordination difficulties, and a gap in implementation, which pose obstacles to translating ambitious environmental goals into tangible outcomes. This paper argues that strategic revitalization and structural reforms are crucial for the UN to maintain its pivotal role in global environmental governance. It proposes specific measures to enhance the UN's effectiveness in environmental governance, including transforming the United Nations Environment Program into a Global Environmental Agency, establishing a regulatory framework to improve coordination among Multilateral Environmental Agreements, upgrading the Global Environment Facility, emphasizing environmental stewardship and repurpose of the UN Trusteeship Council. These recommendations aim to address the current institutional challenges and pave the way for more effective global environmental governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing awareness that the ocean touches all aspects of our lives and that a healthy ocean is central to a healthy planet and sustainable future. The ocean is a highly connected system and ocean science is characterized by voluntary international collaboration supported by an enthusiastic and engaged community. Increasingly, it is being recognized that international structures and instruments need to be stronger and more holistic than the current arrangements. This article outlines some perspectives on this, drawing on experience in ocean science and scientists at national, international and intergovernmental levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The governance challenges embedded in climate change are daunting. Conventional logic holds that national and international action is necessary. While the United States is a major source of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions – second only to China – national action on climate change has been lacking. However, hundreds of subnational US governments and thousands of industrial facilities are actively engaged in addressing climate change. Given the potential mismatch between the global nature of the problem and the policy reach of subnational governments, we evaluate the extent to which polycentric variation in subnational climate action is associated with changes in GHG emissions. We develop a unique data set that incudes facility‐level GHG emissions from major industrial sectors in the United States over 8 years and subnational climate governance action across all 50 states. This large‐N data set allows us to systematically test hypothesis from polycentric governance. This type of comparative analysis can help to better understand the conditions under which polycentric governance is associated with improved climate change outcomes, that is, declining GHG emissions. Our results suggest that even when controlling for past emissions, some elements of polycentric governance are associated with decreases in GHG emissions. Future research would benefit from augmenting the large N comparative analysis presented here with mixed methods research to more fully understand the dynamic processes shaping both climate policy and GHG emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Anthropocene signifies the start of a no-analogue trajectory of the Earth system that is fundamentally different from the Holocene. This new trajectory is characterized by rising risks of triggering irreversible and unmanageable shifts in Earth system functioning. We urgently need a new global approach to safeguard critical Earth system regulating functions more effectively and comprehensively. The global commons framework is the closest example of an existing approach with the aim of governing biophysical systems on Earth upon which the world collectively depends. Derived during stable Holocene conditions, the global commons framework must now evolve in the light of new Anthropocene dynamics. This requires a fundamental shift from a focus only on governing shared resources beyond national jurisdiction, to one that secures critical functions of the Earth system irrespective of national boundaries. We propose a new framework--the planetary commons--which differs from the global commons framework by including not only globally shared geographic regions but also critical biophysical systems that regulate the resilience and state, and therefore livability, on Earth. The new planetary commons should articulate and create comprehensive stewardship obligations through Earth system governance aimed at restoring and strengthening planetary resilience and justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Derecho Internacional is the property of Asociacion Espanola de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales (AEPDIRI) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Most of the areas which are beyond national jurisdiction have increasingly become contested, not least because of their growing importance and the recent 'return' of geopolitics. Their boundaries are blurred, and their governance has not been settled. The European Union (EU) is developing strategies to contribute to the governance of these areas: the high seas, the polar regions, the atmosphere, outer space, and cyberspace. Its roles remain, however, under-researched. This article sets the scene for a special issue that contributes to closing that gap. First, it problematizes existing concepts such as Global Commons and instead advocates the broader and more neutral analytical concept of Global Spaces. Second, it formulates guiding questions that the individual contributions subsequently address with different theoretical approaches. Third, it offers an overview of the relevant major international treaties and EU strategic policies that identifies the EU as a latecomer to the governance of Global Spaces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The crises of both the climate and the biosphere are manifestations of the imbalance between human extractive, and polluting activities and the Earth's regenerative capacity. Planetary boundaries define limits for biophysical systems and processes that regulate the stability and life support capacity of the Earth system, and thereby also define a safe operating space for humanity on Earth. Budgets associated to planetary boundaries can be understood as global commons: common pool resources that can be utilized within finite limits. Despite the analytical interpretation of planetary boundaries as global commons, the planetary boundaries framework is missing a thorough integration into economic theory. We aim to bridge the gap between welfare economic theory and planetary boundaries as derived in the natural sciences by presenting a unified theory of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our pragmatic approach aims to overcome shortcomings of the practical applications of CEA and CBA to environmental problems of a planetary scale. To do so, we develop a model framework and explore decision paradigms that give guidance to setting limits on human activities. This conceptual framework is then applied to planetary boundaries. We conclude by using the realized insights to derive a research agenda that builds on the understanding of planetary boundaries as global commons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial for the special issue on “Commons in Space”.

This article, prompted by Heidi Crowter's campaign to eliminate the discriminatory aspects of current abortion law, outlines the challenges to good governance in a context of bioethical plurality. First, the nature of the plurality is sketched. Secondly, some reflections are presented on how those who have governance responsibilities might ease the tensions engendered by the plurality; and, at the same time, how the discontented governed might reasonably press their views. Thirdly, a model of good governance (demanding integrity by those who govern and respect for the global commons) is introduced. The conclusion is that good faith governance merits our respect, but it does not guarantee particular outcomes or positions that will meet with the approval of all bioethical constituencies or individuals. Accordingly, we have to learn not only to live with rocks and hard places but also to find civilized ways of debating our differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China is expanding its Arctic presence by developing infrastructure in the global commons that intersect with the region. Operations in outer space, the deep sea and cyberspace minimise the need for terrestrial footholds and generate data, a virtual resource. To analyse the epistemic and geopolitical consequences of developing the Arctic global commons as a vertically and digitally integrated volume, we examine a critical form of Chinese 'remote infrastructure': optical, synthetic aperture radar, and navigation satellites. We argue that first, by generating data about the Arctic, these instruments turn China into a regional knowledge producer. Second, as remote observations outnumber field observations, Chinese polar science may shift the regional balance of knowledge towards spaceborne and marine observations. Third, China's emergence as an Arctic knowledge producer may motivate the state to contribute to regional governance as remote sensing and large‐scale, computationally intensive techniques become privileged decision‐making tools. To transcend the terrestrial and maritime fixes that predominate research on China and the Arctic, we call for greater attention to the influence of epistemic capacities on geopolitics. China is expanding its Arctic presence by developing infrastructure in the global commons intersecting with the region. Operations in outer space, the deep sea, and cyberspace minimise the need for terrestrial footholds and generate data, a virtual resource. To analyse the epistemic and geopolitical consequences of developing the Arctic commons as a vertically and digitally integrated volume, we examine a critical form of Chinese 'remote infrastructure': optical, synthetic aperture radar, and navigation satellites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of heritage requires new conceptual approaches that contribute to its current theoretical debate, in order to re-nourish the knowledge of different disciplines that address it. In between, richer and more complex crossovers are generated. This article presents the positions of different authors and submits them, especially, to the discussions on rural space, tourism and the logics of land use planning. As axes, work on heritage as a concept, approach, process and attitude is proposed. The conclusions will reveal that it is necessary to expand certain conceptual categories to better cover the heritage of rural areas, as well as a need to rethink tourism in that environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The designation of outer space as a global commons is a contentious issue. Some argue that officially recognizing it as such could discourage private investment, while others claim that it would not sufficiently promote sustainability. To address these debates, this article examines how space actors use a global commons framework in their institutional arrangements. Based on a collection of 1042 space arrangements, we characterize a subset of arrangements that explicitly reference concepts related to the notion of global commons. We observe that this framework is seldom used in bilateral arrangements and is mostly absent from recent agreements made by influential players. Furthermore, we find that employing principles related to global commons in arrangements does not result in significantly different operational rules. As a result, we conclude that a clearly defined global commons perspective has yet to be articulated and institutionalized.

If territory is part of the problem in the quest for peaceful relations, it should also be part of the solution. This is the core argument in the present text, where the work of international lawyer Louis Sohn during the Cold War and efforts towards territorial disarmament across time and space are used as starting points for the exploration of possibilities today, including in the global commons and other territories beyond the jurisdiction of individual states. I explore a range of experiences of territorial disarmament already in operation alongside the opportunities currently offered in the nexus between protection of the environment and armed conflicts. Finally, the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework and the UN Principles on protection of the environment in armed conflict developed by the International Law Commission are looked at as opportunities for the successive protection of territories through various forms of disarmament and neutralisation.

Summary: The European Union (EU) has become a key player in space, second only to that of the USA. This article discusses what type of diplomatic actor the EU is in space by exploring whether it contributes to peaceful co-operation or if the EU — due to increasing geopolitical competition on Earth — is developing into a traditional realist actor. For this purpose, it applies three analytically distinct models of EU space policies, applicable also to other Global Commons areas. It finds that the EU does not treat space as an area of geopolitical competition. Instead, it contributes to space diplomacy through its focus on regulating and institutionalising space activities. However, rather than being driven by 'the space flight idea', the EU is committed to the peaceful development of space mainly for economic, strategic and societal purposes, in line with what one would expect of a liberal institutionalist actor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces a new meaning of the acronym M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) in the field of security. From the original connection with nuclear issues, its use is moving to the area of cyberspace. The text introduces the basic division of domains important for human activities. It explains their importance in terms of undeniable usability and availability for mankind, at the same time, it draws attention to their vulnerability and the need to ensure their protection. It deals in more details with the new fifth domain – cyberspace. In this context, security threats are mentioned and some legal aspects are indicated.

The governance of ocean and polar regions is among the most relevant challenges in the combat against global environmental degradation and global inequalities. Ocean and polar regions are climate regulators and very much affected by climate change. They are an important source of nutrition for life in and above the sea. At the same time, they are subject to an increasing number of geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts. Due to the lasting virulence of many security issues, economic conflicts, legal disputes, new technological developments, and environmental crises in global marine areas as well as the intricate overlap of sovereign, semi-sovereign, and global commons territories, the relevance of ocean and polar governance is bound to rise. This thematic issue sketches important trends in research on these issues and identifies future avenues of inquiry. In this editorial, we first provide an overview of governance challenges for ocean and polar regions and their relevance for geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts. In a second step, we present the eight contributions that make up the thematic issue by clustering them around three themes: (a) challenges to norm-creation in ocean governance, (b) the impact of territorialisation on governance and the construction of authority, and (c) the effectiveness of regimes of ocean and polar governance.

The international system of states displays an inherent drive to territorialize the global commons. But territorialization is not a continuous process—it occurs in episodes. In this article, I use one case from ocean governance, the expansion of territory into near-shore areas of the seas, to advance a twofold argument about the nature of these episodes. First, I argue that the root causes of this drive to territorialize “empty space” are located in global politics, norms, and economics. Second, a territorializing episode occurs when there are impelling economic incentives, and when great powers are unable or unwilling to oppose territorialization. However, this can lead to different outcomes: sovereign territories, functional territories, or internationalized territories. Oceanic space has seen a series of these territorializing episodes since the end of the Second World War and functional territorialization has become more prevalent over time.

Higher Education must respond to global dynamics that cause profound transformations in the knowledge, interactions and life of people, communities and ecosystems. In critical environments, Universities need to learn to become agents of the future in the face of the challenges of producing global public goods and protecting the global commons. Education as a global common good and constructive interdependence are references to assume global challenges that go beyond the Nation State and require promoting internationalization as a requirement of adaptation and transformation for which higher education institutions are obliged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad is the property of Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

On September 22, 2022, the world's first transaction on space resources took place, highlighting the need for an international space mining regime. Although outer space is often considered global commons, there is a concern that the commons governance regime may hinder the commercial use of space resources. The current research does not provide an in-depth analysis of the incentive mechanism under the global commons governance regime, let alone the economic incentive mechanism. This paper explores how to construct the channels for accessing economic benefits in the commons governance regime of space resources. The channels will constitute a critical incentive mechanism for the regime, and they should conform to two principles closely related to the commons and incentives: the common benefit principle contained in international law and the 2B principle proposed by Ostrom. This paper summarizes the basic types of channels and their combinations and finds that the channels and their combinations in previous studies and the latest international instruments do not fully meet the requirements of the two principles. Based on the principles, this paper puts forward a new proposal, which integrates four existing channels and one new channel. Compared with previous research, the proposal suggested in this article has advantages in the following aspects: promoting the realization of the two principles, incentivizing diverse countries to accept commons governance of space resources, and encouraging space cooperation between spacefaring nations and non-spacefaring nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The designation of outer space as a global commons is a contentious issue. Some argue that officially recognizing it as such could discourage private investment, while others claim that it would not sufficiently promote sustainability. To address these debates, this article examines how space actors use a global commons framework in their institutional arrangements. Based on a collection of 1042 space arrangements, we characterize a subset of arrangements that explicitly reference concepts related to the notion of global commons. We observe that this framework is seldom used in bilateral arrangements and is mostly absent from recent agreements made by influential players. Furthermore, we find that employing principles related to global commons in arrangements does not result in significantly different operational rules. As a result, we conclude that a clearly defined global commons perspective has yet to be articulated and institutionalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global commons are traditionally connected to 'those parts of the planet that fall outside national jurisdictions and to which all nations have access' such as the high seas, outer space, and the deep seabed. However, there is a trend to expand the reach of commons beyond the traditional perception to cover the environment and natural resources that are of common interest to the well-being of the community of nations, regardless of the sovereignty status over such environment and resources. In this context, this article aims to explore the interlinkage between the concept of (global) commons and disputed marine areas from the perspective of international law, which hitherto has been little explored in literature. In particular, this article discusses the applicability of the concept of commons to disputed marine areas by examining the changing relationship between commons and sovereignty over time. Through a comparative analysis of various legal regimes associated with the well-accepted commons in international law (i.e. the high seas, outer space, the deep seabed, Antarctica) as well as the climate system and biological diversity, the article concludes that a certain space or resource, irrespective of its sovereignty status, including a disputed marine area, can be protected as commons in view of the interdependence of ecological systems. It further analyzes the added values that the concept of commons can bring in addition to the existing regulatory framework governing disputed marine areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Defense & Strategy / Obrana a strategie is the property of Institute for Strategic Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Designated as one of the global commons, outer space steadily matures as a commodity frontier at which to propel the designs and imaginaries of capitalist economy. While plans to mine the Moon, massify space tourism and colonise Mars are still works in development, the routes of its conquest expand exponentially down here on Earth, as its spectacular proceedings are mediated into a range of images, events, artefacts, samples, and experiences that disperse across the productive and reproductive ambits of terrestrial cultures. These spin-off commodities herald the evolution of the high-tech structures of power that seek to seize control over shared natural and social resources and temper the ways in which the species assembles around the commons of space. I attend to the endeavour to incorporate space into the capitalist world-system by exploring the cultural logics that precede and underpin its expansions along its 'final frontier'. Highlighting the role of commodity in more-than planetary accumulations of capital, I suggest that its proliferation is not merely an outcome of nascent forms of technological imperialisms as they set out to claim their cosmic share, but a vital resource from which to thrust their appetites for production, consumption, and destruction out there. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite significant advances in understanding the biophysical and institutional causes of overfishing, we have yet to make progress in addressing the depletion of our global fisheries stock. Investigations of potential solutions tend to be too broad (mischaracterizing global fisheries as a singular commons problem to be addressed at the supranational level) or too narrow (focusing on improving management of small fisheries at the micro level). This article attempts to bridge the gap between our scientific understanding of our collective dilemmas and their pragmatic solutions. Building on insights from Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom, we frame the depletion of global fisheries as a nested set of diverse and interconnected collective action problems organized at different horizontal and vertical levels, where decisions and actions of one jurisdictional unit reinforce and amplify problems (and solutions) for other units. We examine features of the global fisheries system, such as nonstationarity, nestedness, and prohibitive transaction costs. Then, we explore some potential solutions. The success of our conservation goals depends on our ability to craft institutional rules at the lower levels that are adaptive to local conditions, address incentive misalignment issues, and allow for the transfer of positive externalities to adjacent and higher levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The exponential development of space activity due to plans to expand space activity on the Moon and other celestial bodies raises many legal tasks to solve in the future. There are a lot of international and national initiatives to build the legal framework of a future sustainable space mining economy. This article is focused on reviewing such initiatives for the aim to reveal the main issues concerning fostering the sustainable development of the space activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies. As a result, the common procedure of the advancing governance, safety zones establishing criterions, the institutionalization of the general recognition of the property rights, benefit-sharing model, interoperability of the internal authorization procedures and technical standards enabling safe and sustainable space mining activities, authoritative dispute resolution procedures have been distinguished. They should become as main conceptual mechanisms for further international and national law-making process.

The international system of states displays an inherent drive to territorialize the global commons. But territorialization is not a continuous process--it occurs in episodes. In this article, I use one case from ocean governance, the expansion of territory into near-shore areas of the seas, to advance a twofold argument about the nature of these episodes. First, I argue that the root causes of this drive to territorialize "empty space" are located in global politics, norms, and economics. Second, a territorializing episode occurs when there are impelling economic incentives, and when great powers are unable or unwilling to oppose territorialization. However, this can lead to different outcomes: sovereign territories, functional territories, or internationalized territories. Oceanic space has seen a series of these territorializing episodes since the end of the Second World War and functional territorialization has become more prevalent over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The governance of ocean and polar regions is among the most relevant challenges in the combat against global environmental degradation and global inequalities. Ocean and polar regions are climate regulators and very much affected by climate change. They are an important source of nutrition for life in and above the sea. At the same time, they are subject to an increasing number of geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts. Due to the lasting virulence of many security issues, economic conflicts, legal disputes, new technological developments, and environmental crises in global marine areas as well as the intricate overlap of sovereign, semi-sovereign, and global commons territories, the relevance of ocean and polar governance is bound to rise. This thematic issue sketches important trends in research on these issues and identifies future avenues of inquiry. In this editorial, we first provide an overview of governance challenges for ocean and polar regions and their relevance for geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts. In a second step, we present the eight contributions that make up the thematic issue by clustering them around three themes: (a) challenges to norm-creation in ocean governance, (b) the impact of territorialisation on governance and the construction of authority, and (c) the effectiveness of regimes of ocean and polar governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. The aim of the research has been: to study the theoretical basis of the application of assessment of economic damage from environmental pollution in the field of environmental auditing and accounting, to identify problems in existing methods and approaches and to propose specific ways to solve them taking into account current legislation and international experience.Material and Methods. The research carried out by the authors was based on the provisions of current legal regulations in the fields of environmental safety and environmental protection, damage assessment in the environmental sphere together with data from scientific articles by both domestic and foreign experts in the field of environmental auditing. The study was conducted using theoretical methods of research including analysis, deduction and prediction.Results. The authors propose moving away from traditional cost (taxation) methods to the consolidation in regulatory practice of a single approach to the assessment of economic damage taking into account actuarial valuation methodology, application of sanctions instruments to those unscrupulously infringing environmental regulations and the possibility of discounting the costs of restoring the environment and damage done to public health.Conclusion. Adoption of common approaches and principles in the assessment of economic damage will help eliminate negative manipulations when imposing economic sanctions on those unscrupulously engaged in activities impacting on the environment and will provide an opportunity to improve the environmental situation and public health in the long term.

The governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) lacks a legal framework that would ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans. In order to fill this gap, governments have been negotiating a new treaty under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Negotiations have been afflicted by polarisation between two principles: The 'Freedom of the High Seas' (FOS) and the 'Common Heritage of Humankind' (CHP). Instead of discussing the CHP from a purely legal perspective, we examined, through an ethnographic lens, how it has become a practice of contestation: it is used as a tool and negotiation technique to challenge deeply rooted inequalities in the current world order. The CHP could make a difference if it was integrated into the text as a general principle committing all states to protect and preserve BBNJ for future generations – regardless of their imminent economic value as commercial assets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of the global public interest stems from a shift in the notion of sovereignty that goes beyond the interest of a State per se. It comprises inevitability of the assertion of sovereignty in a state-centric international legal and global order. As growing numbers of international legal instruments factor in and use different nomenclatures to indicate quest to go beyond the narrow confines of 'sovereignty' to cater to need for co-existence with other nations and peoples, it calls for sensitivities in our pursuit for something 'common' on the planet earth. This article seeks to examine and contextualize the quest for a global common interest in the emerging scenario of deepening of the global environmental challenges and the need to find legal and institutional mechanisms for our survival. Can we chisel the existing tools and prioritize the common interest at the global level? What will it entail? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contributes to the constant reflection that must be done on environmental deterioration in principle to initiate actions that prevent irreversible damage to the environment of the planet we inhabit. During 2019 the international community recalled under a common celebration, the achievement of humanity that managed to put man on the satellite of the earth, Moon. On July 20, 1969, the media reported this event, during this year this fact is still remembered, but it is also news that from the photographs sent by the Apollo missions taken from space in which the splendor of the earth with its characteristic blue color, we call it the Great Blue Marble, the home of humanity today at risk of threat from contamination; here the positions of the scientific community, organizations and international organizations are documented, as well as warnings of the consequences and risks if this deterioration continues. This work is a recognition of that constant concern, the text in this work joins others as a call to speak on behalf of the Earth, claiming the responsibility of mankind to act in the face of the imminent danger of climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]