In general terms a “System” may be defined as “a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole”. But what about a Space System? What if we would like to go deeper in the question: trying to figure it out not only how this “complex whole” may be composed, but also how does it work? In an increasingly crowded Space scenario, states, private actors and International Organisations interweave dynamics that are broader than those offered by the bipolar Space Race between the US and the Soviet Union (First and Second Space Ages). The Third Space Age is opening the path to a quite unpredictable future: so much so that Space is being labelled both as an arena of competition and as a breeding ground for coalitions. In relation to these dynamics, we are still stuck in a state of security dilemma and uncertainty. In which direction are international relations in space evolving: towards mutual cooperation or hegemonic conflict? In an attempt to answer this question, my research applies the framework of Neorealist theories, studied on "terrestrial" International Relations, to the Space. The method of analysis will be based on the postulates of these doctrines, as they appear to be the most concrete to adapt to the evolving spatial scenario; however, it is important to note that picking just one of them is not sufficient to handle the entire complexity of the framework. Two schools of thought, often considered antithetical, will therefore be proposed: Defensive Neorealism (by the Balance of Power Theory of Kenneth Waltz) and Offensive Neorealism (by the Power Transition Theory of A.F.K. Organski) Each of them emphasises a different category of risks arising from the quest for power in Space. On the one hand, the Balance of Power Theory(BPT) belongs to the expectation of further spatial cooperation. Indeed, Defensive Neorealism (DN) suggests that the anarchic international system should force states to Space security through self-help behaviour and balancing power against the dominant "Space hegemon". On the other hand, the Power Transition Theory (PTT), as an emblem of Offensive Neorealism, envisages a future of Space competition: made up of states overthrowing each other, in search of hegemonic Space leadership. Although the dominant state in the Space System distributes wealth, security, prestige and power through an international order, other actors may not be satisfied with this status quo. When a dissatisfied actor arises as much that he achieves a spatial power equal to the dominant state’s one, the risk of conflict is at its highest. The two theories analyse the scenario with different perspectives and hypotheses; however, what is interesting is that they reach a common conclusion: the modern evolution of Space tends to be risky. As a consequence, my research question is: "from the Neorealist analysis, which kind of risks are emerging in the Space System? My thesis begins with an evaluation of what Space has meant so far: in historical, technical and sociological terms (Chapter 1). These elements will be the units to be accounted in the Neorealist perspective, so that the BPT and PTT will bring out not only the international Space dynamics, but also the potential risks (Chapter 2). As a corollary of the dangers postulated by the BPT and PTT, the next step is to investigate who/what is responsible for these threats, opening the debate to other incumbent issues and emerging dilemmas (Chapter 3). In conclusion, my aim is to use theoretical tools to evaluate practical spatial reality: not to forecast its future in detailed and descriptive terms, but to weigh the possible risks of increasingly pervasive Space dynamics.
In termini generali un "Sistema" può essere definito come "un insieme di parti che lavorano insieme come ingranaggi di un meccanismo o di una rete interconnessa; un unicum complesso", Ma come definire un Sistema Spaziale? Come dovremmo muoverci qualora volessimo capire non solo come questo "unicum complesso" possa essere composto, ma anche come funzioni? In uno scenario spaziale sempre più affollato, Stati, attori privati ed Organizzazioni Internazionali intrecciano dinamiche più ampie di quelle offerte dalla corsa allo spazio bipolare tra USA ed Unione Sovietica (Prima e Seconda Era Spaziale). La Terza Era Spaziale sta aprendo le porte ad un futuro a tratti imprevedibile, tanto da etichettare lo Spazio sia come un'arena di competizione che come un terreno fertile per coalizioni. Relativamente a queste dinamiche, siamo ancora bloccati in una condizione di dilemma di sicurezza e di incertezza. Quale piega stanno prendendo le relazioni internazionali nello Spazio: cooperazione reciproca o conflitto egemonico? Nel tentativo di rispondere a questa domanda, la mia ricerca applica il quadro delle teorie Neorealiste, studiate sulle Relazioni Internazionali "terrestri", allo scenario spaziale. Il metodo di analisi si baserà sui postulati di tali dottrine, in quanto esse appaiono le più concrete per adattarsi al mutevole scenario spaziale; tuttavia, è importante notare che una sola di esse non è sufficiente per gestire l’intera complessità del quadro. Verranno quindi proposte due scuole di pensiero, spesso ritenute antitetiche: Il Neorealismo Difensivo (con la Balance of Power Theory di Kenneth Waltz) ed il Neorealismo Offensivo (con la Power Transition Theory di A.F.K. Organski) Ciascuna di esse sottolinea una diversa categoria di rischi derivanti dalla corsa al potere nello Spazio. Da un lato, la prima Balance of Power Theory (BPT) dipinge le potenzialità di una futura cooperazione spaziale. Il Neorealismo Difensivo (DN) infatti suggerisce che il sistema internazionale anarchico dovrebbe costringere gli stati a massimizzare la sicurezza spaziale attraverso un comportamento di auto-aiuto e bilanciamento della politica di potenza contro il dominante "egemone spaziale". Dall'altro lato, la Power Transition Theory (PTT), emblema del Neorealismo Offensivo, prevede un futuro di competizione spaziale: fatto di stati che si rovesciano a vicenda alla ricerca della leadership egemonica dello Spazio. Nonostante lo Stato dominante nel sistema spaziale distribuisca ricchezza, sicurezza, prestigio e potere attraverso un ordine internazionale, alcuni stati non saranno soddisfatti di questo status quo. Quando uno stato insoddisfatto è in ascesa e raggiunge una potenza spaziale pari a quella dello stato dominante, il rischio di conflitto è al suo apice. Le due teorie analizzano lo scenario con prospettive ed ipotesi diverse; tuttavia, ciò che risulta interessante è che esse giungano ad una conclusione comune: la moderna evoluzione dello Spazio tende a forti rischiosità. Di conseguenza, la mia domanda di ricerca è: "dall'analisi Neorealista, quali tipi di rischi emergono nel Sistema spaziale? La mia tesi inizia con una valutazione di ciò che lo Spazio ha significato finora: in termini storici, tecnici e sociologici (Capitolo 1). Questi elementi saranno le unità da vagliare attraverso la prospettiva Neorealista, in modo che il BPT e la PTT facciano emergere non solo le dinamiche spaziali internazionali, ma anche le derive potenziali (Capitolo 2). Come corollario dei pericoli postulati dal BPT e dalla PTT, il passo successivo è indagare chi/cosa è responsabile di queste minacce, aprendo il dibattito ad altre tematiche incombenti e dilemmi emergenti (Capitolo 3). In conclusione, il mio scopo è servirmi di strumenti teorici per analizzare la realtà spaziale pratica: non per prevederne il futuro in termini descrittivi dettagliati, ma per ponderare gli eventuali rischi di dinamiche spaziali sempre più quotidiane.
Analisi Neorealista dello sviluppo competitivo nel Sistema Spaziale: verso un futuro pericoloso?
POMPEO, GIULIA
2021/2022
Abstract
In general terms a “System” may be defined as “a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole”. But what about a Space System? What if we would like to go deeper in the question: trying to figure it out not only how this “complex whole” may be composed, but also how does it work? In an increasingly crowded Space scenario, states, private actors and International Organisations interweave dynamics that are broader than those offered by the bipolar Space Race between the US and the Soviet Union (First and Second Space Ages). The Third Space Age is opening the path to a quite unpredictable future: so much so that Space is being labelled both as an arena of competition and as a breeding ground for coalitions. In relation to these dynamics, we are still stuck in a state of security dilemma and uncertainty. In which direction are international relations in space evolving: towards mutual cooperation or hegemonic conflict? In an attempt to answer this question, my research applies the framework of Neorealist theories, studied on "terrestrial" International Relations, to the Space. The method of analysis will be based on the postulates of these doctrines, as they appear to be the most concrete to adapt to the evolving spatial scenario; however, it is important to note that picking just one of them is not sufficient to handle the entire complexity of the framework. Two schools of thought, often considered antithetical, will therefore be proposed: Defensive Neorealism (by the Balance of Power Theory of Kenneth Waltz) and Offensive Neorealism (by the Power Transition Theory of A.F.K. Organski) Each of them emphasises a different category of risks arising from the quest for power in Space. On the one hand, the Balance of Power Theory(BPT) belongs to the expectation of further spatial cooperation. Indeed, Defensive Neorealism (DN) suggests that the anarchic international system should force states to Space security through self-help behaviour and balancing power against the dominant "Space hegemon". On the other hand, the Power Transition Theory (PTT), as an emblem of Offensive Neorealism, envisages a future of Space competition: made up of states overthrowing each other, in search of hegemonic Space leadership. Although the dominant state in the Space System distributes wealth, security, prestige and power through an international order, other actors may not be satisfied with this status quo. When a dissatisfied actor arises as much that he achieves a spatial power equal to the dominant state’s one, the risk of conflict is at its highest. The two theories analyse the scenario with different perspectives and hypotheses; however, what is interesting is that they reach a common conclusion: the modern evolution of Space tends to be risky. As a consequence, my research question is: "from the Neorealist analysis, which kind of risks are emerging in the Space System? My thesis begins with an evaluation of what Space has meant so far: in historical, technical and sociological terms (Chapter 1). These elements will be the units to be accounted in the Neorealist perspective, so that the BPT and PTT will bring out not only the international Space dynamics, but also the potential risks (Chapter 2). As a corollary of the dangers postulated by the BPT and PTT, the next step is to investigate who/what is responsible for these threats, opening the debate to other incumbent issues and emerging dilemmas (Chapter 3). In conclusion, my aim is to use theoretical tools to evaluate practical spatial reality: not to forecast its future in detailed and descriptive terms, but to weigh the possible risks of increasingly pervasive Space dynamics.È consentito all'utente scaricare e condividere i documenti disponibili a testo pieno in UNITESI UNIPV nel rispetto della licenza Creative Commons del tipo CC BY NC ND.
Per maggiori informazioni e per verifiche sull'eventuale disponibilità del file scrivere a: unitesi@unipv.it.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14239/1778