The space ecosystem has been undergoing considerable change in recent many years apart from one crucial area — the international governance of space. The space industry is growing rapidly, as are space domain challenges like space debris or lacking norms of behavior. Yet, the international governance needed to deal with these changes and ensure space is development sustainability—because space sustainability is business sustainability—stays largely stagnant.
The issue is that the forum charged with advancing international space governance, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), can’t advance the governance vital to satisfy the needs of today’s space sector. To repair the issue, COPUOS must rethink its approach to consensus decision-making.
Consensus at COPUOS
For COPUOS, the goal must be to alter its approach to consensus decision-making, not abandon its pursuit of consensus. The way in which the forum uses consensus is exclusive. It’s required at nearly every stage within the diplomatic process: from modifying the agenda to advancing a governance measure from inception to adoption. To attain consensus, COPUOS members don’t typically vote but as an alternative, voice objections in the event that they disagree with the item under discussion. For decisions requiring consensus, a single objection from any member can stall the method.
The strict method COPUOS uses often muddles the diplomatic process by shifting attention away from producing effective governance toward simply reaching agreement on nearly any issue. Indeed, just reaching consensus tends to get COPUOS more attention than the utility of whatever was agreed on. The forum’s strict decision-making style is a major reason why it has didn’t keep pace with space governance needs.
The professionals and cons of consensus in international governance
Consensus isn’t unique to COPUOS. Consensus sits as a cornerstone in most international governance fora. When governing a world commons, it is sensible to make use of a process that enables all interested states to have equal say. Developing agreements through consensus also can improve adherence to those measures.
There are tradeoffs to in search of consensus, too. In a forum like COPUOS, with greater than 100 members, in search of consensus can increase diplomatic transaction costs — sometimes to the purpose of impasse. Higher transaction costs can require diluting governance measures until all members agree. And while consensus can improve adherence, it doesn’t guarantee it.
Consensus alone can’t ensure a brand new set of guidelines, treaty, or standard is effective, either. Nor does producing governance without consensus mean it’ll be less effective. Consensus is only one factor that shapes how effective or ineffective a governance measure is.
Worse still, because COPUOS struggles with decision-making, the importance of individual outputs (e.g., treaties, standards, or guidelines) becomes inflated, further impairing decision-making. When agreements are rare, states are inclined to see more risk in those agreements because there may be little assurance that governance might be modified as a state’s interests change; it’s the perception that whatever gets produced shall be around and affecting a state’s alternative for some time. When the danger is higher, so too are transaction costs.
Conversely, when a corporation can effectively make decisions, modifying existing measures or producing recent ones tends to be more routine. When changing governance is routine, states are inclined to perceive less risk in recent agreements because they know there may be an excellent possibility of adjusting governance again in the long run. When perceived risk is lower, transaction costs are inclined to be lower too.
Simpler approaches to consensus
Consensus is an end result, not a process. This implies the processes used to attain consensus can influence its value. Leveraging consensus for its advantages while limiting the drawbacks requires thoughtful consideration of:
- what activities require consensus (e.g., treaties vs. guidelines, agenda changes, etc.)
- where within the diplomatic process consensus is sought (e.g., at each stage of the discussion vs. only when adopting a measure), and
- the way it is achieved (e.g., vote, objection, tacit acceptance, assessing the ‘sense’ of the discussion)
When other organizations with similar governance responsibilities, it’s common to see them employ consensus in a fashion that reflects thoughtful consideration of the bullets above.
For instance, a non-binding set of guidelines developed through the International Maritime Organization rarely requires full member consensus because they have an inclination to serve a cursory purpose that doesn’t justify higher transaction costs. Similarly, the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which oversees key web governance, will pick from a menu of decision-making styles on the outset of a working group. Forums will even leverage alternative ways of achieving consensus based on the measure in query. Some measures profit from tacit acceptance, while others require a proper vote. The flexibleness allows each organization to effectively meet governance needs by tailoring transaction costs with goals of the governance output.
The important thing for COPUOS is to alter the way it leverages consensus so it might probably effectively balance the worth of consensus with the prices of in search of it. Changing the processes inside a global organization may seem to be an enormous deal, but it surely is common so far as international governance goes. To make sure, changing how COPUOS does anything would require plenty of diplomatic work, but the long run of the space industry is dependent upon effective international governance.
