Earth-Space has been proposed as a new construct for more thoughtful and justice-oriented governance of the interconnected systems of Earth and the regions of space which humans can alter in substantial ways. Asteroids are among the most abundant objects in our Solar System, and due to their varied orbits, will have different intersections with our orbital proximity. Asteroids offer a useful means of exploring the conceptual boundaries of Earth-Space due to their transitory nature. We posit that objects that spend any significant amount of time within the Earth-Space boundary and will return to that region in the future should be considered as an extension of Earth-Space. In addition to monitoring potentially hazardous asteroids (PHAs) we suggest the Earth-Space system implies that non-PHAs which could potentially become more hazardous due to human space activities (e.g., asteroid mining) should be governed differently than non-PHAs which are unlikely to be of economic interest.
As global demand for lithium increases, emerging economies with lithium deposits face a governance dilemma: should the development of these resources be left to private firms, or should the state intervene to capture a greater share of the benefits? In Ghana, this debate has intensified following the recent discovery of lithium. This study draws lessons from Bolivia, Chile and Argentina to inform Ghana's governance trajectory. These countries were selected because they represent contrasting models of state participation in lithium development: Bolivia has pursued a nationalist approach centred on state control, Chile a hybrid model combining state ownership with private-sector production, and Argentina a more liberal approach emphasising foreign investment. The governance choices examined here speak to a broader earth system governance challenge: how to ensure that the institutions underpinning the global energy transition distribute its benefits and burdens equitably, including for communities and countries on the extractive frontier.
Justice is fundamental to the Earth System Governance (ESG) literature, yet its application remains largely terrestrial. While scholarship has begun expanding ESG's scope to outer space, this paper identifies two critical challenges that impede this transition: the myth of resource abundance and unilateral governance regimes. To resolve the first obstacle, I introduce a definition of “New Space,” conceptualized through its contemporary ecosystem of diverse actors, activities, purposes, and places. I demonstrate how this lens debunks the myth of abundance by revealing that localized scarcity is an inherent feature of outer space resources, thereby activating the circumstances of justice. I then address the second obstacle by arguing that unilateral national legislation and first-possession legal proposals are structurally incompatible with distributive fairness, as they fail to establish an impartial architecture capable of resolving trans-jurisdictional conflict. By neutralizing these two barriers, this paper establishes a prolegomenon for any future theory of distributive justice for outer space governance.
Philanthropic foundations are increasingly influential actors in global sustainability governance. These foundations often argue that they are advancing justice, but it is unclear how they understand justice. To understand how foundations decide to direct their resources, we need to understand how they conceptualise themselves as agents of justice. In this paper, we employ critical discourse studies and a novel analytical justice framework to analyse the justice framings of 41 influential philanthropic foundations involved in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We find that foundations tend to favour justice framings that prioritise economic well-being over social participation. However, we also find that the role justice plays in these foundations is more complex. There appears to be a tendency across sustainable governance philanthropy to present their work as challenging systemic injustices. We conclude that this has major implications, enabling foundations to more readily identify and remedy inherent power imbalances in philanthropic giving.
The planetary justice and energy justice frameworks have largely developed in isolation from each other. Both frameworks are relevant for the energy transition, which is needed to limit transgressions of planetary boundaries but can also give rise to injustices. Based on a systematic review of the literatures on planetary justice and energy justice, we suggest that these two frameworks can complement each other in conceptualising and analysing justice issues in the energy transition. Systemic injustices that are often overlooked by energy justice can be addressed by planetary justice through its non-anthropocentric approach grounded in the planetary boundaries framework. Planetary justice can also build on the analytical strength of energy justice and its increasing focus on intersectional and whole-system approaches. We argue that planetary justice needs to move forward by integrating the scope, scale and tenets of justice and taking pluralism and epistemic justice as preconditions for conceptualisation.
