Commons Neg 1/61

Turner Group 2011

Commons Neg..........................................................................................................................................................1 Solvency......................................................................................................................................2 Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................2 Commons Fails Neolib.........................................................................................................................................3 Commons Fails Laundry List...............................................................................................................................4 Commons Fails Misinterpreted............................................................................................................................6 Commons Fails Conflicting Views........................................................................................................................8 Commons Fails Amuhrican Culture...................................................................................................................10 Commons Fails- No Spillover.................................................................................................................................11 Commons Fails- Law..............................................................................................................................................12 Poverty....................................................................................................................................................................13 ***Capitalism Good....................................................................................................................13 ***Capitalism Good................................................................................................................................................13 Economy.................................................................................................................................................................14 Environment..........................................................................................................................................................16 Ozone......................................................................................................................................................................19 ***Neoliberalism Good..............................................................................................................20 ***Neoliberalism Good..........................................................................................................................................20 AT: Poverty.............................................................................................................................................................21 AT: Environment...................................................................................................................................................24 Commons Now.......................................................................................................................................................27 ***Inherency.............................................................................................................................27 ***Inherency..........................................................................................................................................................27 Neoliberalism Now................................................................................................................................................28 Collapse inevitable.................................................................................................................................................29 1NC Shell Exploration/Development....................................................................................................................30 ***Topicality.............................................................................................................................30 ***Topicality..........................................................................................................................................................30 2NC Overview.........................................................................................................................................................31 2NC FX Bad...........................................................................................................................................................32 2NC Its Card..........................................................................................................................................................33 A2: Kritik of Topicality.........................................................................................................................................34 Private Actor..........................................................................................................................................................35 ***Counteradvocacies................................................................................................................35 ***Counteradvocacies............................................................................................................................................35 Social Movement...................................................................................................................................................36 Common Differentiated Responsibility.................................................................................................................38 Outer Space Treaty ...............................................................................................................................................39 2NC Solvency Ext..................................................................................................................................................40 AT: I-Law DA.........................................................................................................................................................47 AT: Space War turn...............................................................................................................................................48 AT: Boundaries Impossible...................................................................................................................................49 AT: Self Govt.........................................................................................................................................................50 AT Comp. Legal Codes Good..................................................................................................................................51 AT: Exploitation ....................................................................................................................................................52 Net Ben PTX..........................................................................................................................................................53 Commons Bad Environment..............................................................................................................................54

Commons Neg

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 2/61 ***Commons Bad......................................................................................................................54 ***Commons Bad...................................................................................................................................................54 Commons Bad Multilat.......................................................................................................................................56 Commons Bad Private Investment.....................................................................................................................57 Space Weaponization turns solvency....................................................................................................................58 ***DA Turns case.......................................................................................................................58 ***DA Turns case...................................................................................................................................................58 Multilateralism Solves...........................................................................................................................................59 Hege Link..............................................................................................................................................................60 ***PTX Links.............................................................................................................................61 ***PTX Links..........................................................................................................................................................61 Solvency

Commons Neg 3/61

Turner Group 2011

The neoliberal order and technological inequality between states makes CHM difficult Okereke, Chukwumerije (Dr Chukwumerije Okereke is a Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Climate and Development centre at the Smith School. He is a renowned policy analysis and development specialist.) 08 Equity Norms in Global Environmental Governance Global Environmental Politics Volume 8, Number 3 August 2008 The impact of prevailing neoliberal ideas on the law of sea is also mirrored in the activities on the moon and other celestial bodies even if political events in these resource-areas have been less dramatic. Although it has been officially declared that these areas are the common heritage of the mankind and that any exploitation would have to be done on the basis of global distributive equity, the developed countries have continued to enjoy the benefits of launching satellites at optimal positions without transferring the profits accruing from these activities to the international body.100 This condition has led Chemillier-Gendreau to suggest that despite the proclamations designating these resources as common heritage, the technological inequality between states renders the principle of equal access derisory.101 As with CHM, the overall
impact of CDR in global environmental governance has also been more or less shaped by the prevailing neoliberal economic order. In insisting that CDR should constitute the foundation for North-South environmental cooperation during the Stockholm Conference, developing countries had hoped that this principle would result in significant economic empowerment if not the complete closure of the economic gap between the North and the South. The hopes were for substantial quantities of financial and technological assistance, the free flow of up-to-date scientific information, and the ready transfer of technical experience across the various countries of the world in the spirit of a new mode of international cooperation.102 These hopes were also loudly echoed in the World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED) (Brundtland) Report which asserts that inequality is the planets main environmental problem and that it is futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.103 However, by the time of the Rio Conference in 1992, and even more clearly during (and beyond) the Johannesburg Conference in 2002, it

Commons Fails Neolib

had become increasingly apparent that radical North-South redistributive mechanisms that are ostensibly inconsistent with free market ideals could hardly be a prominent part of global environmental rule-based regimes. CHM has been co-opted by neoliberalism Okereke, Chukwumerije (Dr Chukwumerije Okereke is a Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Climate and Development centre at the Smith School. He is a renowned policy analysis and development specialist.) 08 Equity Norms in Global Environmental Governance Global Environmental Politics Volume 8, Number 3 August 2008 The foregoing analysis suggests that the limited impact of CDR and CHM normsand, indeed, the general responsibility deficit that characterizes the current global environmental governance systemare fundamentally due to the co-option of global equity norms by neoliberalism. The analysis supports the works of many other scholars who have rigorously argued that in the years leading up to Rio, and thereafter, there has been a general global shift towards the neoliberal order with what Mansfield calls the predominant focus on markets as the central form of governance.104 As a result of the hegemony of neoliberalism, even the Southern states, according to these scholars, have also begun to endorse market-based approaches as the best route to global environmental management.

Commons Neg 4/61

Turner Group 2011

Commons Fails -states arent the same -membership isnt equal -distribution will be coopted -only helps those in power/who can vote -dont change the underlying structure of IR Aceves Law Associate Professor, California Western School of Law 2001 William J., Critical Jurisprudence and International Legal Scholarship: A Study of Equitable Distribution, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 39 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 299, LexisNexis B. The Limits of Equitable Distribution Despite the purported benefits of equitable distribution, a second strand of critical jurisprudence posits the futility of such efforts. In the postmodern tradition, this approach dismisses equitable distribution, arguing that it is only a temporary solution to the fundamental problems facing the international system. Indeed, these "crits" would argue that equitable distribution itself perpetuates other forms of inequality and is, therefore, illegitimate. First, equitable distribution is premised upon the equality of states - a noble premise, but one that is wholly unrelated to reality. Like snowflakes, no two states are entirely alike. Even within classification schemes, states vary along a multitude of factors, including historical, political, demographic, economic, social, cultural, and linguistic features. Equitable
distribution overlooks such variation in its efforts to promote the equality of states within international organizations. In doing so, equitable distribution may [*367] promote other forms of inequality. For example, equitable

Commons Fails Laundry List

distribution policies do not take demographic factors into account. n297 Should India and Luxembourg have the same voting power in international organizations? n298 The problem of
"this

demographic disparity has worsened in recent years as new states, particularly small states, have entered the international community. n299 As noted by Professor Franck,

problem of unfair equality has become much more pressing as a new wave tribal nationalism ... swells the rank of mini-states, all of them claiming equal voice." n300 Second, equitable distribution assumes that states within any of the enumerated classification schemes share the same interests, concerns, and preferences - a dubious proposition at best. n301 Indeed, equitable distribution assumes state classification is a simple and uncontroversial process. In fact, distribution based upon geographic classification schemes may be difficult to support in every case. n302 Not all countries located within a particular geographic area are alike. n303 Among African states, for example, do Egypt, Nigeria, [*368] Rwanda, South Africa, and Sudan share similar interests and concerns? The same questions may be posed of states within Asia,
Europe, North America, and South America. n304 Efforts to classify states based upon forms of civilization are also fraught with difficulty. Some states are not neatly categorized into any particular civilization. Indeed, there is significant controversy over the concept of civilization. n305 Even

efforts to classify states based upon their respective legal systems must be undertaken with caution. n306 Many countries contain multiple legal systems within their borders which makes classification difficult. n307 In addition, the differences between legal
systems are gradually diminishing, making such distinctions less relevant. n308 If the proxy theory is inaccurate, it severely undermines a key premise of equitable distribution. Third,

there are no clear guidelines for establishing or prioritizing classification schemes. The traditional classification schemes have differentiated between geographic regions, legal systems, and forms of civilization. Is this list exclusive? Should demographic or economic factors be considered? Is this list outdated? Are geographic factors less relevant today? In addition,
should particular classification schema be given priority? For example, should preference be given to equitable distribution based upon geographic region, legal system, or form of civilization? Fourth,

equitable distribution policies do not always succeed in their efforts to promote equitable representation in international organizations. In this respect, it is important to recognize that equitable distribution policies do not guarantee equitable distribution. As currently drafted, most equitable distribution policies only [*369] encourage states to consider equitable distribution principles in determining membership for non-plenary treaty organs and the selection of staff for international organizations. There is no mechanism to ensure that equitable distribution is manifest in the final membership composition. For example, the Statute of the International Court of Justice does not require that the Court contain an equitable distribution of judges based upon
civilization and legal system. Rather, Article 9 merely requests electors to "bear in mind" that the "representation of the main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world should be assured." No formal sanction or remediation mechanism is available if equitable distribution is not accomplished. Because the principle of equitable distribution remains ambiguous and undefined, it can easily be co-opted by states to ensure that dominant powers are guaranteed a position in non-plenary treaty organs. For example, the practice of the United Nations has been to ensure that each permanent member of the Security Council is represented on the International Court of Justice. Thus, equitable

distribution policies are subject to the vagaries of political and diplomatic intervention. Even if international organizations manifest equitable distribution in their composition, research data suggests that the underlying reasons for these policies may not be evident in the output of some organizations. In other words,
the preferences of states that are not represented in non-plenary treaty organs may not always be expressed by proxy states. For example, studies of voting patterns in the International Court of Justice do not reveal significant correlation of voting patterns along regional or political lines. n309 Even voting patterns within the General Assembly do not always coincide along regional or political groupings. n310 Fifth, equitable distribution may promote the selection of less qualified candidates. n311 Thus, equitable distribution policies have been criticized because it "means to some extent weaker candidates must be preferred to stronger on the ground of the civilization or the [*370] legal system which they represent." n312 For example, critics have argued that the priority given to equitable geographical distribution in the U.N. Secretariat "has been responsible for a lowering of the quality of the staff." n313 Sixth,

equitable distribution policies perpetuate other forms of inequality. Because they only recognize state representation, equitable distribution policies only promote the interests of those groups that dominate intra-state politics. There is no mechanism for representing the interests of minorities, including racial or religious groups. n314 While representation may be viewed as equitable at the inter-state level, it often remains

Commons Neg 5/61

inequitable at the intra-state level. In addition, equitable

Turner Group 2011

distribution policies disregard the plight of people with "multiple subordinated identities." n315 Many groups, differentiated by such factors as race, religion, or gender, face several layers of subordination and marginalization in their own countries. n316 Women of color are a prominent example of people

with multiple subordinated identities. Discrimination, both overt and implicit, has prevented women of color from attaining positions of power within their own countries. As a result, these women are often underrepresented within the power structures of their countries. n317 [*371] Because of their marginalization at the domestic level, the ability of these women to participate at the international level is severely diminished. n318 If these women are from countries that are themselves on the margins of international discourse, their plight becomes even more pronounced. n319 Thus, women do not benefit from efforts to promote equitable distribution at the international level. Racial and ethnic minorities face similar obstacles. n320 It is not surprising, therefore, that few women are members of the various international tribunals. n321 In the entire history of the International Court of Justice, there has only been one female judge on the Court. n322 Gender composition in other international tribunals is equally unbalanced. The European Court of Justice, one of the most successful international tribunals in history, did not have a woman on the Court until October 1999. n323 The European Court of [*372] Human Rights has only a slightly better record. n324 While the United Nations has sought to promote the development of women's rights within states, it has generally been less successful at the higher levels of power within the international level. n325 Finally, equitable

distribution policies assume the state is the most appropriate governance structure to regulate human behavior. These policies do not change or challenge the fundamental structure of the international system; they merely work within the system. There is no effort (or apparent interest) in promoting structural change. Thus, the status quo remains protected against efforts to change the structure of the international system or the primacy of the state. Such policies overlook structural flaws of state governance. Do states adequately protect the interests of all individuals within their control? n326 Are there alternative governance structures capable of addressing the
problems of humanity more effectively than the current regime? n327

Commons Neg 6/61

Turner Group 2011

Common Heritage fails and is misinterpreted massive resource disparities still exist Mickelson Associate Professor, University of British Columbia 2003 Karin, Humanizing our Global Order, Co-opting Common Heritage, pg. 119-120 Criticisms of how common heritage has been deployed in the scholarly literature might appear to be an exercise in finger-pointing were it not for the fact that the treatment of common heritage is symptomatic of a perspective that seems widespread. One has become accustomed to reading dismissals of the new international economic order, of the heady optimism of the 1960s and 1970s. What is unusual about common heritage is that instead of merely relegating a Third World doctrine to the dustbin of history, attempts have been made to retool it into a concept that is applicable to a different context. It may seem uncharitable to take issue with such attempts, especially when they are the work of young scholars whose enthusiasm, at least, cannot be faulted. However, I cannot help feeling that these attempts represent a fundamentally problematic approach to international legal scholarship. These writers are able to justify their approach through an elaborate array of reasons and authorities, underlying which is an attitude that verges on contempt for the original rationale of the concept, as well as for its proponents. Even if one were to accept the view that the `Third World' no longer exists (as I do not). vast disparities of wealth and access to resources are still with us, and these disparities have in fact been increasing over the past decades. This is either missing from the analysis or is mentioned only in passing. Where, then, does this leave common heritage? My own preference would be to allow the principle to rest in peace rather than have it exist as a simulacrum that not only fails to reflect the content of the original but in fact is almost wholly inconsistent with it. I would argue that politically and legally, such a decision has already been made. Common heritage has not been incorporated into multilateral environmental agreements; in its place, notions such as the common concern of humankind' have emerged. which have the benefit of being unaccompanied by the baggage of 'political connotations. Yet this does not eliminate the underlying dilemma. Common concern, too, along with other principles of international law, must be interpreted and applied in ways that are sensitive and responsive to the needs of the South. And such sensitivity and responsiveness are sorely lacking in the types of analyses I have been considering here. Developed countries interpret CHM differently than developing nations causes conflict Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1 The commons places limitations on states ability to exercise national sovereignty. As commons belong to all of mankind, only mankind may decide when and in what manner to exploit common resources. Difficulties arise in administration given that nations vary greatly in their resource endowments and comparative advantages. As
Avrid Pardo, Maltese Delegate to the UN and the Father of the Sea, stated: The manner in which the common heritage principle will be used will depend on differing perceptions. There is a need to take into account the wants, needs, interests and values favored by world constituencies. Undoubtedly different policies will be advancedby developed and developing states.75

Commons Fails Misinterpreted

Developed countries interpret the CHM principle narrowly as allowing the common use of designated areas, while upholding traditional concepts such as freedom of the high seas and of exploration. Developing nations interpret the CHM principle broadly, seeking to direct participation in the international management of resource extraction. This is not an argument for environmental protection, only representative exploitation. A viable compromise would provide an incentive for investment for the exploitation of resources in common regions along with some form of limited property rights as well as equitable economic benefitsharing. This is the lesson of neoterritoriality specifically and this study of sovereignty generally. CHM is bad either the developed countries benefit alone or a communal basis stifles econ. growth Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1 The first theory holds that the CHM is an extension of res communis, since it provides for communal and not exclusive propriety use.67 The CHM seeks to benefit the long-run prosperity of humanity by conserving the worlds resources for future generations through an international regime. Developing countries are proponents of this viewpoint. The second CHM theory considers the first conception to be in conflict with established international law.68 Proponents regard the first theory as a
modern version of res communis applied to another phenomenon, namely the right to use a resource. Such a res communis cannot be owned but may be used on an equal basis.69 Comparing the philosophies of res communis, res nullis and the CHM consequently opens the door to two lines of logic. One

allows for the complete freedom of exploration, meaning that technologically advanced countries would benefit most from common resources. The other extreme views exploration on a communal basis. Although this would fulfill the spirit of

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 7/61 the CHM principle, it would not generate the amount of commercial activity necessary for substantial economic development due to a complete absence of property rights. CHM is temporary once tech. is created to exploit resources, countries ignore the idea of communal property Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1

When COPUOS began work in 1970 to draft a treaty on the legal status of the Moon and its natural resources, opinion was divided. Controversies centered on the question of whether resources could be lawfully and freely exploited, or whether such activity was unlawful appropriation.206 Distinctions were offered between states, private enterprise and scientific investigations. Proposed solutions included applying the CHM to the Moon but not its natural resources, or to the Moon but nowhere else in outer space.207 Negotiations took on an ardent fervor as the US had landed on the Moon in the previous July, and the USSR had recently obtained its own lunar regolith samples.208 During the drafting process of the Moon Treaty209 confrontations erupted between the US, USSR and many developing countries. When the treaty was opened for signature in 1979, the climate had shifted and these initial confrontations emerged as organized opposition to the proposed international regime. This outcome is mirrored by the initial acceptance, and then ultimate infeasibility, of the UNCLOS system. Using wording identical to UNCLOS, the

Moon Treaty expressly asserts that the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies belong to the common heritage of mankind. Article 11(5) states that an international regime should be set up to develop the commons as soon as exploitation is about to become feasible.210 This confirms the propensity in international law to declare a new frontier communal property until the technology is developed to exploit the newfound resources. Naturally, this begs the question as to the staying power of CHM areas in international law generally.

Commons Neg 8/61

Turner Group 2011

Conflict occurs over views on whether or not the Moon Treaty allows private interests in space Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1 The OST, dubbed the Magna Carta for space,185 states that Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.186 Interpreting Article II has engendered debates among academics and policymakers. Some see it as giving private interests freedom of action in space, so long as a government supervises but does not nationalize new territory.187 Others see this clause as a hindrance to economic development as great as the cost of accessing space (approximately $10,000/pound) by voiding property rights and making entrepreneurs less apt to invest.188 The center is comprised of those who feel that the legal framework will ensure sufficient protection to private entities, safeguarding commerce rather than hampering it and securing appropriate economic returns to those in need.189 This trichotomy of views underscores theories surrounding what to do with celestial bodies such as the Moon and the asteroids that have vast amounts of untapped natural resources.
Gold has now been discovered on asteroids, Helium-3 on the Moon, and magnesium, cobalt and uranium on Mars. The first wave of space tourists are preparing for launch in 2008 courtesy of Virgin Galactic.190 New industries promising unlimited energy could be developed, necessitating a well-defined legal regime.

Commons Fails Conflicting Views

The divided world is preventing solvency for any major impact Falk (Richard Falk is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, the author or co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 books,[1] speaker, activist on world affairs, and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories.) 00 Human Governance for the world: Reviving the Quest 2000 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345) [Pitman] Delimiting the idea of humane governance on behalf of the peoples of the world is itself a daunting and inconclusive undertaking. The unevenness of material circumstance, cultural orientation and resource endowment makes it especially difficult, and even suspect, to universalize aspirations, and set forth some image of humane governance that can be affirmed by all. It seems appropriate to be tentative, inviting dialogue across civilizational and class
boundaries as to the nature of humane governance. From such a bottom-up process, areas of overlapping consensus can begin to be identified, and the negotiation of differences in values and priorities facilitated. If successful, this interactive dynamic could in time produce a

coherent project, democratically conceived, to establish humane governance for all peoples. Divided world prevents solvency for every major impact Falk (Richard Falk is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, the author or co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 books,[1] speaker, activist on world affairs, and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories.) 00 Human Governance for the world: Reviving the Quest 2000 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345) [Pitman Despite these reasons for seeking a warless world, the obstacles remain formidable: entrenched economic and bureaucratic interests in military establishments; distrust of the capacity and objectivity of the UN system; inertia associated with reliance on the state to provide security against adversaries; and persisting, unresolved regional conflicts, border disputes and territorial conflicts involving offshore islands. In addition, geopolitical actors, especially the US government, insist on the relevance of force to deter and contain so-called 'rogue states' and to prevent the further fraying of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In these regards, only a transnational
peace movement is likely to be able to revitalize the long and crucial struggle to minimize war and preparations for war. At the moment, there is no effort in this direction except in relation to transnational initiatives to abolish nuclear weaponry and some inter-governmental efforts to

control the spread of nuclear weaponry and to encourage regim regimes of prohibition with respect to chemical and biological weaponry. CHM impossible cant establish an internationally acceptable view on proprietary rights in space Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 9/61 Varying interpretations have been put forward as to the importance of property rights in space to investment. One argument is that developing countries have kept all countries from reaching the Moon and let a valuable source of alternative energy lie unused due to their majority support of the CHM in international relations.250 Developing countries contend that they have not fettered any state in its quest for property rights. It is in this way that the form and the compliance with international law conflict. Rather than an ill-defined legal regime, some scholars contend that it is the high cost of accessing space and insufficient Return on Investment (ROI) and nothing else that is the primary hurdle to developmental.251 Any actions that developing countries have collectively taken to curtail property rights in outer space have not adversely impacted ROI.252 However, developing countries have adversely impacted the development of space law generally, as seen in geosynchronous orbit (GSO) debates253 and the resulting Bogot Declaration under which a group of equatorial developing countries asserted their sovereignty over equatorial geosynchronous space.254 This pact underscores the primary flaw of existing space law: the failure to establish an internationally acceptable view on proprietary rights in space, and the lack of any coordinated effort between or among developed and developing countries to change this fact. The failure of folding in limited property rights into the CHM regime governing the Moon occurs because of two conflicting interpretations of property rights, namely a collection of principles versus a codification of regulations. Drafters of the treaties did not foresee civilian space travel as a regular commercial activity. The main hindrance is Article 11, which states that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind.255 The majority of space faring nations believe that any international lunar regime established will prove to be a politically dysfunctional, economically, inefficient, global bureaucracy,256 prohibiting the accords acceptance into customary international law, and highlighting why multilateral cooperation can be such a difficult proposition. Though, despite the frustrations inherent in building a
system of internationally respected property rights for the commons certain property rights already exist in space law that may be used as a foundation to be used for allaying the fears of investors and developing countries alike. In this manner, property rights in space law may be used as a case study to examine how a similar system of rights and duties may be setup in other portions of the international commons.

Commons Neg 10/61

Turner Group 2011

Americas approach to property rights makes CHM difficult, Moon Treaty empirically proves Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1 The ambiguities and uncertainties inherent in the Moon Treaty, specifically regarding the CHM, made the US and every other participating nation save four put off ratification. This decision was made in the face of a US State Department report which indicated that the Moon Treaty was the best possible structure for regulating activities which governments may now or in the future engage in on the Moon or elsewhere in space.211 The Reagan Administration viewed the concept of the CHM as hostile to free enterprise and thereby contrary to the interests of advanced states with free-market economies. It would be a disincentive to development, a de facto moratorium, as had occurred after UNCLOS 1982. The US viewed the Moon Treaty as antithetical to US interests. The US thus adopted a resource distribution philosophy in line with the freedom of the high seas, a freedom of outer space. While the US maintains that no state may claim or acquire exclusive sovereign rights to outer space, it does maintain that actors may exploit resources as long as there is reasonable regard for the rights and activities of others. This free market approach applies universally. As the only remaining superpower, the US approach to exploitation and property rights versus the CHM approach is the biggest impediment to a truly de facto rather than de jure CHM in outer space, or indeed anywhere. Given the fragmented nature of the regime governing space law today, the US, as well as the other space powers, are in a position to implement policy priorities without the restraint of multilateral commitments. Ultimately, this will prove detrimental to the commons as well as to development as entrepreneurs will not have the certainty necessary to invest with confidence. American culture is in direct conflict with the Commons Bollier( David Bollier , co-founded the Commons Strategy Group, a consulting project that works to promote the commons internationally) 07 The Growth of the Commons Paradigm 2007 http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4975/GrowthofCommonsParadigm.pdf;jsessionid=B B58D234F012FEE4A5E63B8FB9DA6477?sequence=1[Pitman] So it is in talking about the commons. The commons is not such a difficult frame of analysis in itself. It is, in fact, a rather simple and obvious concept. But because our culture is so steeped in a standard economic narrative about how things work, the idea of the commons often seems exotic. American political culture is a dedicated champion of the free market, after all. It celebrates the heroic individual, the self-made man, not the community. Perhaps because the Cold War was directed against communism and its cousin, socialism, Americans tend to regard collective management regimes as morally problematic and destructive of freedom, at least in the abstract. United States is a major blocker of the common heritage Falk (Richard Falk is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, the author or co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 books,[1] speaker, activist on world affairs, and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories.) 00 Human Governance for the world: Reviving the Quest 2000 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345) [Pitman]
And yet the substantive outcomes have so far been disappointing. The language of common heritage, while retained as a goal, has been virtually emptied of substantive content in the Law of the Seas as a result of heavy lobbying by the private sector and the gradual adoption of a

Commons Fails Amuhrican Culture

neoliberal outlook by western states, led by the USA and Thatcherite Britain. This is a process of 'normative cooption' whereby a progressive idea is introduced with great fanfare, but then applied in such a way as to deprive it of substantive content. In this instance, it is making common heritage subordinate to the operation of global market forces. Such a process contributes to a kind of complacency in which there is the illusion of commitment to human well-being, but without
any tangible results. This pattern invites cynicism, and leads to widespread despair.

Commons Neg 11/61

Turner Group 2011

Commons Fails- No Spillover

No spillover the province of all mankind is too vague to be modeled by other countries Tan 2000 (David Tan, Harvard Law School, Towards a New Regime for the Protection of Outer Space as the Province of All Mankind, Winter 2000, Lexis// ASpomer) The principle of the "province of all mankind" as a limitation on the freedom of exploration appears to lack the requisite opinio juris to attain the status of a customary norm. It does not "constitute a principle sufficiently normative in character that it becomes capable of generating specific legal effects or enhancing particular value expectations." n122 First, the use and exploration of outer space as the "province of all mankind" is not welldefined enough to impose any concrete obligations on states to avoid harm to the space environment in their use and exploration of it. Second, there is no [*172] sufficiently broad-based state conduct and behavior to attest to its widespread acceptance. Finally, there have been no adaptations in state practice to comply with the development of the notion of the "province of all mankind" as a limitation on the freedom of exploration and use of outer space, and there is no evidence of opinio juris. The entry into force of the Astronaut Agreement, the Registration Convention, and the Liability Convention cannot be evidence of a recognition by states that they are bound by the customary norm of equitable use and conservation of a shared resource, i.e., the outerspace environment, and at the same time be indicative of positive efforts to provide a practical framework for resolving conflicts of interests regarding shared resources. The obligations under the Astronaut Agreement are mainly concerned with the rescue of astronauts and the return of space objects that have returned to Earth to their launching state. As mentioned in Part III, the purpose of the Registration Convention is to assist in the identification of space objects, while the Liability Convention allows for compensation to victims of damage caused by space objects. The concern of these space treaties is neither the protection nor the conservation of the space environment. 1. Any US violation of international law will cause others to abandon it IEER 1AC author '02 (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, "An Overview of U.S. Policies Toward the International Legal System", May 2002, http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf// ASpomer) However, influential U.S. policymakers are resistant to the idea of a treaty-based international legal system because they fear infringement on U.S. sovereignty and they claim to lack confidence in compliance and enforcement mechanisms. This approach has dangerous practical 27 implications for international cooperation and compliance with norms. U.S. treaty partners do not enter into treaties expecting that they are only political commitments by the United States that can be overridden based on U.S. interests. When a powerful and influential state like the United States is seen to treat its legal obligations as a matter of convenience or of national interest alone, other states will see this as a justification to relax or withdraw from their own commitments. If the United States wants to require another state to live up to its treaty obligations, it may find that the state has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance.

Commons Neg 12/61

Turner Group 2011

Texas execution violated international law means other countries wont model the US BBC '11 ("Texas execution 'violated international law', UN says", 7/8/11, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada14089246//ASpomer) The US breached international law when the state of Texas executed a Mexican citizen convicted of raping and killing an American girl, the UN's senior human rights official has said. Navi Pillay cited "particular legal concerns" whether Humberto Leal Garcia, 38, had access to consular officials and a fair trial. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also said she was "disappointed" that Texas carried out the lethal injection. Leal was executed late on Thursday. He was not told he could have access to Mexican consular officials, in violation of the Vienna Convention. "US compliance with Vienna convention terms is absolutely critical to ensuring our own consular access and our own ability to protect Americans detained abroad," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. Ms Nuland said not protecting "the rights of non-Americans in the United States" could lead to a lack of US access to American citizens overseas in the future. "This is why the secretary is concerned," she added. Ms Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who visited Mexico this week, said Texas had placed "the US in breach of international law". Humberto Leal Garcia Humberto Leal was born in Mexico but came to the US as a small child "What the state of Texas has done in this case is imputable in law to the US and engages the United States' international responsibility," she said. Ms Pillay said Texas Governor Rick Perry, who rejected requests to intervene, and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles each failed to exercise consular and fair-trial obligations.

Commons Fails- Law

Commons Neg 13/61

Turner Group 2011

Poverty
Capitalism is key to innovation which solves poverty Phelps '09 (Edmund Phelps, director of the Centre on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University, won the 2006 Nobel Prize for economics, "Global Outlook 2009: Does capitalism have a future?", 1/5/09, Lexis// ASpomer) First of all, Europeans think of capitalism as the "free market" - laissez-faire. But capitalism means openness to bottom-up innovation. Capitalism does not per se threaten anyone's welfare benefits. The fashionable hypothesis denies even the most obvious benefit. I concede that the salaries of my overpaid friends are high enough to meet virtually all of their foreseeable needs. Even my own salary suffices to meet my own. But increases in productivity almost always lead to increases in pay across the economy. And increases in the general pay level have a social value that is of huge benefit. These increases make it possible for more people to shun dull, tedious or onerous work in favour of stimulating, engaging and mind-expanding work. The "dark Satanic mills" of Marx's era are gone, thanks to greater productivity, not greater state regulation. The other difficulty with that fashionable hypothesis is that most of the alleged costs are illusory or trumped up. The idea that a well-functioning capitalism makes for a weak job market, leading to higher unemployment and lower participation in the labour force, cannot be substantiated. On the contrary, the innovations stimulated and facilitated by capitalism create jobs - in new companies started to develop new ideas, in marketing, and in managements that must keep abreast of new organisations and tools. The idea that ordinary people are anguished by the thought that other people have extraordinary wealth is also cultivated in fashionable circles without the presentation of any evidence. Most people are practical enough to see that when, say, they have to go to the hospital for tests, what matters is whether the right kind of diagnostic machine is there for them, not whether there is a better machine for others somewhere else. True, capitalism creates disruption and uncertainty. But we should not lose sight of the other side of that coin. Capitalism is unique in stimulating entrepreneurs to dream up new commercial ideas and develop them for the market, and generating excitement for consumers in discovering the new. Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of capitalism was in transforming the workplace from one of routine, and thus boredom, into one of change, mental stimulus, challenge, problem solving, exploration and sometimes, discovery. True, the assembly line, a brain-numbing experience, was a feature of capitalism from the pin factor that Adam Smith wrote about in 1776 until Henry Ford's giant plants in the 1920s. But communist Russia and socialist Europe could not afford to do without assembly lines, either. And thanks to productivity growth, an ever larger share of jobs lay outside factories as well as farms.

***Capitalism Good

Commons Neg 14/61

Turner Group 2011

Economy
Capitalism is key to innovation and the economy Schramm '11 (Carl J. Schramm, served on Department of Commerce innovation committees during both the Bush and Obama administrations and a leading authority on innovation and economic growth, "Kauffman Foundation: Messy Capitalism Drives Innovation -- And Economic Growth", 1/18/11, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlj-schramm/entrepreneurship_b_809866.html// ASpomer) Since the earliest days of the American republic, entrepreneurs have been essential to the economic growth and social dynamism of the United States. From Nathan Appleton, textile merchant and entrepreneur in the late 1700s, to the founding of Apple by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in the 1970s, entrepreneurs and the new companies they create account not only for most new jobs in this country but also a disproportionate share of the innovations that boost human welfare. Welcome to the Kauffman Foundation's new column on entrepreneurship. The Kauffman Foundation is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to promoting entrepreneurship and improving education. Like most other American philanthropists, our founder, Ewing Kauffman, was a successful entrepreneur -- in his case, starting and growing a pharmaceutical company that created thousands of jobs and innovations. Unlike many other philanthropists, however, Mr. Kauffman chose to dedicate his fortune to helping others to follow their entrepreneurial dream. He spoke of himself as a "common man who did an uncommon thing," but wanted his philanthropic dollars spent in making that phenomenon, entrepreneurship, a more common and achievable prospect. Toward those ends, the Kauffman Foundation funds and performs a wide range of research on entrepreneurship and also operates a number of programs aimed at helping entrepreneurs and better preparing students at all levels for success in an entrepreneurial economy. In this space over the coming months, you will hear from a variety of Kauffman scholars and researchers about our work on the importance of entrepreneurship. While the link between entrepreneurship and economic growth has been well-established by a number of economists and is well understood by the average citizen, this insight has not yet penetrated the minds of legislators and policymakers. When officials and commentators in Washington and state capitals discuss "business" and "commerce," they almost universally mean big business, companies such as those on the Fortune 500. Make no mistake: big business is highly important to our economic health. But such companies are not the source of the innovations that make our economy grow. Economists often boil the mechanics of economic growth down to sterile-sounding categories such as capital, labor, and "the residual" -- essentially, technological change. But if you think about economic growth in a common-sense manner, what does it mean? It doesn't just involve more products and services, more "stuff." It also means better and cheaper products and services and an overall improved quality of life. Consider pharmaceuticals: economists attribute the lion's share of the increase in life expectancy over the past forty years not to public programs but to new drug discoveries. And, increasingly, large, established companies find it difficult to introduce new pharmaceuticals. The key point is that behind these innovations are entrepreneurs who start new companies -- that, as Northwestern scholar Dan Spulber has found, is the essential function of entrepreneurs. They found new companies as the vehicles for propagating innovations. If successful, those companies will grow and, accordingly, so will the overall economy. When firms grow, the economy grows -- and entrepreneurs are the drivers of firm growth. Only a tiny fraction of new and young companies, of course, will successfully create jobs and grow into larger firms. (An enduring dilemma for any economy is that once entrepreneurial companies successfully turn into larger firms, they often become the enemies of innovation and the next generation of firms. This is a problem that economists and policymakers and corporate leaders have wrestled with for a century with no resolution, and will be the subject of the some of the columns in this series.) What legislators and policymakers must remember is that the messy process of firms starting, competing, failing, and growing (and, potentially, shrinking) is absolutely essential to achieving economic growth. This is what we call "messy capitalism" -economic growth and dynamism do not emerge from a neat process nor are they borne, like Athena from Zeus' head, fully-formed in the shape of successful firms out of university laboratories. Global economic collapse causes extinction Right Vision News 11/26/10 (Economic crisis threatens existence of human beings pg online @ lexisnexis)

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 15/61 The financial and economic crisis being faced by the world is in fact a human catastrophe as it may threaten the well-being and existence of human beings in the globe, said Dr. Jean-Francois Daguzan, senior research fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research, France. He was speaking at a roundtable discussion on 'The Strategic Consequences of World Financial and Economic Crisis' organised by the South Asia Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI) here on Wednesday. Former ambassador Tasawur Naqvi conducted the proceedings. Dr. Jean-Francois Daguzan said that the crisis could lead to violence. Every effort should be made to control it as it may lead to risky and dangerous situations. He said that the balance of power had already changed. He said that if economic crisis is compared with 9/11 and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the World Trade Centre debacle seemed to be a contingent affair. The financial crisis to him was like a nuclear war, which is tilting the balance of power in the world. He said that an amount of $50,000 billion went to the aid of developing nations. He noted the impact of the snowballing crisis on stock exchanges and investment potential of different countries. He said that the crisis also affected stability of nations by impacting equities and stock exchanges. He said that the war in currencies is the last impact of the crisis in an age of artificial monetary powers of currencies, which would provoke and continue with economic crises within countries. He said that it is rebalancing the power politics in the world. He enumerated Southeast Asia's economies facing problems in 1988 when China was big, but not enough to become the lone competitor of the west. He said that the mid-term elections in the US earlier this month reflected the consequences of the crisis. He said that the US and the West are declining and the US is now not capable of passing through this economic challenge. He said that the rise of the 'Tea Party' in the US is also a reflection of the economic crisis. He did not think that the US could continue to assume the responsibility of developing Europe though China could do something. He said that the US could not have a leading position in this respect. He said that India is a big economy, but it is not really capable to understand the global gains. He said that the Indian government did not have all tools to react to the global crisis though China could. He said that the failure of Europe to find an alternative is regrettable. Earlier, SASSI Director-General Dr. Maria Sultan, welcoming the guest speaker, said: "We are living in a transitional period in history and the topic is very important in terms of geo-strategic and geo-economic developments in the world. She said that it is ultimate connection between the two that will shape the military and political security situation not only in this region, but also all around the world. This is particularly true as we see the rising emergence of Asia as a new powerhouse, which will only be complemented by factors of human resource development, political stability and regional military security." She said that contrary to this, if these trends are not developed, regional harmony will be replaced by political chaos, military strife and continued state of rivalry not only between state actors but also inter-state actors which will only get compounded by the presence of trans-national non-state actors and their relevance to international security. She said: "If we are to create positive patterns of developments, power has to become more multi-polar in nature strengthened by overlapping security architectures and economic relations." Ms Maria said: "We can no longer afford to live in a perpetual uni-polar moment where the rise and fall of new power centres such as India etc is added by the domestic policy concerns of the sole super power." She said that for such an arrangement, an artificial attempt to create regional supremacy for one actor will only undermine traditional balance of power arrangements and natural sense of balance, which is necessary for regional strategic stability. All this will come at the cost of international security and global peace if it is not balanced by the emergence of equal multi-polar power centres grounded in economic and regional realities.

Commons Neg 16/61

Turner Group 2011

Environment
Maintaining innovation is key to prevent collapse of the biosphere Perry et al 8 (William, Prof of Engineering @ Stanford, former Secretary of Defense and Under Deputy Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Grand Challenges For Engineering, http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/Object.File/Master/11/574/Grand%20Challenges%20final %20book.pdf//) Throughout human history, engineering has driven the advance of civilization. From the metallurgists who ended the Stone Age to the shipbuilders who united the worlds peoples through travel and trade, the past witnessed many marvels of engineering prowess. As civilization grew, it was nourished and enhanced with the help of increasingly sophisticated tools for agriculture, technologies for producing textiles, and inventions transforming human interaction and communication. Inventions such as the mechanical clock and the printing press irrevocably changed civilization. In the modern era, the Industrial Revolution brought engineerings in uence to every niche of life, as machines supplemented and replaced human labor for countless tasks, improved systems for sanitation enhanced health, and the steam engine facilitated mining, powered trains and ships, and provided energy for factories. In the century just ended, engineering recorded its grandest accomplishments. The widespread development and distribution of electricity and clean water, automobiles and airplanes, radio and television, spacecraft and lasers, antibiotics and medical imaging, and computers and the Internet are just some of the highlights from a century in which engineering revolutionized and improved virtually every aspect of human life. Find out more about the great engineering achievements of the 20th century from a separate NAE website: www.greatachievements.org. For all of these advances, though, the century ahead poses challenges as formidable as any from millennia past. As the population grows and its needs and desires expand, the problem of sustaining civilizations continuing advancement, while still improving the quality of life, looms more immediate. Old and new threats to personal and public health demand more effective and more readily available treatments. Vulnerabilities to pandemic diseases, terrorist violence, and natural disasters require serious searches for new methods of protection and prevention. And products and processes that enhance the joy of living remain a top priority of engineering innovation, as they have been since the taming of re and the invention of the wheel. In each of these broad realms of human concern sustainability, health, vulnerability, and joy of living specic grand challenges await engineering solutions. The worlds cadre of engineers will seek ways to put knowledge into practice to meet these grand challenges. Applying the rules of reason, the ndings of science, the aesthetics of art, and the spark of creative imagination, engineers will continue the tradition of forging a better future. Foremost among the challenges are those that must be met to ensure the future itself. The Earth is a planet of nite resources, and its growing population currently consumes them at a rate that cannot be sustained. Widely reported warnings have emphasized the need to develop new sources of energy, at the same time as preventing or reversing the degradation of the environment. Sunshine has long offered a tantalizing source of environmentally friendly power, bathing the Earth with more energy each hour than the planets population consumes in a year. But capturing that power, converting it into useful forms, and especially storing it for a rainy day, poses provocative engineering challenges. Another popular proposal for long-term energy supplies is nuclear fusion, the arti cial re-creation of the suns source of power on Earth. The quest for fusion has stretched the limits of engineering ingenuity, but hopeful developments suggest the goal of practical fusion power may yet be attainable. Engineering solutions for both solar power and nuclear fusion must be feasible not only technologically but also economically when compared with the ongoing use of fossil fuels. Even with success, however, it remains unlikely that fossil fuels will be eliminated from the planets energy-source budget anytime soon, leaving their environment-associated issues for engineers to address. Most notoriously, evidence is mounting that the carbon dioxide pumped into the air by the burning of fossil fuels is increasing the planets temperature and threatens disruptive effects on climate. Anticipating the continued use of fossil fuels, engineers have explored technological methods of capturing the carbon dioxide produced from fuel burning and sequestering it underground. A further but less publicized environmental concern involves the atmospheres dominant component, the element nitrogen. The biogeochemical cycle that extracts nitrogen from the air for its incorporation into plants and hence food has become altered by human activity. With widespread use of fertilizers and high-temperature industrial combustion, humans have doubled the rate at which nitrogen is

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 17/61 removed from the air relative to pre-industrial times, contributing to smog and acid rain, polluting drinking water, and even worsening global warming. Engineers must design countermeasures for nitrogen cycle problems, while maintaining the ability of agriculture to produce adequate food supplies. Chief among concerns in this regard is the quality and quantity of water, which is in seriously short supply in many regions of the world. Both for personal use drinking, cleaning, cooking, and removal of waste and large-scale use such as irrigation for agriculture, water must be available and sustainably provided to maintain quality of life. New technologies for desalinating sea water may be helpful, but small-scale technologies for local water purication may be even more effective for personal needs. Naturally, water quality and many other environmental concerns are closely related to questions of human health. While many of the health scourges of the past have been controlled and even eliminated by modern medicine, other old ones such as malaria remain deadly, and newer problems have remained resistant to medical advances, requiring new medical technologies and methods. One goal of biomedical engineering today is ful lling the promise of personalized medicine. Doctors have long recognized that individuals differ in their susceptibility to disease and their response to treatments, but medical technologies have generally been offered as one size ts all. Recent cataloging of the human genetic endowment, and deeper understanding of the bodys complement of proteins and their biochemical interactions, offer the prospect of identifying the speci c factors that determine sickness and wellness in any individual. An important way of exploiting such information would be the development of methods that allow doctors to forecast the bene ts and side effects of potential treatments or cures. Reverseengineering the brain, to determine how it performs its magic, should offer the dual bene ts of helping treat diseases while providing clues for new approaches to computerized arti cial intelligence. Advanced computer intelligence, in turn, should enable automated diagnosis and prescriptions for treatment. And computerized catalogs of health information should enhance the medical systems ability to track the spread of disease and analyze the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to prevention and therapy. Another reason to develop new medicines is the growing danger of attacks from novel disease-causing agents. Certain deadly bacteria, for instance, have repeatedly evolved new properties, conferring resistance against even the most powerful antibiotics. New viruses arise with the power to kill and spread more rapidly than disease-prevention systems are designed to counteract. As a consequence, vulnerability to biological disaster ranks high on the list of unmet challenges for biomedical engineers just as engineering solutions are badly needed to counter the violence of terrorists and the destructiveness of earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural dangers. Technologies for early detection of such threats and rapid deployment of countermeasures (such as vaccines and antiviral drugs) rank among the most urgent of todays engineering challenges. Even as terrorist attacks, medical epidemics, and natural disasters represent acute threats to the quality of life, more general concerns pose challenges for the continued enhancement of living. Engineers face the grand challenge of renewing and sustaining the aging infrastructures of cities and services, while preserving ecological balances and enhancing the aesthetic appeal of living spaces. And the external world is not the only place where engineering matters; the inner world of the mind should benet from improved methods of instruction and learning, including ways to tailor the minds growth to its owners propensities and abilities. Some new meth- ods of instruction, such as computer-created virtual realities, will no doubt also be adopted for entertainment and leisure, furthering engineerings contributions to the joy of living. The spirit of curiosity in individual minds and in society as a whole can be further promoted through engineering endeavors enhancing exploration at the frontiers of reality and knowledge, by providing new tools for investigating the vastness of the cosmos or the inner intricacy of life and atoms. All of these examples merely scratch the surface of the challenges that engineers will face in the 21st century. The problems described here merely illustrate the magnitude and complexity of the tasks that must be mastered to ensure the sustainability of civilization and the health of its citizens, while reducing individual and societal vulnerabilities and enhancing the joy of living in the modern world. None of these challenges will be met, however, without nding ways to overcome the barriers that block their accomplishment. Most obviously, engineering solutions must always be designed with economic considerations in mind for instance, despite environmental regulations, cheaper polluting technologies often remain preferred over more expensive, clean technologies. Engineers must also face formidable political obstacles. In many parts of the world, entrenched groups bene ting from old systems wield political power that blocks new enterprises. Even where no one group stands in the way of progress, the expense of new engineering projects can deter action, and meeting many of the centurys challenges will require unprecedented levels of public funding. Current government budgets for U.S. infrastructure improvement alone falls hundreds of billions of dollars short of estimated needs. Securing the funds necessary to meet all the great challenges will require both popular and political

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 18/61 support. Engineers must join with scientists, educators, and others to encourage and promote improved science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in the schools and enhanced ow of technical information to the public at large conveying not just the facts of science and engineering, but also an appreciation of the ways that scientists and engineers acquire the knowledge and tools required to meet societys needs. Public understanding of engineering and its underlying science will be important to support the calls for funding, as well as to enhance the prospect for successful adoption of new technologies. The ultimate users of engineerings products are people with individual and personal concerns, and in many cases, resistance to new ways of doing things will have to be overcome. Teachers must revamp their curricula and teaching styles to bene t from electronic methods of personalized learning. Doctors and hospital personnel will have to alter their methods to make use of health informatics systems and implement personalized medicine. New systems for drug regulation and approval will be needed when medicines are designed for small numbers of individuals rather than patient populations as a whole. A prime example where such a barrier exists is in the challenge of reducing vulnerability to assaults on cyberspace, such as identity theft and computer viruses designed to disrupt Internet traf c. Systems for keeping cyberspace secure must be designed to be compatible with human users cumbersome methods that have to be rigorously observed dont work, because people nd them inconvenient. Part of the engineering task will be discovering which approaches work best at ensuring user cooperation with new technologies.

Commons Neg 19/61

Turner Group 2011

Ozone
Innovation key to solve Ozone depletion Kolb '98 (Charles E. Kolb, president of Aerodyne Research "Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions", 3/11/98, http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/EPA_Research_ Development.asp// GHaspomer) Last year, the committee completed its deliberations and published a final report, Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions (National Academy Press, 1997). The report advocates a more comprehensive and integrated approach to our nation's environmental research and development (R&D) activities. Because we face environmental problems of unprecedented complexity, the committee maintains that the traditional practice of studying individual environmental problems and devising narrowly-focused control or remediation strategies to manage them will no longer suffice. The report highlights the need for developing a deeper scientific understanding of ecosystems, as well as studying the sociological and economic aspects of human interactions with the environment. To achieve these goals, the committee recommended a core research agenda for the Environmental Protection Agency that has three components. First, research is required to advance our understanding of the physical, chemical and biological processes underlying environmental systems, as well as the social and economic processes controlling our interactions with those systems. A more systematic understanding of environmental processes would inform and complement problem-focused R&D efforts, leading to more successful management strategies. Second, the committee advocated the development of more effective environmental research tools, including innovative measurement instruments and platforms, through exploitation of advances in electronic, electro-optical, computational, materials, aerospace, communication, and biological technologies. In addition, more sophisticated environmental models, and improved laboratory, data analysis, and assessment methods are needed. Third, the committee advocated sustained support for the design, implementation, and maintenance of environmental monitoring systems and for analysis, dissemination and archiving of long-term data sets. Scientists using the data from these monitoring networks would be able to establish environmental norms, identify trends, and determine if environmental management strategies are effective. Many environmental problems that we have attempted to understand and manage as isolated phenomena are, in fact, closely intertwined. For instance, a single pollutant species such as nitric oxide (NO), produced from the combustion engine of an automobile or aircraft, can: modify the rate of ozone depletion if released in the stratosphere; contribute to global warming by producing ozone, a powerful greenhouse gas, in the upper troposphere; trigger problems for a child with asthma by driving photochemical production of nitrogen dioxide and ozone in the atmospheric boundary layer; be oxidized to nitric acid and contribute to acid rain; or after oxidation be deposited as nitrate fouling a drinking water reservoir or adding to the eutrophication of a productive estuary. However, deposited nitrate ions can also serve as badly needed fertilizer for valuable wild or domesticated plants. Strategies designed to ameliorate one problem may exacerbate another. Our understanding of the complex temporal and spatial scales that characterize environmental problems is also evolving. Global issues, such as stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming, now compete for attention with regional problems, like health-threatening episodes of photochemical air pollution, aquifer contamination by toxic substances, and ecological effects of airborne acid and oxidant deposition. Pollutants emitted from a localized source often cause problems tens to tens-ofthousands of kilometers away, while mobile pollutant sources, such as commercial aircraft or long haul diesel trucks, can release pollutants over a wide geographical area in a single day. A wide range of time scales can also be important. A reactive hydrocarbon vapor molecule released from a gas pump nozzle can take only a few minutes to fuel the formation of ozone during a summer smog episode, while a chlorofluorocarbon molecule leaking from a refrigerator may survive in the atmosphere for over a century before releasing its ozonedestroying chlorine atoms in the stratosphere. Although the NRC report was requested by the EPA's Office of Research and Development, its findings and recommendations are relevant to other government agencies, many of which also focus R&D strategies on specific environmental problems. (The National Science Foundation is one notable and effective exception. The NRC report praised recent competitive research grant programs EPA/ORD has established in collaboration with the NSF.) Problem driven R&D should not be isolated from core research efforts directed at acquiring systematic understanding: a balance between them is required. All agencies with significant environmental R&D activities should consider investing in a core environmental R&D program. The NRC committee, which included members from the private sector, noted

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 20/61 that while industry and other private sector funding can be obtained for many problem-driven R&D activities, components of a core environmental R&D program are not likely to attract these funds. The core research funding will almost certainly have to come from enlightened federal and state R&D managers if we are to gain the expanded insights, improved tools and long-term data needed to make sound environmental decisions. The implementation and sustenance of meaningful core environmental R&D programs will be critical if the environmental science and engineering community is to adequately understand and manage current and future environmental problems. Ozone depletion results in extinction. Greenpeace, non-governmental environmental organization with offices in over 40 countries and with an international coordinating body, 1995, Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer,http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.

***Neoliberalism Good

Commons Neg 21/61

Turner Group 2011

AT: Poverty
Neoliberalism has internal checks against extreme poverty any alternative system is worse Altman '05 (Daniel Altman, assistant professor of economics at New York University's Stern School of Business, The International Herald Tribune, "Neoliberalism? It doesn't exist ;With Interest", 7/16/05, Lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic// ASpomer) In other words, opponents of free trade under the banner of neoliberalism must be dreaming they've never seen free trade in real life, and neither has anyone else. What seems to irk campaigners against globalization or a supposed neoliberalism is the idea that rich people are going to get richer at the expense of poor people. Yet this is not what free markets do. When big companies find cheaper labor or raw materials outside their wealthy homes, they may make a profit in the short term. But when their competitors a feature of free markets do the same, then the savings are passed on to consumers as lower prices. And it's not as though the poorer people who sold that labor and those raw materials did so unwillingly; though the working conditions and bargaining power of poor people employed by big foreign companies may be subpar, their only alternatives often are subsistence farming or no work at all. Meanwhile, the restriction of markets is responsible for keeping plenty of people poor, be they fruit farmers in Africa or the long-term unemployed in Western Europe. That is why demands for access to wealthy countries' export markets have crept their way into the vocabulary of the antipoverty lobbies. Yet strangely, the parties that claim to represent the poor in rich countries tirelessly defend the cumbersome labor regulations that prevent the young and the marginalized from finding work.

Sustained growth is the only way to combat poverty Hertz '02 (Noreena Hertz, Professor of Globalisation at Cambridge, The Washington Post, "THE SILENT TAKEOVERGlobal Capitalism andThe Death of Democracy", 7/7/02, Lexis// ASpomer) Hertz's history of the capitalist takeover begins a scant 20 years ago, with the rise of free-marketeers Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Since then, Hertz argues, laissez-faire economics and its corporate minions have spread everywhere, dispensing misery and hardship. "This global policy shift toward neoliberalism that took place during the 1980s and 1990s was supposed. . . to bring a convergence of living standards of richer and poorer nations," writes Hertz. "This never actually happened." But it is misleading to fault market reforms for failing to equalize living standards over two decades. Economists such as Harvard University's Lant Pritchett have shown that income divergence between poor and rich nations is a much older trend; several generations of high economic growth are needed for even dynamic poor countries to reach the living standards of the developed world. The relevant question, therefore, is how best to produce sustained growth. Here Hertz is helpful. "Capitalism is clearly the best system for generating wealth," she admits, "and free trade and open capital markets have brought unprecedented economic growth to most if not all the world." So, oddly, Hertz supports free trade in theory yet seems to abhor the corporations that engage in trade in practice -- as if the two were separable.

Neoliberalism solves poverty, patriarchy, and free-trade Chong '05 (Terence Chong, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Straits Times, "Globalisation has another defender, but he's found wanting;Book fails to address adequately role of strong govts. And issues are broader than just a defence of neoliberalism", 3/11/05, Lexis// ASpomer) But only briefly. President George W. Bush's subsequent war on terrorism and stoic faith-based convictions replaced national soul-searching with moral certainty. America must lead the way on different fronts: militarily, economically and politically. Free trade, freedom and democracy became its packaged gifts to the world. Globalisation was back on the agenda. Martin Wolf's Why Globalisation Works is one in the latest round of books since 9/11 pushing the free-market agenda. It sits alongside Jagdish Bhagwati's In Defence Of Globalisation and Tyler Cowen's more culturally oriented Creative Destruction. These books have two things in

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 22/61 common: They are written by economists and they make no distinction between globalisation and neoliberalism. The arguments in Why Globalisation Works are framed by a point-by-point examination and refutation of anti-globalisation claims. Mr Wolf's arguments are complex and well-furnished with statistics, but his thesis is simple: Globalisation is good. It is good because it is about deregulation and liberalisation, which is about sharing and exchange - both of which offer the best chance of ensuring the welfare of the largest number of people. The conditions of globalisation, such as improved communications, increased and cheaper travel and transportation, Mr Wolf argues, have made economic relations much less expensive. Given these opportunities, it is now, at least in theory, easier than ever to benefit from economic activity elsewhere. It would be plain foolishness to erect and maintain barriers that prevent one from seizing such opportunities. Mr Wolf offers the reader a historical tour by delving into the last 150 years of the global economy. He underlines the fact that there was a major trend towards liberalisation and globalisation - what he defines as the integration of economic activities via markets - at the close of the 19th century. Some may feel shortchanged by the duration of Mr Wolf's tour, with some venturing even further back to the Roman Empire or pointing to world religions as examples of 'proto-globalisation'. But the heart of the book lies in Part IV, where Mr Wolf focuses on multinational corporations, or MNCs, in the global economy. He dismisses the argument that MNCs exploit Third World workers through low wages. He asks: If MNCs are so bad, why are there queues to work in their factories? MNCs, in fact, offer workers better wages than do local companies. Mr Wolf cites a study of 20,000 factories in Indonesia showing that the average wage in MNCs in 1996 was 50 per cent higher than in local companies. Another argument often made by globalisation advocates like Mr Wolf is that MNCs offer Third World women a route to autonomy and dignity from a patriarchal society. He writes that while local traditions previously forbade Bangladeshi women from working in factories, the emergence of the clothing industry has resulted in women making up 95 per cent of its 1.4 million workforce. However, while critics do not take issue with the increased financial independence that globalisation brings to women, they do point to the social consequences such as changing power relations that place stress on the traditional family unit, something Mr Wolf does not adequately acknowledge. Mr Wolf tackles the critics of free trade with more success. He points to China and India and their rocketing growth rates as they open up their economies. He then states with empirical accuracy that never before have so large a proportion of the world's population enjoyed such huge increases in their standards of living.

Neoliberalism is changing philanthropy can solve poverty Business Times '11 (Teh Hooi Ling, Senior Correspondent, "Version 2.0: A kinder brand of capitalism;The system on the whole has worked well, and there're reasons to be hopeful for a better future", The Business Times Singapore, 3/26/11, Lexis// ASpomer) There is no denying that the capitalist system has proven to be the most effective way to lift the masses out of poverty. I was at Gokul Indian vegetarian restaurant last Sunday and one of the waiters, a man from China, started chatting with us. He told us how he wanted to see what's outside the Middle Kingdom but had no idea that he'd been recruited to work for an Indian restaurant in Singapore - especially given his barely existent English. Then he told us about how, in China today, prices for almost anything can vary widely. You can buy very cheap cigarettes, or very expensive ones. He went on to complain about the corruption in China, and how some people are getting wildly rich as a result. But then he added: 'But it's okay. On the whole, the government is doing a good job and life is getting better for almost everybody.' Yes, capitalism on the whole has worked well. But as Charlie Munger, vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and long-time partner of Warren Buffett, puts it: 'It isn't always that bad ideas cause bad outcomes, but good ideas taken to excess.' Many now are convinced that the Anglo-Saxon style of capitalism belongs to this category. A saner model perhaps is the one implemented by the Scandinavian countries - and numerous surveys actually showed, the people are happier for it. China too is cognisant of the dangers of going down the road of US-style capitalism, and is trying to introduce policies to steer it down a different path. But there are reasons to be hopeful for a better future. Not all the rich are consumed by accumulating wealth. The likes of Bill Gates and Mr Buffett are trying to round up

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 23/61 the world's rich to redistribute their wealth. And that movement seems to be gaining traction. For all we know, this could turned out to be the version 2.0 that capitalism is evolving into.

Commons Neg 24/61

Turner Group 2011

AT: Environment
The only pollution any of their cards talk about is space debris AND, NASA actively and effectively tracking space debris now, they are no threat UPI 11 (100 year running publisher and authority on science news) <http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/07/11/Space-debris-no-threat-to-shuttle-station/UPI99951310423744/> Debris from a dead Soviet-era satellite poses no threat to the International Space Station and the shuttle Atlantis currently docked with it, NASA says. The Space Surveillance Network operated by the U.S. military informed notified NASA of the orbiting piece of space junk Sunday. NASA began tracking the object's path to determine how close it might come to the station and the shuttle, SPACE.com reported Monday. "Mission Control has verified that the track of a piece of orbital debris will not be a threat to the International Space Station and space shuttle Atlantis," NASA officials in Houston said in a statement. "No adjustments to the docked spacecraft's orbit will be necessary to avoid the debris."More than 500,000 pieces of space junk, including the chunk of the defunct Soviet Cosmos 375 satellite currently being tracked, are cataloged and monitored in Earth's orbit, NASA officials said. Europe is cleaning up space debris in the squo, their methods are efficient MSNBC 11 (World authoritative source for news on science and scientific conductions) <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42417430/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/europe-creating-spacedebris-tracker-its-own/> Human spacefarers and satellites constantly dodge a cloud of dangerous debris left over from orbital traffic accidents and launches. Now the European Space Agency has taken itsfirst steps toward creating its own space surveillance system that could track thousands of objects per second.One such step takes the form of demonstrator radar that will eventually lead to a system capable of tracking 15,000 to 20,000 objects on the radar for at least 10 seconds each day. Having such awareness represents a necessity when even the tiniest space debris can destroy satellites or cause serious damage while traveling at speeds of 17,400 mph not even space glue could salvage the situation. "(The new surveillance system) can observe a large number of objects simultaneously, detecting their position to a high degree of accuracy and sensitivity," said Andreas Brenner, a department head at the Fraunhofer Institute for High Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques in Wachtberg, Germany. The radar technology also must be able to track debris particles just a few centimeters in diameter. Threats from space debris have only grown in recent years. A satellite collision between U.S. and Russian counterparts in February 2009 added to the cloud of space junk. The International Space Station already has to dodge such debris four to five times each year.Fraunhofer researchers plan to focus on designing the receiver array for the radar, while a Spanish company called Indra Espacio builds the transmitter. Indra Espacio holds the demonstrator radar contract from the European Space Agency (ESA) worth $2 million. European space missions currently rely upon the U.S. Space Surveillance Network to track the smaller pieces of debris in their path. ESA is setting the stage for the European version of such a system to take shape between 2012 and 2019. Just how the European system would fit with U.S. tracking capabilities remains unknown, but keeping electronic eyes on space is necessary if humanity hopes to harness space solar power or launch interplanetary missions that can travel safely in space.

Neoliberalism is becoming connected with environmentalist movements which will solve the environment Girdwood '08 (John Girdwood, works at the Faculty of Economics and Busines at the University of Sydney, "Rethinking sustainability, neo-liberalism and environmentalmanagerialism in accounting", 2008,http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/56614/Rethinking_neoliberalism.pdf// ASpomer)

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 25/61 Liberal Governmentality, Management Rationality and Environmental Discourse: Co-emergence of neoliberalisms and environmentalisms The western political project of neo-liberalism was the countering and reassembling of the discursive truth claims and other social and institutional practices associated with social liberal regimes of government, their public administration management regimes, as assemblages of practice, and systems of social security. This links with another western political project environmentalism, countering, marginalising and silencing the economic reason of industrialism and the enduring discourse of industrial society. This discourse was mainly formulated in terms of a social liberal politics of hope through unlimited nation building and economic growth built on the unlimited exploitation of apparently infinite natural resources. An ideal of Western lifestyles of a good life (Dryzek, 1997) became characterized by post World War II twentieth century North American industrial society and by North American norms and standards of living built on household goods and service consumption; white family formation; highly educated and technically skilled professional, scientists and tradesmen; and the loyal company male worker in the manufacturing industries. This followed the post World War II decline of industrial society associated with British and European imperialisms. Further, political discourses linking managerialism and environmentalism have emerged limited to the technical modalities of managerialism as a form of economic reason. There are a number of thematic threads in mainstream political debate and policy formulation about making the environment manageable enabled by the political authority of sustainability. The emergence of this political discourse on policy and the environment privileging administrative rationalism (Dryzek, 1997), democratic pragmatism (Dryzek, 1997; Eckersley, 1992; Light & Katz, 1996) and market economism (Dryzek, 1997) are not necessarily mutually exclusive and, as is argued here, different styles of neo-liberalism under particular historical circumstances and specific contexts have tended to differently configure these thematic threads and privilege some over others. For example, advanced liberal reason tended to privilege a specific form of market economism as a policy framework shaped by the intellectual technologies of the Chicago School of economics (Marginson, 1993) dispersed internationally by mobilized agencies and disciples of North American norms and standards formulated and modeled as worlds best practice or the US model (Djelic, 1998). Further in the North American context, advanced liberal reason made problematic for government key elements of neo-social liberalism and its new public administration (Harmon & Mayer, 1986) associated with Third Way politics (Rose, 2000) such as administrative rationalism with its particular privileging of managers and other experts (Dryzek, 1997) and also environmental or democratic pragmatism with its particular privileging of the voice of the people (Dryzek, 1997). This section therefore explores these linkages between liberal styles of thinking, management rationality and environmental discourses, focusing on the shifts from social liberal styles of thinking, to advanced liberal and neo-social liberal styles. Only a market-driven approach can solve the environment Straight '09 (Straight.com is an online newspaper in Vancouver, "Can capitalism save the Earth from climate change?", 12/17/09, http://www.straight.com/article-275310/vancouver/can-capitalism-save-earth//ASpomer) These days, groups like the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation are playing an increasingly big role in the national and provincial climate-change debate. This concerns David Peerla, a former Greenpeace forestry campaigner who wrote a PhD thesis on environmentalists tactics. Good environmental campaigning and good social-justice campaigning makes the production process more transparent, he said in a recent interview at the Georgia Straight office. He claimed that business environmentalism, on the other hand, is characterized by backroom deals with companies and governments that inhibit transparency. And in Peerlas eyes, the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation are more interested in playing the insideOttawa, inside-Victoria, inside-the-corporate-boardroom game than traditional, grassroots B.C. environmentalists, who have sometimes engaged in civil disobedience to force changes. Lets just take the slogan cap and trade, Peerla said. There are two styles of campaign. Cap people are like old-time toxics fightersblock the pipe, end the industrytheyre the guys who say No. In this camp, he listed Greenpeace, the Wilderness Committee, and people fighting run-of-river power projects. Peerla contrasted the cap folks with the trade people in the environmental movement, who embrace market solutions to environmental problems. These groups, including the David Suzuki Foundation, favour run-of-river power because the emergency is so great that only businesses can move quickly enough to bring about solutions. This looks to me like a Naomi Klein disaster-capitalism scenario, he noted. Theres a disaster. The planet is on fire. Therefore,

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 26/61 the solution is capitalism, which is ironic given what happened on Wall Street just recently. The marketoriented environmentalists trumpet trade, such as the sale of energy-efficient light bulbs and organic juice. And he said that those cap environmentalists who practise civil disobedience will rarely get money from U.S. foundations. Peerla cited Tzeporah Berman, a Cortes Island climate-change campaigner, as an example of an activist who crossed over from practising civil disobedience to embracing business environmentalism. In her 20s, she led protests against clear-cut logging in Clayoquot Sound. Then Berman became a negotiator to save the forest. Now, she calls herself a facilitator, Peerla said. Whats the next step?Corporate director? Berman, like Suzuki, has spoken out in favour of carbon-neutral, run-of-river power as a necessary measure to combat climate change. Peerla, however, said it appears to him that there is no transparency and no accountability in the approval of these projects. He speculated that the premier might go so far as to eliminate the B.C. Utilities Commission as a necessary measure to deal with a planetary emergency. This would please former mining speculators who now stake their claims on B.C. rivers. Again, its the trade-style solution, Peerla claimed. He added that Wall Street capitalists are licking their chops at the prospect of trading carbon credits in response to the disaster of climate change. Some are saying thats the next speculative bubble, he said.

Capitalism fixes any environmental problems it creates Ozone hole proves The Left Winger '09 ("Can Capitalism Save the Environment?", 5/9/09, http://theleftwinger.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/cancapitalism-save-the-environment//ASpomer) Capitalism is an extremably maleable, versatile system, adaptable to a myriad of conditions. Bourgeois democracy is the centre of capitalism adaptability and has shown time and time again that it will step in way ahead of time to start patching up things until a next pressing problem shows up. Or have we forgotten how we were all going to die from the Ozone layer hole? If we consider the current big ecological crisis (Global Warming) it is a lot less threatening than the hole in the ozone layer which is not to say that capitalism will ignore it. It does not help that environmentalists seem to disregard human life so much that they can never put the issue in human terms; it is always some butterfly or some weird reptile or the goddamn fucking polar bears. Look, I have nothing against polar bear but the fact is that species will adapt the their changing environment or die. It happensanarquismo everyday and it is a tenet of the evolutionary process. It is also important for the evolutionary process that species fight to save their own species, so I wonder why the hell the human cost of global warming famine and drought, tsunamis and flood and the complete and utter destruction of many, many coastal cities and sometimes whole island nations all that gets barely mentioned. All I hear about is the goddamn fucking polar bear Capitalism can save the environment but it will do it for its own purposes. It will do it for continued exploitation, for throughout enslavement to its system of production and consumption. It will take care of it the same way and for the same reasons that it takes care of the working-class for profit.

Commons Neg 27/61

Turner Group 2011

Status Quo Solves Jose JOHNSTON, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto, 2003 Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, Who Cares about the Commons? B.A. in political science from McGill University, and a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Alberta. She spent two years at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto as a SSHRC post-doctoral fellow before joining the Department of Sociology, December 2003, [Stolarski] While the sustainability lexicon is now ubiquitous in business circles, the discourse of "the commons" has rising cultural cachet within the global justice movement.7 Goldman's survey of the term concludes: The commons - a material and symbolic reality, always changing, never purely local or global, traditional or modern, and always reflecting the vibrant colors of its ecological, political cultural, scientific and social character - is not at all disappearing into the dustbin of history. The contrary, we find that the commons are increasingly becoming a site for robust and tangible struggles over class, gender, nation/ethnicity, knowledge, power and, of course, nature. Obama Declares Commons Jakhu and Buzdugan 11 (Ram and Maria, Professor Kakhu is the chairman of the legal and regulatory committee of international association for the advancement of space safety and a member of the board of the international institute of the space law international astronautical federation, Maria Buzdugan is a member of the institute of air and space law, The Space: Now and then) Obama in his last speech about budget allocations clearly stated that NASA is an important part of the United States and also the world. Today space is the common heritage of mankind and NASAs advancements are nothing but technological security of human beings. He further stated Today I invite all space faring nation to join us in a technological viable coordination to boost the humanities barrier to explore space and find futher explore our planet earth. The UN solves empirically proven George B. Dietrich, Founder and President of SPACE Canada, 02 Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Extending the Principle of the Common Heritage of Mankind to Outer Space, July, 2002, http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate? folder_id=0&dvs=1309455662625~871, [Stolarski] A series of UN resolutions followed the launching of Sputnik, furthering international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space and culminating in the adoption in 1963 of the UN Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space Treaty," and in harming nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. Thus the United Nations quickly became the focal point in the development of space law. Discourse on the commons is happening now (could this be used as an inherency take out Bollier( David Bollier , co-founded the Commons Strategy Group, a consulting project that works to promote the commons internationally) 07 The Growth of the Commons Paradigm 2007 http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4975/GrowthofCommonsParadigm.pdf;jsessionid=B B58D234F012FEE4A5E63B8FB9DA6477?sequence=1[Pitman] The spread of the commons discourse in recent years has had a double effect: it has helped identify new commons and, in providing a new public discourse, it has helped develop these commons by enabling people to see them as commons. In this sense, the commons is a new (i.e., newly recognized) cultural form that is unfolding in front of us. The discourse of the commons is at once descriptive, constitutive and expressive. It is descriptive because it identifies models of community governance that would otherwise go unexamined. It is
constitutive because, by giving us a new language, it helps us to build new communities based on principles of the commons. And it is expressive because the language of the commons is a way for people to assert a personal connection to a set of resources and a social solidarity with each other.

Commons Now

***Inherency

Commons Neg 28/61

Turner Group 2011

Neoliberalism Now
Neoliberalism has already taken over the world Business Times '11 (Teh Hooi Ling, Senior Correspondent, "Version 2.0: A kinder brand of capitalism;The system on the whole has worked well, and there're reasons to be hopeful for a better future", The Business Times Singapore, 3/26/11, Lexis// ASpomer) Capital moves geographically and sectorally. The financial crisis of 2008 has moved from the financial sector to the state sector. Total non-responsibility - this is the whole history of what neoliberalism is all about, he asserted. Neoliberalism is the capitalism we know today. It describes a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics. This ideology, which started to take off in the 1970s, stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalised trade and relatively open markets. In line with that, political and economic priorities of the state are to maximise the role of the private sector. 'The IMF rescued Mexico (in 1994) so that the New York bankers could get their pay-offs. They saved the financial system, but dumped the mess on the people. Mexico's GDP fell by 25 per cent after that, this was then followed by privatisations and redistributions through all the criminal activities and the rest of it,' he said. 'The story line which has been going on since the 70s is this: Capital always seeks to maximise certain externalities. That is, it tries to take certain of its real costs and shove them elsewhere so it doesn't have to pay for them.' The two areas where costs are being inflicted are the environment and social reproduction. Social reproduction does not just involve the bearing, raising, socialisation and education of children as well as care for other dependents in the population (disabled, sick, elderly). It also entails the preservation of civilisations, cultures and of a society where everyone has equal opportunity to progress and to share in what the earth has to offer. Prof Harvey points out that capital now controls much of the politics around the world. 'The party of Wall Street dominates the Congress. And it's going to push and push to prevent the internalisation of the environmental costs. And it's going to push and push to externalise the costs of social reproduction.' The gain in the power of capital has led to quite astonishing consequences. The top 20 per cent of the world is getting 85 per cent of the income. And with many countries in the world in such poor financial states, with persistent budget deficits and alarmingly high public debts relative to GDP, there is now increasing pressure for governments to cut back on their budgets. 'With the state withdrawing, what's going to happen to the bottom 20 per cent of society?' The anti-tax brigades, said Prof Harvey, were very strongly being mobilised to get the state out of social provision.

Commons Neg 29/61

Turner Group 2011

Collapse inevitable
Neoliberalism collapse inevitable Business Times '11 (Teh Hooi Ling, Senior Correspondent, "Version 2.0: A kinder brand of capitalism;The system on the whole has worked well, and there're reasons to be hopeful for a better future", The Business Times Singapore, 3/26/11, Lexis// ASpomer) Inflection point So capital has trumped labour big time. Labour has been disempowered by the dismantling of labour unions. 'Unions don't have the power they used to have, so politicians don't have to listen to them anymore.' Instead, they listen to capital now. However, capital is at its inflection point in its history, said Prof Harvey. As Marx noted, accumulation for accumulation's sake, production for production's sake is getting harder and harder to sustain. Historically, capitalism has grown at 2.25 per cent a year and when it is doing well, it can grow at above 3 per cent a year. Now, however, given the size of the global population, a 3 per cent a year growth cannot go on indefinitely. The externalities will be tremendous. Prof Harvey says citizens today have political choices. In the 1970s, neo-liberalism won. There is an opportunity now to articulate counter politics. 'We need to create a party that's anti-Wall Street. Plutocrats, they need to be confronted and they need to be taxed.'

Commons Neg 30/61 A. Our Interpretations

Turner Group 2011

1NC Shell Exploration/Development

First Space development includes one of seven types of projects Hsu and Cox Feng, Ph.D. is a Sr. Fellow, Aerospace Technology Working Group and Ken, Ph.D., is a Founder and Director Aerospace Technology Working Group 9 ( An Aerospace Technology Working Group White Paper Version 2.1.1, Sustainable Space Exploration and Space Development: A Unified Strategic Vision, March 29, 2009, http://www.spacerenaissance.org/papers/A-UnifiedSpaceVision-Hsu-Cox.pdf) Even with adequate reform in its governance model, NASA would not be the right institution to lead or manage the nations business in Space Development projects. Human space development activities, such as creation of affordable launch vehicles, RLVs, space-based solar power, space tourism, communication satellites, and transEarth or trans-lunar space transportation infrastructure systems are primarily commercial development endeavors that are not only cost-benefit-sensitive in project management, but also subject to fundamental business principles related to profitability, sustainability, and market development Second Space Exploration is the investigation of the physical condition of space via artificial satellites, space probes, or manned spacecrafts Columbia Encyclopedia 2007(The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia: Space Exploration <http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/space+exploration>) space exploration, the investigation of physical conditions in space and on stars, planets, and other celestial bodies through the use of artificial satellites (spacecraft that orbit the earth), space probes (spacecraft that pass through the solar system and that may or may not orbit another celestial body), and spacecraft with human crews B. Violation the aff is not included on the list of development projects AND does explore space with probes or spacecrafts. C. Voting Issue 1. Limits world of unlimited plans makes it impossible to be negative explodes the research burden to the point we lose topic-specific and in-depth education 2. Ground they steal key core negative ground their aff is the Capitalism Kritik we lose this argument against this aff they have to defend that space policies are good.

***Topicality

Commons Neg 31/61

Turner Group 2011

2NC Overview
Our interpretation is that the Aff is neither space development or space exploration because it either is not on the list of development projects or it does not use probes to investigate space. The key standard is limits a world of their broad interpretation justifies countless affs from creating an astronomy club to increasing science classes in schools with a different curriculum anything that may change our thinking about space. This is a horrible world for the negative for several reasons: First, it kills our ability to garner in-depth education hundreds of affs force skant research, low clash in rounds, and generally little deep discussion of a topic. Theres a reason we have 6 classes in school over 20 learning broad but not deep doesnt teach you anything. Second, it kills predictability there is simply no way we can guess what the aff is, no way we can prepare a strong negative strategy if the aff can select anything that possibly relates to space then no solid DAs can be run and no CPs with a solvency differential can be found.. Third, the unique nature of this aff steals away negative ground their aff is a Cap K and thus we are prevented from running a highly popular and important argument on our side. We wont give them a topical version of the aff, but there is a topical mechanism thats to run the Cap K on the negative. Lastly, we have a caselist of topical affs under our interpretation 1) launch vehicles, 2) SPS, 3) space tourism affs, 4) launching communications satellites, 5) Suborbital or lunar transportation. And under exploration they garner a broad array of activities but only through launching physical probes. They do neither.

Commons Neg 32/61

Turner Group 2011

2NC FX Bad
These multiple steps are bad for several independent reasons a.) Effectual Planks are unpredictable: They force the neg to research each plan backwards looking at all of the numerous steps. This creates an impossible research burden killing fairness. b.) They Steal Ground: They can spike out of all of our DAs because none of our links will ever assume all steps and planks c.) Kill Topic Education: Instead of debating about space, we debate about a multitude of unrelated planks d.) Infinitely Regressive: They could have a million steps to implement and still be considered topical e.) FX is an independent voting issue for fairness and education

Commons Neg 33/61

Turner Group 2011

2NC Its Card

NASA ownership is the vehicles it launches not international projects Garriot, 7/17/11 Richard, U.S. space tourist, crew member on the 18th mission to the ISS, http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/with-shuttles-end-a-new-space-era-begins-1615677.html Today, every NASA robotic space probe flies aboard commercial rockets, the same rockets that private sector companies buy to launch their own satellites and experiments. But historically, NASA has always owned the vehicles that its astronauts rode into space. What is changing is merely this procurement method. Instead of buying a vehicle, NASA is buying rides, just like it does for satellites. That small change has created a revolution.

Commons Neg 34/61

Turner Group 2011

A2: Kritik of Topicality

1. TOPICALITY ESTABLISHES THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE ENTIRE ROUND. Either sides ability to make any kind of argument, including critical arguments, stems from the necessity for the Affirmative plan to be topical. 2. TOPICALITY IS A CENTRAL AFFIRMATIVE BURDEN. Merely because the critical performance of the Affirmative is beneficial in some sense does not obviate the Affirmative of the burden to affirm the resolution. 3. TOPICALITY IS AN A PRIORI ISSUE. Topicality happens above the board, meaning it is an argument that takes place prior to when the debate game begins. Entering a critical argument into the debate game may be beneficial, but the Affirmative must first meet certain burdens before the game begins.

Commons Neg 35/61

Turner Group 2011

CHM cant achieve equality in space private development is key Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The
Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1

Private Actor

A CHM in space is not the best way to achieve greater equality in the international system. As has been stated, the OST
makes no mention of private activity in outer space. Cosmic mining appears as a utopian dream rather than a practical possibility. The following four space treaties also neglect commercial exploitation and natural resources. This omission prompted Judge Manfred Lachs, former President of the ICJ to say The

Law of Outer Space has grown to become a body of substantial principles and rules which are generally accepted, but as science and technology penetrate space at an enormous speed, much more remains to be done.204 In contrast to
treaties were drafted.

UNCLOS, as of March 2004, the OST has been ratified by 98 nations (including the US) giving it the strength of customary international law and thus making this accord binding on all states. One way to explain this discrepancy is the differences in technological capabilities available in deep seabed mining versus space exploration when these

The technological envelope in space was only beginning to be pushed when the OST was being formulated. Sputnik was launched only a year before COPUOS began work on the treaty. Deep seabed mining had advanced far more by the time of UNCLOS 1982.
the thesis that as competition

Similarly, with the prospect of an ice-free Northwest Passage, commercial activity in the Arctic also seems like much less of a commercial impracticability. These facts support

spurs technological progress to reach hitherto unattainable resources, law should similarly reacts to allow for greater private development but not without multilateral cooperation. Lessons should be learned form the broad vision for space was accepted over practicability of application. If left unchecked, abrasive politics can quickly hinder progress as seen when the Cold War intervened when it was time to decide a governing regime for the Moon.205

***Counteradvocacies

Commons Neg 36/61

Turner Group 2011

A revolution in America could create the commons Bollier( David Bollier , co-founded the Commons Strategy Group, a consulting project that works to promote the commons internationally) 07 The Growth of the Commons Paradigm 2007 http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4975/GrowthofCommonsParadigm.pdf;jsessionid=B B58D234F012FEE4A5E63B8FB9DA6477?sequence=1[Pitman]
Champions of the precautionary principle in environmental law have also situated their work within the commons framework.9 The precautionary principle holds that any proponents of new risks have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm; it is neither ethical nor cost-effective to pay compensation for harm, after the fact, as many corporations prefer. What

Social Movement

unites these different invocations of the commons is their appeal to a fundamental social ethic that is morally binding on everyone. They are asserting the importance of ethical norms that may or may not yet be recognized in law. In the American polity, the will of the people precedes and informs the law. The sentiment of we the people is the preeminent source of moral authority and power, separate and apart from the interests of the market and the state. While the law is supreme, it is not synonymous with the will of the people, which is always struggling to express
and codify itself.

Social movements on the local level help communities fight economic struggles Detroit and San Francisco improve Mascar, Michelle (commons activist and writer for the commons - On the Commons has sparked collaborations, showcased commons-based solutions at the community and national level, developed approaches of how to share our commons equitably and given inspiration to commons activists to make a difference in their communities and the world) 10 Toward a World of Many Worlds june 17th, 2010 http://onthecommons.org/toward-world-many-worlds

Strategy So far- with the exception of groups like the Indigenous Environmental Network, Kentuckians For the Commonwealth and other environmental justice forces- the

social movement left has been largely absent from climate or other ecological justice debates. Its as if the system has created so many little fires for us to fight in our distinct organizations, issue sectors, and communities that were missing the tidal wave that is about to hit. We need a canopy-level view of the crises that capitalism has created. We need a strategy of building movements and communities of resistance, resilience, and reimagining. We can do this wherever we are- through our housing, immigration rights, or economic justice struggles- by weaving in new frames and organizing models that build on our peoples wisdoms, gather up critical resources, and spark imaginations. There are exciting examples of this happening around the country that we

can learn from. These are the seeds of what we might call Liberated Zones, spaces where com heir local resources and begin to shift to more cooperative modes of meeting needs. This is an important way to break out of the hegemony that boxes us in.munity members take control of t In Detroit, local organizers and residents have been reclaiming abandoned lots for gardens as a way to provide for local needs while taking control of local resources and the land. Meanwhile, developers are looking at that same resource as a mine for a new wave of green growth. In Detroit, private developers have already invested at least $30 million buying up vacant property to convert large areas back to agriculture. The moment of transition is upon us and if a coordinated Social Movement Left doesnt act fast to reclaim resources for the common good, those resources will just shift hands and continue to be exploited for profit-generation at the increasing expense of the poor. In

San Francisco, POWER is adding an ecological lens to its work building organized power amongst working-class communities of color. The organization has steadily begun shifting from solely fighting against green-washing of dirty development to taking a proactive and visionary approach to winning. Having learned that the SF Unified School District is the largest landholder in the city, POWER is working towards winning rights to use schoolyards for farmers markets, gardens, community meeting spaces, and more. These experiments in places like Detroit and San Francisco can help write a new story in which the people reclaim the commons and begin to forge local, living, participatory economies. In fostering economic and ecological justice in liberated zones, people can also begin to name and heal the spiritual and emotional crises created by oppression and exploitation. Gardens, for example, can become places to heal emotional wounds as well as learn to foster healthy working relationships. Mascar, Michelle (commons activist and writer for the commons) 10 Toward a World of Many Worlds june 17th, 2010 http://onthecommons.org/toward-world-many-worlds Shifting from Get Mine to Share Ours Another central task is to win the infrastructure that helps move us from a get mine world to a share ours world. Grace Lee Boggs, for example, talks about a revolution for self-determination. One key step in this process will be winning a new world framework that gives communities local control over resources. Ultimately, this is what we want to win through the UN climate negotiations process that is moving from Copenhagen to Mexico City in November 2010. We need to win the decentralization and democratization of the control of resources: food, water, land and energy. Communities require these resources in order to begin fostering the local, living and participatory economies that will move us off the catastrophic trajectory that we are now on. A second key step towards a world driven by sharing resources will be shifting from a green growth to a green needs
economic agenda. In the U.S., we consume 18 times more resources in our daily lives than do people in India; we simply cannot continue to live in the ways were living. To begin with, we will need to live more compactly and cooperatively. As

people begin live more densely and cooperatively. we will need

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 37/61 more peer counselors, facilitators, organizers, mediators, and educators to help reweave the fabric of our communities. We need to restore our ability to communicate and work together, nurturing the means for democratic systems on a human community level. Well need the capacity to relate to each other, organize ourselves, make the decisions that affect our lives and our world, and work together to get things done. This means that we need to fight for compensation for the meaningful work that sustains people and places, rather than just fighting for green jobs in a growth-driven capitalist economy. Shifting the debate to focus on meeting peoples real needs- materially but also on social and emotional levels- will be critical to winning a just transition. Some of the most crucial green roles will be therapists, healers, coaches, mediators, teachers, organizers, and facilitators as well as bus drivers, farmers, greywater plumbers, and repair people. So, as a Left, we need to move the debate from green construction sites to kitchen tables. That means that we need to value social labor and the invisible work of weaving community which is mostly done by women- more visible. CP is key to spur social movements that can fight genocide, inequality, militarization, and environment problems Mascar, Michelle (commons activist and writer for the commons - On the Commons has sparked collaborations, showcased commons-based solutions at the community
and national level, developed approaches of how to share our commons equitably and given inspiration to commons activists to make a difference in their communities and the world) 10 Toward a World of Many Worlds june 17th, 2010 http://onthecommons.org/toward-world-many-worlds Conclusion The

social movement left can garner immense strength from this moment. We have the chance to birth a new politic that can re-inspire Left activists to see themselves as architects of a new world, a self-conception that we have been missing since the 1960s. If we fail to reorient our organizations and movements to win this new world, we risk a nightmarish sci-fi future of ever-increasing militarization, inequality, and genocide. In
Copenhagen, G77 chair Lumumba Stanislaus Di-aping helped to unite much of the global south to reject the catastrophic deal that the rich nations wanted. Presidents Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez then

helped to frame the possibilities of uniting around an anti-capitalist vision: the only way to actually cut greenhouse gas emissions to head off the worst effects of climate chaos. As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said, Copenhagen is not the end, I repeat, but a beginning: the doors have been opened for a universal debate on how to save the planet, life on the planet. The battle continues. Many of the ideas and frames contained in this article (but not its errors) come out of the
collective brain of Movement Generation.

Commons Neg 38/61

Turner Group 2011

CDR- common but differentiated responsibility achieves equity better than CHM giving states different degrees of responsibility based on circumstances Okereke, Chukwumerije (Dr Chukwumerije Okereke is a Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Climate and Development centre at the Smith School. He is a renowned policy analysis and development specialist.) 08 Equity Norms in Global Environmental Governance Global Environmental Politics Volume 8, Number 3 August 2008 As an equity concept, CDR has dual grounding.43 The first is culpability. On this dimension, the historical pressures developed countries placed on the global environment44 and the subsequent need for them to take responsibility in dealing with the problems caused is emphasized. The second dimension is capability, stressing the superior technological and financial and resources commanded by the developed countries and their strong leverage to act in support of ecological protection. The developing countries tend to favor the first grounding while the developed countries incline to the second. There are at least three notable ways in which the norm of CDR has been given expression in global environmental regimes. The first is through what Stone calls differential substantive requirements.45 An example is the Basel Convention on the Control Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal where OECD countries are banned from shipping hazardous wastes to developing countries. The second is through agreeing a more favorable compliance timetable for developing member countries: a notable instance here is the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer where developing countries are given a 10-year grace period to comply with the provisions restricting the use of ozone depleting substances. Thirdly, CDR is expressed in the form of support to some state parties in order to enable them comply or absorb the costs of compliance. Many environmental treaties contain (if not hinge on) provisions for technical assistance, technology and financial transfers from developed to developing countries. It has been suggested, though, that by
far the most significant presence of CDR in global environmental regimes so far is in the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC46 which not only differentiates among different developed countries but exempts the developing countries from undertaking quantified emissions reduction targets. Further, developed

Common Differentiated Responsibility

countries are required to transfer technology and financial resources to the developing countries in addition to those agreed through other multilateral agreements. Moreover, it is also clearly stated that The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement
their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology.47 All

of the above suggests that CDR has been relatively more successful than CHM. It has obviously more density in terms of usage and has seemingly secured more in terms of practical actions from states than CHM.
However, going by the wrangling that continues to characterize climate change negotiations and the extremely low level of support that many developing countries receive in the context of the regimes which purport to be based on CDR, the success of CDR as an equity norm is still moderate.

Commons Neg 39/61

Turner Group 2011

Text: The United States federal government should withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty. The plan solidifies a tragedy of the anti-commons which discourages space exploration Hickman, 7 John, associate professor in the Department of Government and International Studies at Berry College in Mt. Berry, Georgia [9/24, The Space Review, Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/960/1] BDD The core legal principle of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty declared that everywhere beyond the atmosphere to be res communis, an international commons rather akin to the international waters of the open oceans on Earth, rather than terra nullius, the sort of territory that is unclaimed yet claimable by states as sovereign territory. In what was then stirring, and today preposterous, language of the agreement, all of outer space was declared the Common Home of Mankind to be explored and exploited by all countries and for the benefit of all humanity. There are two patently obvious flaws in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, one tragic and the other silly. The tragic flaw is that it created an anti-commons. The general problem is that establishing a commons runs the risk of creating perverse incentives. Where the commons is easy to exploit the likely result is the degradation of its renewable resources. That much has been understood by public policymakers at least since publication of Garret Hardins influential essay The Tragedy of the Commons. Less appreciated is that establishing a commons can also establish an anti-commons. Eliminating the possibility of reaping rewards from a desired activity discourages that desired activity. When the 1967 Outer Space Treaty eliminated the possibility that states could claim territory on the final frontier it also extinguished an important motivation for states and private firms to engage in exploration and development. Had the policy purpose of the treaty been wilderness preservation in outer space then today it would be declared a smashing success. Beyond low Earth orbit, outer space remains a wilderness that benefits no one except astronomers and stargazing lovers. Yet the ostensible policy purpose of the agreement was to encourage space exploration and development in a manner that benefits humanity as a whole. As such, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was an abysmal failure. While there are other reasons for the effective closing of the space frontier beyond low Earth orbit with the last Apollo Missions to the Moonthe relaxation of Cold War tensions in the 1970s gave the superpowers less reason to compete and their other budget priorities competed with space programsthe diplomats and politicians who foisted the treaty onto an unwitting humanity in 1967 deserve much of the credit. Their negotiations resulted in a near-quarantine of humans on Earth and low Earth orbit and only anemic efforts to explore our solar system via unmanned space programs. Depriving states of the right to claim sovereign national territory on solid celestial bodies has discouraged more energetic space exploration and development in the same manner that depriving property developers of the right to purchase real property would discourage their investment. One need to not applaud each and every property development project to recognize the economic value of property development to society, and the same may be said of the efforts of states in claiming and governing new territories. That idea that states are no longer interested in claiming new territory is belied by the Russian Federations recent claim under the Convention on the Laws of the Sea to the 1.2 million square kilometers of the Lomonosov Ridge in the Arctic. Extinction is inevitable without acquiring space resources Garan, 10 Astronaut (Ron, 3/30/10, Speech published in an article by Nancy Atkinson, The Importance of Returning to the Moon, http://www.universetoday.com/61256/astronaut-explains-why-we-should-return-tothe-moon/, JMP) Resources and Other Benefits: Since we live in a world of finite resources and the global population continues to grow, at some point the human race must utilize resources from space in order to survive. We are already constrained by our limited resources, and the decisions we make today will have a profound affect on the future of humanity. Using resources and energy from space will enable continued growth and the spread of prosperity to the developing world without destroying our planet. Our minimal investment in space exploration (less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget) reaps tremendous intangible benefits in almost every aspect of society, from technology development to high-tech jobs. When we reach the point of sustainable space operations we will be able to transform the world from a place where nations quarrel over scarce resources to one where the basic needs of all people are met and we unite in the common adventure of exploration. The first step is a sustainable permanent human lunar settlement.

Outer Space Treaty

Commons Neg 40/61

Turner Group 2011

The space commons discourages space exploration and is less equitable a competitive regime is necessary. Dolman, '2 (Everett C Dolman is Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Forces School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Astropolitik. Pg 134) The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits all nuclear detonations in space, and set the stage for the more comprehensive Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that followed. Signed only by those states who had nuclear capability at the time, and those who anticipated never having it, the treaty further requires that signatories refrain from so much as encouraging such detonations by any party, to include the distribution of technology, resources, or financial assistance that may go toward the development of such a capacity. Specifically, however, the treaty does not cover/condemn accidental explosions by a nuclear-powered spacecraft. Such is the chance we take. The 1977 Environmental Modification Convention (ratified by the United States in 1980) prohibits states from modifying the environment in any way in order to damage another state party. This includes the possibility of such fanciful armaments as earthquake and typhoon weapons, one supposes, but also covers the manipulation of resources to change the natural dynamics of Earth development. It specifically adds space to this prohibition. It does not, however, limit the development and testing of environmental modification techniques. Not all international treaties and conventions have been so committed to the socialized exploration of outer space. Although recognized only by the participating states, at least one of these makes direct sovereignty claims on a portion of legally defined outer space. In December of 1976, the equatorial states of Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Shaping the outer-space regime: then and now 135 Kenya, Uganda, and Zaire declared that their national sovereignty extended to the geostationary belt, 22,000 miles above the equator. 66 This so-called Bogata Declaration was in strict violation of custom, common sense, and the Outer Space Treaty. 67 It has never been accepted by the international community, and probably never will be, but it remains important because it is representative of a growing desire in the LDCs to seize a greater share of the common goods. It is historically curious, and ethically unfortunate, that the position it espouses is analogous to the colonial oppression from which all these nations once suffered. Oddly enough, the legal basis for such a claim dates to the Roman usque ad coleum doctrine, already discussed, and just as importantly to the Papal Bull of 4 May 1493, in which Pope Alexander VI attempted to divide the New World between Spain and Portugal. Called the hinterland principle, it established the process of discovery that he who owned the coast could claim the region inland to an indefinite extent. 68 The Bogata Declaration is justified by the declaring states on the claim that the atmosphere is aptly described as the coastal region of outer space, and thus it provides the segue necessary to return to the dictums of Astropolitik. The problem with the Declaration is not one of orbital mechanics, for here the claimants can make a serious case, but in the case they make based on extant international law. The Less Developed Countries of the equatorial belt have modified the old Soviet position that capitalist international law is morally invalid, to the proposition industrialized or developed states international law is inapplicable. The Declaration stated: The Outer Space Treaty cannot be considered as a final answer to the problem of the exploration and use of outer space, even less when the international community is questioning all the terms of international law which were elaborated when the developing countries could not count on adequate scientific advice and thus were not able to observe and evaluate the omissions, contradictions and consequences of the proposals which were prepared with great ability by the industrialized powers for their own benefit. 69 The immorality of international law, claimed the signatories, stems from the contention that it was incorporated before many of the LDCs either existed or were in a position to make a rational defense of their position. A better argument for this declaration is that geostationary orbit is a physical resource arising from its natural dependency on the planet and is therefore not subject to extant space law. Such an argument is easily rebutted because the phenomenon of the geostationary orbit is dependent upon the earth as a whole (not just that territory directly below it) and, moreover, that it is highly problematic to argue the geostationary orbit is not in space. 70 A more compelling argument followed, that the geostationary orbit is a scarce international resource that is being monopolized by a few space powers that were not sharing their profits in the spirit of the common heritage of mankind. The latter point causes a guilty squirming on the part of the well-endowed industrial states, but space commerce goes on. The astropolitical view described in this book is that national rivalry and competition have spurred the most spectacular development of space to date, and in the near future there is no change looming. While it is morally desirable to explore space in common Astropolitik 136 with all peoples, even the thought of doing so makes weary those who have the means. The decision not to return to the Moon was made before the Moon Treaty was

2NC Solvency Ext

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 41/61 established, for example, but its very existence has made the moon a less attractive place for commercial development than ever before. It is simply not reasonable to expect a state to make an extraordinary investment in the exploitation of a region or product from which it can not reap a tangible reward, in this case due to a prior international agreement that drastically limits its ability to operate militarily and would force it to disperse any forthcoming profits. The preceding survey of the outer-space regime begs a series of important questions. So what if the de facto astropolitical outer-space regime was established on conflicting and antagonistic bases? If the result is cooperation, or at least the promise of cooperation, arent the nationalist means acceptable to the ultimate emplacement of internationalist ends? The de jure regime is established in principles of precedence and international law, no matter how contentiously argued. Without a doubt, the establishment of laws, by which we all agree to cooperate and function in society, is a necessary function of peaceful coexistence; but is the current regime, intended to promote beneficial exploration of space, instead acting to stifle space exploration? What kind of regime is necessary to renew national or corporate commitment to space development? Is cooperation in outer space inevitable in the long term, and more importantly, is it even useful in the near term? Under the current outer space regime, the only frontier in space that has been truly opened is in near-Earth space. A large communication satellite industry has grown up, regular NASA space shuttle missions take place, and the International Space Station is slowly being cobbled together. But the chances for further human exploration and settlement of the Moon, Mars, and beyond, crucial to both the official hype about and popular enthusiasm for space exploration, continues to recede over time. The United States, Russian Federation, and other states with space-launch capability have been content to establish toeholds in LEO. Extrapolating from the current pace of activity in space, manned missions to Mars within the first half of this century are unlikely, regardless of NASA projections. The failure to open space beyond LEO to human exploration, settlement, and commercial development plainly cannot be attributed to technology shortfalls. The Apollo lunar landings were achieved with computers markedly less advanced than those available in many homes today. Rocket engines once developed for multistaged heavy lift cargo capacity could be manufactured again. Several types of less expensive single stage to orbit launch vehicles are in development or prototype. Innovative communications and fresh multispectral and electronic imaging techniques, combined with remarkable advances in miniaturization and software applications, provide the potential foundations for a renaissance in space commerce and industry. No, it is not a lack of appropriate technology that has stifled the exploration and exploitation of space. Instead, much of the blame can be found in political motivation, or more precisely, in its absence. The reality is that political decisionmakers in the United States and the other states with space-launch capacity have little or no pressing political or economic interest in the further opening of this frontier. Neither bureaucratic nor corporate interests are politically mobilized to press for the Shaping the outer-space regime: then and now 137 levels of government spending necessary to push the boundary of human activity in space, even for a return to the Moon. At best, bureaucratic and corporate interests have been mobilized to defend existing programs or struggle for shares of declining government spending for space programs. Even promotion of space commercialization is essentially limited to activities in LEO. The bottom line is that the OST and the existing socialized space regime discouraged productive competition among space capable states. The long-term consequence is that space development is trapped in LEO parochialism: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 was a tragedy because it drained away the energy the remaining twenty years of Cold War could have provided to space exploration. Had this not occurred, had the momentum of Apollo been allowed to continue, the United States would have moved to establish permanent bases on the Moon and Mars by the 1980s, and humanity might well be a multi-planet species today. 71 This very brief description of an alternative historical trajectory is more than a polemic exercise in denunciation. Space exploration efforts by the United States and the Soviet Union decelerated dramatically after the effective completion of major projects begun prior to the adoption of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The causal relationship suggested by this sequence of events cannot be dismissed as a mere post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy without ignoring the underlying puzzle. Several new spacefaring states joined the United States and the Soviet Union after 1967, and yet space exploration and development beyond LEO has fallen far short of what was possible given what the then available technology would have permitted. It is not simply that the Americans and Soviets have not established permanent bases on the Moon or Mars. Neither have the Europeans or Japanese. John Hickman 72 has called this a puzzle of collective inaction, and we offer solutions which contradict much of the conventional wisdom about the development of space as a frontier for human settlement and the international regime which was established to structure that anticipated but unrealized development. Without the intense international rivalry of the Cold War, launching satellites and landing humans on the Moon probably would have occurred

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 42/61 decades later than they did. Legitimate complaints about the politicization and militarization of space notwithstanding, Cold War competition was clearly good for the development of space because it forced the pace of activity in ways that scientific research and commerce could not. Ideological and military competition motivated the governments of the United States and Soviet Union to absorb the costs of developing the technology to access space in a comparatively short time period. COPUOS has been remarkably ineffective since the extraordinary burst of activity that created the OST. Comments made by COPUOS diplomatic representatives of most non spacefaring states reveal national space policies trapped in a self-defeating effort to redistribute economic benefits from investments in space development made by the spacefaring states. What their remarks suggest is that they have little grasp of the enormous economic promise of space development or the degree to which it has not been realized. COPUOS is not a forum for the discussion of space development policies or actual space projects. Hickman rightly observes that the only things launched at Astropolitik 138 contemporary COPUOS meetings are sterile exchanges of pious internationalist rhetoric. The core problem in international space law is that the practical effect of collectivizing space has been counter to its intended purpose of encouraging the development of outer space. Indeed, it would seem to have had precisely the opposite effect. The reason is that the treaty solved an entirely speculative collective action problem, a tragedy of the commons in outer space, in the belief that common pool resources were wasted in the competitive scramble of states to claim sovereignty over the new frontier. The treaty may actually have resulted in a collective inaction problem as states failed to invest in the development of space because an important incentive for its development had been eliminated. The argument here is that in rendering space and all celestial bodies res communis rather than res nullius, and thus eliminating them as proper objects for which states may compete, the treaty dramatically reduced the impetus for the development of outer space. Some celestial bodies, the Moon, Mars, and larger asteroids in particular, represent potential new national territory for states, and in the realist/Astropolitik paradigm, states are hard wired to acquire and hold territory. According to Hendrik Spruyt, the sovereign nation-state emerged as the dominant state form, first in Europe and then across the planet, because it was superior to the three alternative state forms; the individual city-state (Genoa, Florence, and Venice), the city league (Hansa), and the multinational borderless empire (Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholic Church). 73 The advantages of the sovereign nation-state in this competition lay not only in the exclusive economic exploitation of a national population and territory but also in its interaction with other sovereign nation-states in the new state system. Control over territory, even territory with little or no population, was then and remains today an essential criterion for statehood. That the modern nation-state continues to be motivated to acquire and hold territory is evident in their willingness to use military force to resist the loss of existing territory to separatist movements and in disputes over territories such as the former Spanish Sahara, West Bank, Spratley Islands, and Aksai Chin Plateau. The point is driven home by considering the hypothetical permanent loss of all national territory by a state that retains possession of its bureaucratic organizations and non-territorial assets. Would it continue to be deemed a state? Clearly, having lost its res, the former nation-state would cease to be a state and become a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), and in consequence, a creature of lesser status in international affairs. Having been deprived of the possibility of assuming sovereign possession of new territory discovered and claimable on celestial bodies and in space, states did the same thing that individuals and firms do when domestic law deprives them of the possibility of assuming legal possession of real estate. They rationally choose not to make investments that would lead to its development. In the absence of some immediate political return in the form of new national territory, the attractions of political, economic, and social returns in the near term from investment in or consumption by states are likely to be underwhelming. The perverse consequence of the OST was the inducement of individually rational behavior by decisionmakers in the few spacefaring states with the technology and fiscal resources to undertake the development of outer space to not do so. This deprives all of humanity much less all states of the long-term benefits of the development of outer space. Shaping the outer-space regime: then and now 139 By collectivizing outer space, the OST vested legal rights in all states that they would not or could not exercise. That spacefaring states would not is the result of disincentives. The actual tragedy of the commons is that the effort to achieve collective action resulted in collective inaction. Application of the Coase theorem makes the insight more explicit. 74 In its most straightforward form, the Coase theorem asserts that if individual property rights exist and transaction costs are low or zero, then resource allocation will be optimal regardless of how property rights were initially assigned. This theory of market exchange is simply an argument that the assignment of property rights will result in the efficient allocation of resources because individuals with the ability to use property more efficiently will purchase it from the existing owners. One important

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 43/61 implication is that distributive justice is irrelevant to the efficient allocation of resources. Thus any assignment of property rights is preferable to no assignment of property rights. If the recognition of national sovereignty over territory under international law is substituted for protection of individual property rights under domestic law, and the motivation of states to acquire territory is substituted for the motivation of individuals to acquire wealth, then the logic of the Coase theorem would dictate that any assignment of sovereignty over territory would be preferable to no assignment. Therefore, if the policy goal is to encourage the development of outer space, then any assignment of sovereignty over territory in space and on celestial bodies would be preferable to the existing structure of vesting collective rights in all states. If the assignment of sovereignty achieves some measure of distributive justice, then so much the better. The preferred solution is to let market-style forces determine relative values of assigned sovereignty for all states (see below, p. 178). Without doubt, however, without the investment in space development by the spacefaring states and/or their national firms, the nonspacefaring states cannot possibly receive any economic benefits from the collective ownership of space. With investment in space development by the spacefaring states and/or their national firms, non-spacefaring states could reap some economic benefit from space. The CP is a Pre-requisite to achieve true space commons Levin 11 (Ambath, PhD International Relations Theory, NASA space policy advisor since 1999, Professor of Political Science - University of, NASA and US ineffective space policies- preaction, PDF., published by Houston Chronicles, approved by NASA administrator Holdren) The Outer Space Treaty declared that all of outer space is Common Home of Mankind to be explored and exploited by all countries and for the benefit of all humanity. The treaty sounds great right? But, its absolutely opposite to what it was intended to achieve. First, the treaty yields US too much power because 98% of the clauses in the treaty were formed by the United States itself, this means that the US controls the entirety of the space. Previously I discussed how vague policies such as Space Commons are bad, however, if this policy wants to be implemented the OST needs to go. Because, after the US adopts the so called Space Commons mentality the OST treaty yields so much power to the US that they will continue to limit the other countries to advance in space. Second, US can fairly easily add or edit any of the clauses for their own benefits this maens the US can use space to any extent and legally to. The OST is truly corrupted and yields one country too much power, the alternative would be to adopt a international law that is modifiable on the terms of all participants and one with no monopoly. Rejecting OST and adopting a non-monopolized policy is truly key to make space a common home of mankind 2NC Cards The space commons discourages space exploration and is less equitable a competitive regime is necessary. Dolman, '2 (Everett C Dolman is Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Forces School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Astropolitik. Pg 134) The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits all nuclear detonations in space, and set the stage for the more comprehensive Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that followed. Signed only by those states who had nuclear capability at the time, and those who anticipated never having it, the treaty further requires that signatories refrain from so much as encouraging such detonations by any party, to include the distribution of technology, resources, or financial assistance that may go toward the development of such a capacity. Specifically, however, the treaty does not cover/condemn accidental explosions by a nuclear-powered spacecraft. Such is the chance we take. The 1977 Environmental Modification Convention (ratified by the United States in 1980) prohibits states from modifying the environment in any way in order to damage another state party. This includes the possibility of such fanciful armaments as earthquake and typhoon weapons, one supposes, but also covers the manipulation of resources to change the natural dynamics of Earth development. It specifically adds space to this prohibition. It does not, however, limit the development and testing of environmental modification techniques. Not all international treaties and conventions have been so committed to the socialized exploration of outer space. Although recognized only by the participating states, at least one of these makes direct sovereignty claims on a portion of legally defined outer space. In December of 1976, the equatorial states of Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Shaping the outer-space regime: then and now 135 Kenya, Uganda, and Zaire declared that their national sovereignty extended to the geostationary belt, 22,000 miles above the equator. 66 This so-called Bogata Declaration was in strict violation of custom, common sense, and the Outer

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 44/61 Space Treaty. 67 It has never been accepted by the international community, and probably never will be, but it remains important because it is representative of a growing desire in the LDCs to seize a greater share of the common goods. It is historically curious, and ethically unfortunate, that the position it espouses is analogous to the colonial oppression from which all these nations once suffered. Oddly enough, the legal basis for such a claim dates to the Roman usque ad coleum doctrine, already discussed, and just as importantly to the Papal Bull of 4 May 1493, in which Pope Alexander VI attempted to divide the New World between Spain and Portugal. Called the hinterland principle, it established the process of discovery that he who owned the coast could claim the region inland to an indefinite extent. 68 The Bogata Declaration is justified by the declaring states on the claim that the atmosphere is aptly described as the coastal region of outer space, and thus it provides the segue necessary to return to the dictums of Astropolitik. The problem with the Declaration is not one of orbital mechanics, for here the claimants can make a serious case, but in the case they make based on extant international law. The Less Developed Countries of the equatorial belt have modified the old Soviet position that capitalist international law is morally invalid, to the proposition industrialized or developed states international law is inapplicable. The Declaration stated: The Outer Space Treaty cannot be considered as a final answer to the problem of the exploration and use of outer space, even less when the international community is questioning all the terms of international law which were elaborated when the developing countries could not count on adequate scientific advice and thus were not able to observe and evaluate the omissions, contradictions and consequences of the proposals which were prepared with great ability by the industrialized powers for their own benefit. 69 The immorality of international law, claimed the signatories, stems from the contention that it was incorporated before many of the LDCs either existed or were in a position to make a rational defense of their position. A better argument for this declaration is that geostationary orbit is a physical resource arising from its natural dependency on the planet and is therefore not subject to extant space law. Such an argument is easily rebutted because the phenomenon of the geostationary orbit is dependent upon the earth as a whole (not just that territory directly below it) and, moreover, that it is highly problematic to argue the geostationary orbit is not in space. 70 A more compelling argument followed, that the geostationary orbit is a scarce international resource that is being monopolized by a few space powers that were not sharing their profits in the spirit of the common heritage of mankind. The latter point causes a guilty squirming on the part of the well-endowed industrial states, but space commerce goes on. The astropolitical view described in this book is that national rivalry and competition have spurred the most spectacular development of space to date, and in the near future there is no change looming. While it is morally desirable to explore space in common Astropolitik 136 with all peoples, even the thought of doing so makes weary those who have the means. The decision not to return to the Moon was made before the Moon Treaty was established, for example, but its very existence has made the moon a less attractive place for commercial development than ever before. It is simply not reasonable to expect a state to make an extraordinary investment in the exploitation of a region or product from which it can not reap a tangible reward, in this case due to a prior international agreement that drastically limits its ability to operate militarily and would force it to disperse any forthcoming profits. The preceding survey of the outer-space regime begs a series of important questions. So what if the de facto astropolitical outer-space regime was established on conflicting and antagonistic bases? If the result is cooperation, or at least the promise of cooperation, arent the nationalist means acceptable to the ultimate emplacement of internationalist ends? The de jure regime is established in principles of precedence and international law, no matter how contentiously argued. Without a doubt, the establishment of laws, by which we all agree to cooperate and function in society, is a necessary function of peaceful coexistence; but is the current regime, intended to promote beneficial exploration of space, instead acting to stifle space exploration? What kind of regime is necessary to renew national or corporate commitment to space development? Is cooperation in outer space inevitable in the long term, and more importantly, is it even useful in the near term? Under the current outer space regime, the only frontier in space that has been truly opened is in near-Earth space. A large communication satellite industry has grown up, regular NASA space shuttle missions take place, and the International Space Station is slowly being cobbled together. But the chances for further human exploration and settlement of the Moon, Mars, and beyond, crucial to both the official hype about and popular enthusiasm for space exploration, continues to recede over time. The United States, Russian Federation, and other states with space-launch capability have been content to establish toeholds in LEO. Extrapolating from the current pace of activity in space, manned missions to Mars within the first half of this century are unlikely, regardless of NASA projections. The failure to open space beyond LEO to human exploration, settlement, and commercial development plainly cannot be attributed to technology

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 45/61 shortfalls. The Apollo lunar landings were achieved with computers markedly less advanced than those available in many homes today. Rocket engines once developed for multistaged heavy lift cargo capacity could be manufactured again. Several types of less expensive single stage to orbit launch vehicles are in development or prototype. Innovative communications and fresh multispectral and electronic imaging techniques, combined with remarkable advances in miniaturization and software applications, provide the potential foundations for a renaissance in space commerce and industry. No, it is not a lack of appropriate technology that has stifled the exploration and exploitation of space. Instead, much of the blame can be found in political motivation, or more precisely, in its absence. The reality is that political decisionmakers in the United States and the other states with space-launch capacity have little or no pressing political or economic interest in the further opening of this frontier. Neither bureaucratic nor corporate interests are politically mobilized to press for the Shaping the outer-space regime: then and now 137 levels of government spending necessary to push the boundary of human activity in space, even for a return to the Moon. At best, bureaucratic and corporate interests have been mobilized to defend existing programs or struggle for shares of declining government spending for space programs. Even promotion of space commercialization is essentially limited to activities in LEO. The bottom line is that the OST and the existing socialized space regime discouraged productive competition among space capable states. The long-term consequence is that space development is trapped in LEO parochialism: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 was a tragedy because it drained away the energy the remaining twenty years of Cold War could have provided to space exploration. Had this not occurred, had the momentum of Apollo been allowed to continue, the United States would have moved to establish permanent bases on the Moon and Mars by the 1980s, and humanity might well be a multi-planet species today. 71 This very brief description of an alternative historical trajectory is more than a polemic exercise in denunciation. Space exploration efforts by the United States and the Soviet Union decelerated dramatically after the effective completion of major projects begun prior to the adoption of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The causal relationship suggested by this sequence of events cannot be dismissed as a mere post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy without ignoring the underlying puzzle. Several new spacefaring states joined the United States and the Soviet Union after 1967, and yet space exploration and development beyond LEO has fallen far short of what was possible given what the then available technology would have permitted. It is not simply that the Americans and Soviets have not established permanent bases on the Moon or Mars. Neither have the Europeans or Japanese. John Hickman 72 has called this a puzzle of collective inaction, and we offer solutions which contradict much of the conventional wisdom about the development of space as a frontier for human settlement and the international regime which was established to structure that anticipated but unrealized development. Without the intense international rivalry of the Cold War, launching satellites and landing humans on the Moon probably would have occurred decades later than they did. Legitimate complaints about the politicization and militarization of space notwithstanding, Cold War competition was clearly good for the development of space because it forced the pace of activity in ways that scientific research and commerce could not. Ideological and military competition motivated the governments of the United States and Soviet Union to absorb the costs of developing the technology to access space in a comparatively short time period. COPUOS has been remarkably ineffective since the extraordinary burst of activity that created the OST. Comments made by COPUOS diplomatic representatives of most non spacefaring states reveal national space policies trapped in a self-defeating effort to redistribute economic benefits from investments in space development made by the spacefaring states. What their remarks suggest is that they have little grasp of the enormous economic promise of space development or the degree to which it has not been realized. COPUOS is not a forum for the discussion of space development policies or actual space projects. Hickman rightly observes that the only things launched at Astropolitik 138 contemporary COPUOS meetings are sterile exchanges of pious internationalist rhetoric. The core problem in international space law is that the practical effect of collectivizing space has been counter to its intended purpose of encouraging the development of outer space. Indeed, it would seem to have had precisely the opposite effect. The reason is that the treaty solved an entirely speculative collective action problem, a tragedy of the commons in outer space, in the belief that common pool resources were wasted in the competitive scramble of states to claim sovereignty over the new frontier. The treaty may actually have resulted in a collective inaction problem as states failed to invest in the development of space because an important incentive for its development had been eliminated. The argument here is that in rendering space and all celestial bodies res communis rather than res nullius, and thus eliminating them as proper objects for which states may compete, the treaty dramatically reduced the impetus for the development of outer space. Some celestial bodies, the Moon, Mars, and larger asteroids in particular, represent potential new national territory

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 46/61 for states, and in the realist/Astropolitik paradigm, states are hard wired to acquire and hold territory. According to Hendrik Spruyt, the sovereign nation-state emerged as the dominant state form, first in Europe and then across the planet, because it was superior to the three alternative state forms; the individual city-state (Genoa, Florence, and Venice), the city league (Hansa), and the multinational borderless empire (Holy Roman Empire and Roman Catholic Church). 73 The advantages of the sovereign nation-state in this competition lay not only in the exclusive economic exploitation of a national population and territory but also in its interaction with other sovereign nation-states in the new state system. Control over territory, even territory with little or no population, was then and remains today an essential criterion for statehood. That the modern nation-state continues to be motivated to acquire and hold territory is evident in their willingness to use military force to resist the loss of existing territory to separatist movements and in disputes over territories such as the former Spanish Sahara, West Bank, Spratley Islands, and Aksai Chin Plateau. The point is driven home by considering the hypothetical permanent loss of all national territory by a state that retains possession of its bureaucratic organizations and non-territorial assets. Would it continue to be deemed a state? Clearly, having lost its res, the former nation-state would cease to be a state and become a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), and in consequence, a creature of lesser status in international affairs. Having been deprived of the possibility of assuming sovereign possession of new territory discovered and claimable on celestial bodies and in space, states did the same thing that individuals and firms do when domestic law deprives them of the possibility of assuming legal possession of real estate. They rationally choose not to make investments that would lead to its development. In the absence of some immediate political return in the form of new national territory, the attractions of political, economic, and social returns in the near term from investment in or consumption by states are likely to be underwhelming. The perverse consequence of the OST was the inducement of individually rational behavior by decisionmakers in the few spacefaring states with the technology and fiscal resources to undertake the development of outer space to not do so. This deprives all of humanity much less all states of the long-term benefits of the development of outer space. Shaping the outer-space regime: then and now 139 By collectivizing outer space, the OST vested legal rights in all states that they would not or could not exercise. That spacefaring states would not is the result of disincentives. The actual tragedy of the commons is that the effort to achieve collective action resulted in collective inaction. Application of the Coase theorem makes the insight more explicit. 74 In its most straightforward form, the Coase theorem asserts that if individual property rights exist and transaction costs are low or zero, then resource allocation will be optimal regardless of how property rights were initially assigned. This theory of market exchange is simply an argument that the assignment of property rights will result in the efficient allocation of resources because individuals with the ability to use property more efficiently will purchase it from the existing owners. One important implication is that distributive justice is irrelevant to the efficient allocation of resources. Thus any assignment of property rights is preferable to no assignment of property rights. If the recognition of national sovereignty over territory under international law is substituted for protection of individual property rights under domestic law, and the motivation of states to acquire territory is substituted for the motivation of individuals to acquire wealth, then the logic of the Coase theorem would dictate that any assignment of sovereignty over territory would be preferable to no assignment. Therefore, if the policy goal is to encourage the development of outer space, then any assignment of sovereignty over territory in space and on celestial bodies would be preferable to the existing structure of vesting collective rights in all states. If the assignment of sovereignty achieves some measure of distributive justice, then so much the better. The preferred solution is to let market-style forces determine relative values of assigned sovereignty for all states (see below, p. 178). Without doubt, however, without the investment in space development by the spacefaring states and/or their national firms, the nonspacefaring states cannot possibly receive any economic benefits from the collective ownership of space. With investment in space development by the spacefaring states and/or their national firms, non-spacefaring states could reap some economic benefit from space.

Commons Neg 47/61

Turner Group 2011

AT: I-Law DA
OST is not an important part of I-Law Hickman, 7 John, associate professor in the Department of Government and International Studies at Berry College in Mt. Berry, Georgia [9/24, The Space Review, Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/960/1] BDD Several arguments are advanced against withdrawal from the treaty, seven of which are neatly summarized by Wayne White in an essay in the 2000 book Space: The Free-Market Frontier. The first argument is that the treaty has become customary international law, in effect that other states have come to rely on the terms of the treaty to such an extent that it is now established law among states regardless of the wishes of individual states that might wish to withdraw. The rejoinder to this argument is that while forty years may have passed since the treaty entered into effect, states have come to rely on it in any the most abstract sense. No state has undertaken activities even remotely capable of asserting a claim to national sovereignty over any celestial body since the end of the Apollo Program and there are only five spacefaring powers currently capable of unmanned missions to other celestial bodies: the United States, Russia, the European Space Agency, China, and Japan.

Commons Neg 48/61

Turner Group 2011

AT: Space War turn

Doesnt cause war history proves territorial disputes get settled peacefully Hickman, 7 John, associate professor in the Department of Government and International Studies at Berry College in Mt. Berry, Georgia [9/24, The Space Review, Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/960/1] BDD The second argument is that competition for territory in space could cause military conflict as it did competition between the powers on Earth in previous centuries. The argument misunderstands history and thus makes a poor analogy. In fact, the gunpowder empires found more reasons and locations to wage war close to home much more often than in distant colonial possessions. Imperial competition for vast amounts of the Earths surface was often resolved peacefully. In the late 18th century and continuing into the 19th century Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany, and the United States divided Australasia and the central island Pacific without war. Britain, the United States, and Imperial Russia successfully negotiated a resolution of their claims to northwestern North America in the mid 19th century without war. During the Scramble for Africa Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, and Italy divided sub-Saharan Africa without fighting one another, the results of which were recognized at the Congress of Berlin. To be sure, wars were fought in these new colonial territories but they were wars between colonizers and the colonized. Thus, any future competition for sovereign territory on celestial bodies is highly unlikely to lead to war because spacefaring states are capable of negotiating their different claims and because there are no extraterrestrial natives anywhere else in the Solar System who might object to national appropriation. Our solar system would be a more interesting place if Martians did exist but they are conspicuous by their absence.

Commons Neg 49/61

Turner Group 2011

AT: Boundaries Impossible

Territory in space not mutually exclusive can claim planets without claiming space itself Hickman, 7 John, associate professor in the Department of Government and International Studies at Berry College in Mt. Berry, Georgia [9/24, The Space Review, Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/960/1] BDD The third argument is that it would be difficult or impossible to draw territorial boundaries in outer space. The problem with this argument is that it makes no distinction between solid celestial objects like the planets, moons, or asteroids and the hard vacuum of space. Rather than treat all of outer space as res communis, solid celestial objects could be treated as terra nullius and the hard vacuum as res communis. Solid celestial objects could claimed as sovereign territory without claiming all of outer space just as islands or parts of islands have been claimed on Earth without claiming all of the oceans in which they rest.

Commons Neg 50/61

Turner Group 2011

AT: Self Govt

Space sovereignty and self-government impossible colonies prove Hickman, 7 John, associate professor in the Department of Government and International Studies at Berry College in Mt. Berry, Georgia [9/24, The Space Review, Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/960/1] BDD The fourth argument is that prohibiting states from establishing territorial sovereignty over celestial bodies will make the transition to self-government easier once space settlers become self-sufficient. The first problem with the argument is that the assumption that self-government requires self-sufficiency or must wait for selfsufficiency is incorrect. There are no contemporary examples of autarky, of self-sufficient national economies able to produce all of the goods and services its citizens consume. Economic interdependency or dependency does not prevent citizens from participating in their own self-government. The second problem is that the argument is illogical in committing the familiar fallacy of the excluded middle. Between national appropriation of a celestial body by a spacefaring power on Earth as its sovereign territory and declarations of independence as a sovereign state by settlers on a celestial body are a range of possible legal-political institutional relationships between a space-faring power and its settlers. A cursory survey of a contemporary world political map reveals numerous islands and island groups distant but locally self-governing sovereign territories of metropolitan states: Bermuda, Gibraltar, Hawaii, Martinique, New Caledonia, Reunion, Saint Pierre and Miquelon are examples. Other insular nations such as Aruba, Greenland, Faeroe Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Niue and the Northern Mariana Islands enjoy even greater autonomy. The Federated States of Micronesia is sovereign and yet closely linked to the United States through a Compact of Free Association. The third problem with the argument is that the difficulty of colonies achieving independence as a sovereign state is exaggerated. For example, notwithstanding the sort of epic anti-colonial wars that gave the United States and Vietnam independence, dozens of former British and French colonies achieved independence through negotiation rather than by violence. Notwithstanding science fiction portrayals of politically alienated, economically exploited space settlers like those in Robert A. Heinleins libertarian novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, actual space settlers will have to be highly-trained professionals whose exit options make political tyranny and economic exploitation effectively impossible. Although it may lack sufficient romantic drama for libertarians, the passage of the British North America Act that gave Canada its independence is probably a better historical reference point for some future independent state on a celestial body than is the American Declaration of Independence.

Commons Neg 51/61

Turner Group 2011

AT Comp. Legal Codes Good

Competing legal codes bad leads to chaotic patchwork of different rules and norms Hickman, 7 John, associate professor in the Department of Government and International Studies at Berry College in Mt. Berry, Georgia [9/24, The Space Review, Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/960/1] BDD The fifth argument is that competition between national legal codes used to govern individual space settlements or facilities in close proximity would lead to the development of better law through competition. What is assumed here is that a government agency responsible for establishing a space settlement or facility will elect to apply the legal code of the sponsoring spacefaring state while private firms establishing a space settlement or facility might elect to apply the national legal code they deem most conducive. Although the resulting legal uncertainty and unnecessary legal disputes produced by patchwork fragmentation of the applicable legal system across a celestial body bring joy to the hearts of lawyers (Wayne White is by conscience an attorney) it would be loathed by investors.

Commons Neg 52/61

Turner Group 2011

AT: Exploitation
CHM causes unfair exploitation of spacefaring states Pop, 9 Virgiliu, Ph.D, specialist in space law and property rights, member of the International Institute of Space Law [ Who Owns the Moon? Extraterrestiral Aspects of Land and Mineral Resources Ownership. ed .PROF. R. JAKHU, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University. What is more worrying is that the CHM concept goes even beyond Marxism. In terms of international space economics, the developing countries are not the equivalent of the proletariat a productive class but of the lumpenproletariat. The havenots are not lunar wage-workers whose surplus labour would be exploited by the lunar bourgeoisie. In fact, the true working class of the space economy would be the spacefaring states, upon which the freeloading have-nots would depend as the lumpenproletariat depends upon the bourgeoisie.

Commons Neg 53/61

Turner Group 2011

Republicans hate the Outer Space Treaty Wrank 11 (Chris, Associated Press writer from the past decade, PhD journalism and Political Science) WASHINGTON (AP) Responding to these presentations, Clay Moltz of the Monterey Institute argued that the time is right to pursue space arms control noting that there were signs that Republican members of Congress have reservations about the push to rid space debris however such technology according to the Outer Space Treaty is considered space weaponization. Although Republicans are known to cut space development budget they want to room to mitigate future technological advances.. Republican representative proposed editing the treaty to extend the US powers in space or to get rid of the treaty completely. Which was well supported because this would maintain the US power in space while preserving the US equality for all motive. Republican senators backed their claims with research indicating that the OST treaty lacks the necessary control to actually declare space as humanities common entity furthermore they said Violating the OST has virtually no punishments such treaty is bound to fail in future. Why not get rid of the treaty now?. They suggested ridding the treaty would empower confidence-building measures involving debris mitigation, unilateral national declarations or commitments not to develop space weapons, public education and a UN Convention on non-interference with satellites

Net Ben PTX

Commons Neg 54/61

Turner Group 2011

Abolishing the commons is key to the environment better spatial allocation and sustainability Mark Giordano, Department of Geography, Oregon State University, 03 Blackwell Publishing, The Geography of the Commons: The Role of Scale and Space, [Stolarski] The framework presented provides a new perspective from which to examine and consider the problem of the commons and highlights additional issues in resource management deserving further attention. The first of these issues is the definition of resource domains. As has been made evident in the field of water resources through the "watershed versus ecoregion" debate (Omemik and Bailey 1997), the spatial dimension of a given resource domain is not always self-evident. Furthermore, the definition of what constitutes a single resourceand, therefore, its domain-is problematic. With some biological resources, the issue may revolve around an assessment of when local populations of a given species are independent and when they are interchangeable parts of a larger population structure (Wilson et al. 2001; codified in the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. More broadly; all resources may arguably be considered to be part of a single, interconnected earthresource system definable only at the global scale. Second, even if resource domains can be clearly defined, the idea-put forward by Powell and others and further emphasized here-that coincidence of resource and rights domains may be beneficial to resource management must be placed in the context of overall system complexity: In other words, the potential advantages of creating new rights domains coincident with a particular resource space must be considered against the costs-in terms of political or administrative complexity-of adding overlapping and spatially inconsistent management lavers. Third, the transferability across scales of resource policy in general and commons policy in particular should be questioned, not merely assumed. Young (1996) has already drawn attention to the danger of assuming transferability of propositions derived from commons management studies on small societies to the international arena and vice versa. The fact that the very nature of the commons problem may change across scales only heightens the need for a better understanding of cross-scale transferability. Finally, the temporal dimension of resource systems necessitates an understanding that resource and rights domains may change over time. Anticipation of such change may improve the long-term viability of resource systems in much the same way that the recent trend towards proportional, rather than absolute, allocation of international waters in treaty agreements has lessened water disputes by accounting for adjustments in annual variation. The tragedy of the commons is over-exploitation Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1
the same title.73 The theory suggests that unrestricted

Commons Bad Environment

The tragedy of the commons was first put forward by William Foster Lloyd, a fellow of the Royal Society in 1833, and was later popularized by Garrett Hardin in his essay by

access to a resource ultimately dooms the resource to over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals, while the costs are distributed between all those exploiting the resource, a process engendering free riders who do not bear the proportional costs but only the benefits of exploitation. Hardin concluded that there is no foreseeable technical solution to increasing both human populations and their standard of living on a finite planet, stating, Freedom is the recognition of necessity. He suggests that freedom, as simply the freedom to do as one pleases, completes the tragedy of the commons. By recognizing resources as commons, and by agreeing that they require management, Hardin believes that we can preserve and nurture other more precious freedoms.74 Thus, finding a solution to resource competition requires recognizing the necessity of preservation and responsible management through international cooperation. The commons are bad for the environment 31 studies prove Mark Giordano, Department of Geography, Oregon State University, 03 Blackwell Publishing, The Geography of the Commons: The Role of Scale and Space, [Stolarski] At its most fundamental level, the problem of the commons revolves around humans, their environment, and the spatial relations between the two. Human environment interaction, formerly known as the manland tradition, has long formed a core element of American geographic thought. The impacts of the environment on humans (Semple 1903; Barrows 1923), as well as of humans on their environment (Marsh [1864] 1965; Sauer 1925) were both well-established subjects in the geographic literature by the early twentieth century. While formal consideration of geography as a "spatial" subject probably began with a 1953 publication by Schaefen

***Commons Bad

Commons Neg Turner Group 2011 55/61 the importance of a real relations within geography had clear origins in the decades prior to World War II (Hartshome 1939) and arguably much earlier (see Pattison 1964). More recent geographic literature is replete with work focusing on resources typically associated with the commons problem. For example, in the field of land use, Bassett and Crummey (1993) compiled a study of land utilization in Africa that addressed elements of the commons; Schroeder (1997) studied the gender influenced distribution of newly reclaimed land in The Gambia; and Dougill, Thomas, and Heathwaite (1999) addressed the impact of land-use practices on the Kalahari region. Similar attention has been given to water resources (Bradley and Carpenter 1986; Roberts and Emel 1992; Emel and Roberts 1995; Wolf, Yoffe, and Giordano 2003), the atmosphere (Comrie 1994), forest resources (Allen and Barnes 1985; Hosier 1988), fisheries and wildlife (Kay 1979; Reed 1995), and integrated resource environmental studies (Kasperson, Kasperson, and Tumer 1995). Other geographers have focused, not directly on resource issues, but rather on conceptual matters related to the commons, including property rights (Clark 1982; Emel and Brooks 1988; Mitchell 1995; Price 1995; Saff 1996) and spatial relations (James 1952; Sack 1973, 1983; Peuquet 1988; Blomley 1994). Despite the substantial body of geographic scholarship surrounding the commons, few if any authors have addressed the problem itself from a conceptual or theoretic perspective. In fact, as Xmung (2001, 284) stated in a recent study of fisheries in Mexico, geographers "have devoted surprisingly little attention to the role of the commons and their management." This article attempts a first step at overcoming this deficiency by using the perspectives and tools of geography to address the commons problem, using scale concepts within a spatially explicit framework.

Commons Neg 56/61

Turner Group 2011

CHM destroys multilateral efforts because of controversy over sovereignty Moon Treaty Proves Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1 As a result of persistence resistance to any form of a CHM only the Moon and other celestial bodies of the solar system as well as the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction are explicitly proclaimed as the CHM.215 The Moon Treaty states that [t]he Moon and its natural
resources are the common heritage of mankind, and Article 136 of UNCLOS reads that [t]he Area [i.e. the seabed beyond national jurisdiction] and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.216 With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the

Commons Bad Multilat

Moon Treaty went too far in proclaiming a CHM as it has been ratified by only 11 countries, though it is in force. Worse yet, the debacle soured international support for further multilateral efforts. The international community has proven unable to produce any new multilateral legally binding instruments
regulating space since the Moon Treaty. However, both UNCLOS and the Moon Treaty are United Nations accords and so bind the activities of states and other actors with international personality, but not directly private entities. Since

airspace and the territorial sea are subject to state sovereignty while outer space and the high seas are not, controversy in both environments has centered on where sovereignty ends and an open regime begins.217 The CHM applied to space law is conceived generally, while the Moon Treaty is also much less ambitious than UNCLOS in setting up a full-scale international organization. Many parallels exist between the law of the sea and outer space, as do differences meaning that a direct application of the lessons learned from UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement should be learned from but not directly emulated.

Commons Neg 57/61

Turner Group 2011

Plan prevents private investment Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1 Despite common acceptance of all the property rights guaranteed under the Moon Treaty, debates continue to rage about exactly what economic activity is and what is not permissible. Some critics of the Moon Treaty argue that restrictions placed on sovereign nations are extended to citizens. Therefore, individuals and companies may not claim property rights in outer space.265 There is also disagreement as to what appropriation is prohibited. Some argue that the appropriation clause simply bars ownership of the land, not the resources found within.266 Others maintain that it is legally impossible to separate resources from land,267 and make a distinction between civil and common law countries in this regard.268 The lack of ownership of territory in space does not preclude private sector for-profit use of the territory. According to Steven Doyle, a member of the US delegation to the
UN that drafted the 1967 OST and 1979 Moon Treaties:269 Individuals expressing interest in exploitation of extraterrestrial materials have concluded that, if there is no national sovereignty, there cannot be enforcement of private property rights. I do not concurPrivate enterprise may use and function in outer space, under the supervision of the government of its country.270 Many

Commons Bad Private Investment

private firms nevertheless point to provisions of space law as a major barrier to future commercial development, contending that the lack of sovereignty in space jeopardizes their ability to make profits from private investment. This viewpoint was upheld by the Presidents Commission on Space Exploration, stating, The establishment of a
property rights regime will remove impediments to business activities and inspire the commercial confidence \necessary for business development and the extraction of resources.271 In this passage, the Bush Administration the need to define exactly what celestial property rights are and how they apply to resources is still under debate, creating uncertainty for companies looking to invest in such ventures. It

seems clear though that the OST does amount to a limited form of property rights, while OST Article VIII permits states to regulate activities under their jurisdiction. Using Article
nations.273 This

VIII instead of Article II to grant property rights would not violate the OST.272 A modified version of the Homestead Act could be used to grant entities with ongoing operations limited property rights while those operations continue, while at the same time reciprocity provisions could be added to recognize similar arrangements with other

exchange underscores the importance of creating well-defined legal regimes to govern the international commons as soon as possible, lest national governments take it upon themselves to fill this regulatory hole and in the process curtail long-term economic growth and security.

Commons Neg 58/61

Turner Group 2011

Using intergenerational equity and sustainable development is key to protect the space commons SCHEETZ, LORI (J.D. Candidate, Georgetown University Law Center) 07 Infusing Environmental Ethics into the Space Weapons Dialogue (The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review: Volume 19:57 2006-2007) III. INFUSING ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS INTO THE SPACE WEAPONS DIALOGUE By utilizing concepts of intergenerational equity and sustainable development, the international community can develop a new space treaty that emphasizes protection of the space environment rather than only focusing on exploitation of the space commons as a medium for national security and warfare. To develop a framework for a new space treaty and avoid a tragedy of the space commons, the international community must first address the environmental consequences of weaponizing space. By viewing the space environment through the philosophy of intergenerational equity and implementing this philosophy through sustainable development, the international community will be able to develop a safe and more effective space regime. Addressing environmental concerns regarding space weaponization is necessary for the space commons SCHEETZ, LORI (J.D. Candidate, Georgetown University Law Center) 07 Infusing Environmental Ethics into the Space Weapons Dialogue (The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review: Volume 19:57 2006-2007) Although considerable uncertainty surrounds the creation and consequences of space weapons, the international community must ensure that the dialogue on space weaponization includes a discussion of the detrimental effects of a tragedy of the space commons on future generations. States have generally ignored intergenerational environmental concerns with respect to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. However, given the recent surge of international environmental law and the hitherto limited development of space weapons, serious contemplation of the long-term environmental impact of space weapons on the space environment is undoubtedly a reasonable prospect.

Space Weaponization turns solvency

***DA Turns case

Commons Neg 59/61

Turner Group 2011

Multilateral cooperation is key in order for commons to be effective Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1 Without the type of multilateral cooperation described in the aforementioned proposal, the tragedy of the international commons could easily turn into a collective prisoners dilemma in which each government acts in its own best interest without coordination. There are two options: cooperate with the group or defect.281 It is this latter outcome of resources being prematurely exhausted through defection that developing countries fear most. Game theory282 demonstrates that defection is beneficial even though everyone would be better off through cooperation. Far-sighted groups impose sanctions on members that over-exploit a resource to limit defection. An international regime would require punitive power to promote cooperation while preserving common resources. Property rights and multilateral solutions are key for CHM to work Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in International Relations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February 2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1
In a world organized by and for sovereign states, it was natural that negotiation of a body of legal rules to govern space activities would take place in the principal intergovernmental organization, the United Nations. It is also natural then that, as priorities changed and technologies developed, states would take it upon themselves to negotiate bilateral accords and bypass the UN system altogether. This is precisely what is happening today. The movement has been towards bilateral agreements. Certain states, such as the United Kingdom, officially maintain that COPUOS is not the place to regulate commercial activity. It is as telling what is as what is not on the COPUOS agenda, stated Richard J. Tremayne-Smith of the British National Space Center. The position of the UK, and the West, is to shorten negotiations, not prolong them. The space treaties arent perfect, but theyre not supposed to be.199 If taken to its logical conclusion, this means that efforts

Multilateralism Solves

to regulate space in the future would fragment to the bilateral and even national levels. Ultimately, this would complete the tragedy of the commons scenario without a specific new regime guaranteeing limited property rights to entrepreneurs as well as providing for environmental protection and some degree of benefit-sharing.200 It is important to highlight this new dramatic
process requiring COPUOS to approve a text by consensus, after which it is included in a General Assembly Resolution for approval by states. Each

change in affairs as it has historically been the UN system as a whole that has stimulated international cooperation relating to space in keeping with its mandate to maintain international peace and security and to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification.201 United Nations spacelawmaking is an indefinite

state then decides whether to sign, ratify, or accede.202 Despite its cumbersome mechanisms, COPUOSs impressive track record is indicative of its successes. Without the UN, it is unlikely that a multilateral legal framework for space activities could have been established so expeditiously.203
The fragmentation of this system into bilateral relationships could foreshadow what would occur in the governance regimes of other SSAs, notably the Arctic, without concerted multilateral action. It is imperative that traditional

conceptions of the CHM principle give way to the realities of technological progress and provide for limited property rights to stimulate development while also promoting multilateral solutions to environmental problems as well as to provide security and stability in the international commons.

Commons Neg 60/61

Turner Group 2011

Plan destroys hegemony Levin 11 (Ambath, PhD International Relations Theory, NASA space policy advisor since 1999, Professor of Political Science - University of, NASA and US ineffective space policies- pre-action, PDF., published by Houston Chronicles, approved by NASA administrator Holdren) 1. Will the USA be more secure? As stated in the W hite Houses space policy and Lynns preview of the National Security Space Strategy, US security hinges on fostering a cooperative and predictable space environment, but the US applying the so called space Commons policy or ideology will destroy US space leadership. 2. You may ask how? Well, first adopting such a policy will spread the perception that US is not capable to control or lead projects in space. Second, it will kill NASAs innovation which is key to space leadership because commons will increase competition for NASA to innovate. Third, a US commons policy will give room for commodification of space by other countries which will destroy US leadership. Fourth, implementing such policy will quickly put the space leader position up for grabs because it a very sophisticated way of claiming that We are not capable to uphold the role of the leader. Fifth, as it is clear the Republicans refuse to give Obama a bipartisan win, (proven by Jobs Bill, deficit debates, etc) so even if they support a policy it will get voted down. And, this policy is a great example; its vagueness will be used to justify their negative votes. 3. Is Space Commons a effective policy? Pragmatically, no it just declares space as a common entity of mankind which has been claimed by multiple US presidents over the years but implementing a policy itself will produce negative effects that will ripple through the globe. The US presidents claiming space as commons is enough to prove that the US doesnt think space is their own and implementing this policy is clearly not necessary. Plan kills leadership Levin 11 (Ambath, PhD International Relations Theory, NASA space policy advisor since 1999, Professor of Political Science - University of, NASA and US ineffective space policies- pre-action, PDF., published by Houston Chronicles, approved by NASA administrator Holdren) Histories of nations tell us that an aggressive program to return Americans permanently to deep space must form an essential component of national policy. Americans would find it unacceptable, as well as devastating to liberty, if we abandon leadership in space , Europe, or any other nation or group of nations. Potentially equally devastating to billions of people would be loss of freedoms access to the energy resources of the Moon as fossil fuels diminish and populations and demand increase. In that harsh light of history, it is frightening to contemplate the long-term, totally adverse consequences to the standing of the United States in modern civilization if we decide to abandon deep space holds. Even a commitment to maintain the International Space Station using commercial launch assets constitutes a dead-end for Americans in space. Space leadership inherently is important to maintain US leadership on land alike and it thus loosing Space leadership would abandoned to the Russians or just destroyed, end American leadership entirely.

Hege Link

***PTX Links Plan unpopular with Republicans CSM '10 Commons Neg Monitor, "Is Obama a socialist? What does the evidence say?", 7/1/10, Turner Group 2011 (Christian Science 61/61 http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/310825// ASpomer) The assertion is getting louder: President Obama is a socialist, a wealth-redistributing wolf in Democrat's clothing gnawing at America's entrepreneurial spirit. It's easy to buy "Obama is a socialist" bumper stickers on the Internet. Political commentator Dick Morris said, in a column circulated on GOPUSA.com, that conservatives are "enraged at Barack Obama's socialism and radicalism." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich titled his new book "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine." So, is Mr. Obama trying to form The Socialist Republic of America? Or are the accusations mainly a political weapon, meant to stick Obama with a label that is poison to many voters and thus make him a one-term president? As is often the case in politics, the answer is in the eye of the beholder. Some people feel genuinely certain that Obama aims to make America into a workers' paradise a land where government-appointed pay czars tell Wall Street tycoons how much they can make and where the feds take large ownership positions in companies like General Motors (GM) and insurance giant American International Group (AIG). Even if Obama is not a card-carrying Socialist, they say, he displays a disdain of the private sector. "You start with his apparent acceptance that there are major segments of the US economy for which it is reasonable for the US government to own or manage," says Michael Johns, Heritage Foundation policy analyst, "tea party" movement leader, and former speechwriter for President Bush. "Look at the auto industry, mortgage industry, the health-care industry to some extent, and, obviously, banking." Others just as assuredly refute the idea that government involvement in failing industries defines a president as socialist or that wealth is being redistributed from the Forbes 500 richest Americans to the nation's "Joe the plumbers." What Mr. Johns, Mr. Gingrich, and others brandishing the "socialist" s-word are really complaining of is a return to the policies of John Maynard Keynes, the English economist who advocated vigorous government involvement in the economy, from regulation to pump priming, says labor historian Peter Rachleff of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. "Socialism suggests getting rid of capitalism altogether," says Dr. Rachleff. "Mr. Obama is not within a million miles of an ideology like that." For what it's worth, socialists deny that Obama is one of them and even seem a bit insulted by the suggestion. "I have been making a living telling people Obama is not a socialist," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America. "It's frustrating to see people using our brand to criticize programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working." Adds Billy Wharton,co-chair of the Socialist Party USA: "I am not even sure he's a liberal. I call him a hedge fund Democrat." The socialism tag is nothing new for the White House. In speeches, Obama chalks up the criticism to "just politics." But he also works to counter it, sprinkling speeches with words about the appropriate role of government. "Government cannot and should not replace businesses as the true engine of growth and job creation," he said June 2 at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. That may be one reason some tea partyers doubt that Obama himself is humming "The Internationale" before breakfast. Plan unpopular with Congress and the public Andryia '09 (personal finance instructor and financial counselor, "Will Barack Obama Turn the US into a Socialist Country?", 2009, http://hubpages.com/hub/Will-obama-make-US-socialist// ASpomer) No, Obama will not turn the U.S. into a socialist country. He is too smart and too ambitious to try such a thing. First of all, he will naturally want to win re-election, and any socialist policies would be unpopular with the people. Also, he cannot pass any laws without a majority of the Senate and House of Representatives passing them, and all those members of Congress also have to face the people to get re-elected. So the idea that Obama could single-handedly make America communist or socialist is just not possible. Plan unpopular- Vague policy Levin 11 (Ambath, PhD International Relations Theory, NASA space policy advisor since 1999, Professor of Political Science - University of, NASA and US ineffective space policies- pre-action, PDF., published by Houston Chronicles, approved by NASA administrator Holdren) NASA supporters are bracing for an uphill battle to get the extra funding needed to take on missions more ambitious than visits to the international space station. A high-level panel told President Barack Obama last week that the space program needs an infusion of about $3 billion more a year by 2014. That may be a tough sell, even though the amount could be considered spare change in a fast-spending capital where the White House and Congress are on track to dole out nearly $4 trillion this year to finance federal operations, including bailouts for Wall Street firms, banks and automakers. The congressional agenda over the next year is going to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them, said Scott Lilly, a scholar at the Center for American Progress. Presidents influence Presidential leadership will be essential to gaining an increase, emphasized John Logsdon, a space policy expert who served on the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation