Methodology

This study employed a range of qualitative research methodologies for Objectives 1-5. The methodological approaches for each research objective are outlined below.

Literature Reviews

Research objectives 1 and 2 of this study rely on literature reviews. Objective 1 examines the legal framework and access to space. Objective 2 presents four case studies of emerging spacefaring countries.

O B J. 1 : I N T E R N A T I O N A L L E G A L F R A M E W O R K

The literature review for Objective 1 was based on a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) approach. In contrast to Systematic Literature Reviews, REAs make concessions regarding the breadth, depth and comprehensiveness of the search to yield ‘rapid’ results.22 An REA was deemed the most appropriate methodology for this portion of the study, as it offers a structured and robust approach within the significant time constraints of the study. Nonetheless, the review is not exhaustive and does not include all papers on the topic of international space law and access to space. This review reports on the findings and recommendations of reviewed sources, without providing an indepth assessment of their effectiveness. These are therefore identified as key areas in need of further research input.

The review was conducted via targeted keyword searches on Google and Google Scholar. A “snowball” approach built from initial sources identified further relevant literature. The above box identifies the inclusion and exclusion criteria implemented for this study.

Additionally, special attention was paid to sources from minority and non-Western authors, as it is the aim of this study to amplify these voices and adopt an inclusive perspective on the international space domain. A snowballing approach was implemented, in which further sources were identified to inform the research.

Inclusion criteria

➢ Materials from government, academia, private sector, gray literature (conference papers, event transcripts, white papers etc.). ➢ English language documents. ➢ Literature after 2018.

22 What is a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA). CEBMA (2022) https://cebma.org/faq/what-is-an-rea/

O B J . 2 : C A S E S T U D Y A N A L Y S I S

This study examines four emerging spacefaring nations through case study analysis. Countries were selected via two processes: the long-listing stage and the shortlisting stage. In the long-listing stage, a selection of countries was identified on the basis of the definition of an "emerging spacefaring nation" set out by the European Space Policy Institute. Here, the emphasis lies on sovereign space capabilities. Chapter Five utilizes these case studies to highlight good practices to help inform developing countries seeking a greater role in space.

In the subsequent short-listing phase, a brief survey issued to senior II stakeholders offered the opportunity for down selection. The final shortlist of countries was established on the basis of the scope of available – and reliable –literature, as well as with the aim to provide an even geographic spread, offering continental representation across South America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The four countries selected include:

➢ Brazil ➢ Saudi Arabia ➢ South Korea ➢ South Africa

Another aim of the case study analysis is to present good practices for developing countries in completion of Objective 5 of this study. Though there are many more countries that could offer unique insights, this study is limited to these four, due to the desk-based nature of the research, as well as language constraints and the limited timespan of the study.

Follow-up studies may seek to expand on this report by including wider geographic representation, as well as tailored, countryspecific recommendations, or the inclusion of scenarios to illustrate the potential impacts of equitable access to space.

Expert Workshops

Research objectives 3 and 4 of this study were informed with help of expert workshops. Objective 3 analyses the potential economic, geostrategic and wider societal benefits of space programs in developing countries. Objective 4 identifies the risks of more space actors, as well as key enablers and obstacles to inclusive and peaceful outcomes in the space domain.

O B J . 3 & 4 : N E W S P A C E F A R E R S

The workshop component of the study centered on understanding some of the potential economic, scientific, geostrategic, and wider societal benefits new space actors bring to the established spacefaring community, while noting associated risks or threats. In addition, participants considered some of the key enablers and obstacles to achieving peaceful and equitable outcomes and establishing a thriving international space community.

Three 1.5-hour workshops were held on the 2nd, 4th and 8th of March. These sessions brought together participants from across ASU, industry and academia. The exercise involved a virtual SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis activity, in which participants were asked to consider:

➢ Benefits/opportunities of more actors entering the space domain ➢ Risks/threats presented by more actors in space ➢ Enablers to achieving peaceful and equitable outcomes ➢ Obstacles to achieving these goals

Mural software was used to facilitate virtual sessions. Participants structured their responses into themes according to the PESTLE-M categorization (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental and Military). Participants discussed their findings in group discussions. The findings of these three workshops were compiled and circulated in the form of a workshop note.

Interviews

Expert interviews were conducted to inform the research for this study. Objective 5 determines good practices and recommendations for new countries entering space.

O B J . 5 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Atotal of 13 experts were consulted over the course of this study. Interview participants came from academia, industry and policy research. Participants were selected on the basis of their expertise, ranging from economic development to defense and technology. All participants had a good understanding of the space domain and future trends. All interviews were conducted online via Zoom. Experts were sent interview protocols ahead of time, which framed questions according to the following categories:

• Space technologies/capabilities • Space industry/economy • Socioeconomic factors • Space policy/governance

Questions were tailored according to participants’ expertise and framed to build on the recommendations in the reviewed literature. The key themes were distilled into seven key recommendations, which were further refined through targeted literature review.