Introduction

As humanity expands its footprint into outer space, the geopolitical frameworks underpinning terrestrial politics are being projected into the cosmic realm. This essay examines Astropolitik, through the lens of the Westphalian system of international relations. While space law aspires to a post-sovereign order, the behavior of spacefaring nations and private actors reveals a resurgence of Westphalian logic. Astropolitik reflects a neo-Westphalian turn in space governance—state-centric, security-driven, and competitive—despite the normative aspirations of space as a global commons. The implications of this shift are profound not only for major spacefaring nations but also for emerging powers, small states, and space-aware developing countries like Bangladesh, which must navigate this strategic domain from the periphery.

The militarization and commercialization of space have transformed it from a scientific frontier into a strategic domain. With the intensifying competition among major spacefaring powers, political theorists and strategists have begun to reinterpret space governance through classical geopolitical frameworks. One such interpretation is Astropolitik, a term coined by Everett C. Dolman (2002), which applies realist geopolitics to the celestial domain in Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age.

The Westphalian Legacy in Geopolitics

The Westphalian system, institutionalized by the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648, established the principles of territorial sovereignty, political self-determination, and the primacy of the nation-state, writes Osiander, in 2001, in an essay: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251–287. It replaced the religious universalism of medieval Europe with a secular, territorial ordering of political authority. Geopolitical theories, such as those of Mackinder (1904), as presented in "The Geographical Pivot of History." The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437. A. T. Mahan (1890) extended this logic by linking strategic power to the control of geographic spaces—land, sea, and later, air in his magnum opus, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783.

As stated above, Dolman’s Astropolitik draws heavily on these classical traditions, positing that space represents a “high ground” from which terrestrial dominance can be exerted. He argues for a hegemonic strategy whereby a dominant power—ideally the United States—secures orbital supremacy to stabilize and shape the global order in its image.

Astropolitik and the Reassertion of Sovereignty

Astropolitik views space as a strategic environment subject to the same competitive dynamics as Earth. It dismisses idealistic internationalism in favor of a hard-power approach. Control over orbits, Lagrange points, and Cis-lunar space is understood not merely as a scientific achievement but as a geopolitical imperative. Lagrange Points are positions in space where the gravitational forces of two large bodies (like the Earth and Moon, or Earth and Sun) balance the centrifugal force felt by a smaller object, allowing that object to remain relatively stable with minimal fuel consumption. Cis-lunar space refers to the region of space between the Earth and the Moon, including the Moon's orbit and the area just beyond it. The term "cis-" comes from Latin, meaning "on this side of," so Cis-lunar means "on this side of the Moon" from the Earth's perspective.

This view reflects a fundamentally Westphalian logic: states pursue their national interest in a system defined by anarchy, self-help, and power balancing, as was pointed out by K.N. Waltz in 1979 in the Theory of International Politics.  Sovereignty, while legally prohibited in space by instruments like the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), is reconstituted through functional control, infrastructure placement, and the weaponization of space systems.

The Artemis Accords of 2020, led by the United States, encourage bilateral agreements for lunar exploration, allowing signatories to designate “safety zones” around lunar bases—effectively establishing de facto territorial control under a different name warned Jakhu & Pelton in 2021, in the essay: Space 2.0: Revolutionizing the Space Economy. Similarly, China’s Tiangong space station and its Lunar South Pole ambitions, as well as Russia’s resurgent space militarization, demonstrate an intensifying competition reminiscent of classical geopolitics.

Legal and Normative Tensions: Space as a Global Commons

International space law, particularly the OST, was framed in the spirit of post-sovereign cooperation. Article II of the OST explicitly prohibits national appropriation of celestial bodies, and Article I declares outer space the “province of all mankind.” These provisions align more closely with a post-Westphalian or cosmopolitan vision of governance, opined E. Benvenisti in his 2013 writings on Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders. American Journal of International Law, 107(2), 295–333.

However, these legal norms are increasingly undermined by national laws. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (2015) and Luxembourg’s Space Resources Act (2017) permit private actors to extract and claim ownership of space resources, effectively privatizing the commons under state protection. These actions are likely to mirror classical imperialist practices masked by legal innovation.

The Rise of Private Actors: Decentralization or Restatement of Westphalian Principles?

The emergence of powerful private space actors, such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and OneWeb, introduces a new dynamic to space politics. On the surface, these companies represent a post-sovereign decentralization of authority. However, Pelton posits that in practice, their operations are embedded within national jurisdictions and frequently aligned with state interests. For instance, SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network has been deployed for military purposes in Ukraine, blurring the lines between commercial innovation and strategic warfare. Thus, even private actors serve as instruments of national policy, reinforcing the Westphalian model rather than subverting it.

Global Commons under Siege: UNCLOS III and Astropolitik in Perspective

Astropolitic and UNCLOS III intersect conceptually in their treatment of unclaimed domains—outer space and the deep seabed—as realms beyond national sovereignty, envisioned as the “province of humankind” and “common heritage of mankind,” respectively. Both frameworks reflect a normative aspiration to establish these frontiers as global commons, governed by multilateral cooperation and used for the benefit of all humanity. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) declares outer space as the “province of all mankind,” while UNCLOS III, particularly in Articles 136 to 140, frames the deep seabed (the Area) similarly, emphasizing equitable access, peaceful use, and international stewardship through institutions like the International Seabed Authority. However, Astropolitik, with its realist underpinnings, challenges these post-sovereign ideals by highlighting how powerful states pursue strategic dominance in space—through orbital control, infrastructure deployment, and legal reinterpretations—much like certain developed maritime powers navigate around UNCLOS provisions to exploit maritime resources. The tension between the cosmopolitan legal architecture and the geopolitical behavior of spacefaring nations mirrors the contradictions within the law of the sea, where the global commons are increasingly securitized and commoditized, raising critical questions about whether "the province of humankind" is a normative ideal or a geopolitical battleground.

Implications for Bangladesh

For Bangladesh, a state with growing technological ambition and maritime strategic interests, the emergence of Astropolitik underscores the urgency of incorporating space policy into its broader national strategy. While Bangladesh currently lacks deep-space capabilities, its entry into the satellite domain through Bangabandhu-1 marked a foundational step. However, in a cosmos governed by neo-Westphalian logics—where orbital slots, frequencies, and space-based intelligence confer strategic leverage—Bangladesh must recognize space as an emerging frontier of security, economy, and diplomacy. Participation in multilateral forums, regional collaborations, and space governance mechanisms will be crucial to safeguard its interests. Moreover, integrating space-based technologies into climate monitoring, disaster management, and maritime domain awareness will be essential for national resilience. Without strategic foresight, countries like Bangladesh risk marginalization in an increasingly securitized and stratified space order.

Conclusion: Astropolitik as a Neo-Westphalian Paradigm

To conclude, Astropolitik does not merely replicate the Westphalian conception of international relations—it revitalizes it in a new domain. While the OST and related agreements envisage a de-territorialized, cooperative cosmic order, the prevailing behavior of states and aligned corporations reflects the persistence of sovereignty, competition, and strategic dominance. Astropolitik should thus be understood as a neo-Westphalian framework: it adapts classical geopolitical theory to the spatial and technological realities of the 21st century while reasserting the centrality of state power in shaping the future of the cosmos.

For countries like Bangladesh, the implications are clear—space is no longer a distant dream or a scientific novelty. It is a domain of strategic consequence. National space strategies, international alignments, and regional partnerships will define whether Bangladesh remains a passive observer or an engaged participant in shaping the rules and resources of the final frontier.

 

Writer: Commodore Syed Misbah Uddin Ahmad, (C), NUP, ndc, afwc, psc, BN (retd), Director General, Bangladesh Institute of Maritime Research and Development (BIMRAD). Email: misbah28686@gmail.com