The polar regions, deep sea, cyberspace, and outer space are new frontiers that are necessary for the survival and sustainable development of human beings. In recent years, human activities in these frontiers have increased rapidly; climate change accelerated and environmental problems worsened, leaving serious impacts on our life. Moreover, these new frontiers have shown signs of disorder featuring growing international competition and outdated governance. Besides facing up squarely to these challenges, we need to think over whether it is possible to jettison the existing order of power politics and construct a governance order with a new value system based on the essence of human civilization on governance. After all, it has not been long since human activities started in the new frontiers, and interests of the international society in these frontiers are relatively simple. The new frontiers are where the resources and space for our survival and future development come from, and sustain the shared interests and common concerns of all humankind. This is highly consistent with the idea of a community of shared future, and the new frontiers can therefore be a perfect platform to practice the philosophy.
There are three major problems in our governance of these new frontiers. First, human activities in these new frontiers have increased, but the governance mechanism lags behind; second, human exploitation challenges the governance of these frontiers; and third, there are often conflicts between the interests of nation blocs and regional powers and those of the overall humankind. At the same time, we need to address challenges such as fragmentation in governance and competition for dominating the rules-making of governance. Despite the variety of challenges, the essential cause for all these challenges lies in the lack of consensus on governance philosophy.
First, the international community is divided on the identity of these new frontiers. The ownership of the sea, outer space, the polar regions, cyberspace, or any other kind of new frontier is in one way or another not clear. Who owns these frontiers? Are they ‘global commons’ or ‘terra nullius’? It is necessary to distinguish between these two concepts since they are totally different in nature. The former means something owned by all and not by anyone specifically, while the latter refers to something belonging to no one since it has not been occupied. Although it is widely believed among the international community that the vast majority of the new frontiers (high seas, seabed, ocean floors and their subsoil that are out of jurisdiction of any country, outer space, the Antarctic, and some of the cyberspace) are ‘global commons’ that are owned by all mankind, the new frontiers are often regarded as ‘terrae nullius’ in practice. Great powers compete against each other to occupy them, increase their physical presence in those common domains so as to improve their influence, and even set the power game rule that whosoever enters first is the owner and whichever is practiced first becomes the law, like the ‘preemptive occupation’ on outer space orbit resources and the location of Antarctic expedition stations. Another example is the United States’ position that cyberspace is a common domain, which is intended to dilute the sovereign nature of cyberspace, and weaken other nations’ sovereign administration over this domain. This. in essence. is a kind of cyberspace hegemony. Generally speaking, how to define the nature of new frontiers is closely linked with the limitation on using state powers and with the allocation of rights and benefits. Some countries compete for and occupy the space and resources that should belong to the whole humankind, thus harming the shared interests of all. At the same time, it harms the due national interest of related countries that resources theoretically under the administration of a specific sovereignty are mistakenly regarded as common domain.
Second, the international community is divided on how to make rules and regulations in new frontiers, which reflects the lack of fundamental ethics and values to sustain the governance. In the development process of governance mechanisms in the new frontiers, global interests and national interests are seeing more new intersections, which engenders more clashes between different values. Different sovereign states have different understandings and ways to deal with the relationship between the two interests, and therefore the models and approaches they advocated vary greatly. At present, there are a number of notable phenomena. To start with, the governance of new frontiers is now controlled by a governing club, that is, a group of states practicing de facto governance and control over the new frontiers. To some extent, ‘more investment, more payback’ has become an unwritten rule in this regard. The rule means the more a nation inputs, the more it profits. Under this rule, countries with greater capabilities and capital would naturally desire for greater profits. However, the common domain in these new frontiers should fundamentally be shared and collectively owned. The nature of co-ownership means all the profits should be shared. National interests in the new frontiers should be limited instead of being maximized unlimitedly. Therefore, it is still to be answered which ethics and values could maintain a balance between specific national interests and global public interests.
There is a lesson we should reflect on. The United States, although quickly rising as a superpower, had failed to offer tenable values and public goods for the governance of the new frontiers in the five decades after WWII. Instead, the US promotes hegemonism and maximizes its national interests unlimitedly with its technological advantages and military strength. As a result, the governance over new frontiers ended up either in arms races among great powers, or in the dilemma that interests are a club of only a few countries. In pursuit of its own national interests and global hegemony, the United States changes the rules of new frontier governance, and even selectively plays along or violates the rules according to its interests. One remarkable example can be found in the area of cyberspace. In the early 1990s, the United States called for all countries to open up their telecom markets in order to promote its own ‘global information superhighway’ program. At that time, the US advocated a globalization thinking of interdependence to gain economic benefits. But with the development of the internet, it was the first to build a cyberspace task force, and introduce the concept of deterrence into the field to seek an absolute strategic advantage in cyberspace. The pragmatism the US adopted, self-contradicting in these different practices, cost a best chance to build a common code of conduct among nations such as ‘cyberspace as non-battlefield’ and ‘information technology as non-weapons’. The US hegemonic thinking and exclusive security concept not only led to divided governance philosophies for the new frontiers, but also failed to offer a valid guide from great powers for the ethics and values in the whole process of governance. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been used to making strategic goals by making ‘potential enemies’ or ‘imaginary enemies’ to maintain its military superiority, and it has applied the old thinking of security to new frontier governance. This US thinking of clear friend-foe division has harmed the building of common security in the new frontiers.
Improving global governance and promoting its reforms are not only to deal with various global challenges, but also to make rules and guidance for the international order and system; they are not only relevant to the competition among countries for the commanding height of development, but also to the status and role of countries in the international order and long-term institutional arrangements. The proposal of building a community of shared future for mankind is closely linked with the historical background. Given the deepening interpretation and practice of the concept, ‘building a community of shared future for mankind’ has grown from an idea to an ultimate goal of Chinese diplomacy and has developed into a fundamental value for global governance. The formation and evolution of the concept, in which China’s global strategic concerns for development are engaged, reflect the changes in the global situation.
First, the idea embodies the reality and need of coexistence. It is a new diplomatic concept that conforms to the general trend of global development in the context of deepening interdependence among countries and their intertwined national interests. This diplomatic strategy is based not only on the realistic demands that China as a rising world power should participate in building the international order, but also on the belief that this is the best and most beneficial way to guide global governance. Chinese President Xi Jinping, when analyzing this general trend, once pointed out that reforms of global governance have come to a historic turning point. He further elaborated that in the past centuries, great powers promoted their interests and hegemony by war, colonization, and dividing spheres of influence, but now all states have gradually evolved to coordinate international relations and national interests by ways of institutional rules. He also argued that many problems are no longer confined to a single country, and many challenges cannot be dealt with unilaterally; thus all nations need to cooperate with each other to address global challenges.
Second, the idea embodies the path and prospect of joint contribution and shared benefits, and provides a new value guide for global governance. Given the context of deepening interdependence, the participation to solve global problems is expected to be democratized and enlarged. Therefore, it conforms to the interests and demands of all states that a community of shared future for mankind is essentially a community of common interests, responsibilities, and destiny. The proposal for such a community calls for the joint construction of a development path and a future with prosperity for all. Moreover, the joint contribution and shared benefits are peace-oriented. This is contrary to the traditional approach of power politics by which nations defend their national interests by fierce competition or even brutal force. In the governance of new frontiers, people have already reviewed and innovated existing ways of dispute resolution. For example, some international treaties that define the public nature of the land in polar regions are made, effective multilateral consultative mechanisms are constructed, and the participation of diverse actors in governance is emphasized. This shows how the concept of a community of shared future for mankind is suitable to guide the governance of new frontiers.
Third, the idea reflects the win-win concept of integrating friendship and interests, and is an inheritance and innovation of the traditional Chinese culture in the contemporary era. The ancient Chinese understanding, after thousands of years, can still inspire the world to achieve a preferable global governance. The modern concept of sustainable development is reflected in Taoism, where the believers follow objective laws to deal with the relations between human beings and nature, and advocate only modest exploitation that does not violate the law of nature. China’s ancient philosophy sees the world as an interconnected system superior to all differences and fights among countries. The understanding of integrating friendship and interests in this philosophy is one that focuses on the welfare of the whole mankind rather than only a group of them, and collective interests rather than interests of a few individuals. In short, one could evidently find key elements of a community of shared future from the rich culture and history of China.
Accordingly, one could also enrich the concept of such a community using Chinese philosophical ideas, such as the idea of “harmony between man and nature”, ‘harmonious coexistence’, and “the order for the whole world”. These ancient wisdoms of China affirm the importance of a balance between short-term and long-term interests, a balance between groups and individuals, the sustainability of our international society and the mutual dependence of man and nature. Chinese leaders have already included these thinkings in China’s resolution to address contemporary global challenges. They have advocated that “common development must be promoted while seeking one’s own development”. When pursuing self-development, each country and each actor should consider the overall mankind, and sometimes put human interests before national interests and conduct some self-restraint. This is the core value especially essential to new frontier governance, and also what a community of shared future may offer.
As an important part of global governance, the governance of deep sea, polar regions, cyberspace, outer space and other new frontiers not only constitutes a global challenge, but also triggers various nations to compete for the commanding height of development. Influential great powers want to convert their own governance regime in new frontiers into international norms and institutions in order to get the upper hand in international rules-making. Once the competitive thinking is written into a state’s national strategy, this kind of competition will be lifted to such a level that it undermines the security and stability of the international system. Therefore, it is urgent for the international society to build a common ethical basis for new frontier governance. New frontiers can be an ideal platform to practice the philosophy of a community of shared future. On the one hand, new frontiers present the common concerns of all countries and the destiny of mankind. On the other hand, the governance needs of these new frontiers are highly compatible with the philosophy.
First, the discovery and development of new frontiers make us aware that all of our human beings live in a community of common destiny. New frontiers not only expand the living space of human beings and provide new resources, but also show that the different parts of the earth are interconnected and that a regional consequence could have aftermaths on a greater scale. Take the polar regions, for example: the melting of polar glaciers, changes in carbon sources and sinks, and ocean acidification are closely related to human activities. With regard to the future, new frontiers are where our human race could explore the space and resources for sustainable development. Currently, our global development is constrained by resource shortage and environmental degradation. In this case, deep sea and the polar regions are like treasure troves with rich resources to be developed; and outer space and the cyberspace are playing an increasingly important role in enriching our daily lives and expanding the global economic sphere. It can be said that increasing human activities in new frontiers have further deepened the interdependence among us. Given this interdependence, our human race shares a common destiny in the development of new frontiers. Whether new frontiers can be developed peacefully, harmoniously, and sustainably is directly related to the common destiny of all mankind.
Second, what new frontier governance requires is highly compatible with the connotation of a community of shared future for mankind. An effective governance on new frontiers needs various public goods like institution, knowledge, capital, technology, education, and international organizations, the availability of which demands coordination, win-win cooperation, and other values promoted by a community of shared future. In fact, the governance practices currently carried out in new frontiers have already shown the features above. These practices include those related to the human survival and development and norms of peace, security, and environmental friendliness. For example for the deep sea, since the concept of “common heritage of mankind” was written into the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and became the guidance to develop and utilize the international seabed area, the main goal of international maritime governance has become resource sharing and fair utilization. As for outer space, the moon and other celestial bodies are also defined as common heritage of mankind. In the polar regions, as human activities increase, the governance focuses on preventing global warming, ice melting and sea level rising, and protecting the environment and enhancing social adaptability. The cyberspace governance can be defined as “a wide field including infrastructure, standardization, legal, sociocultural, economic, and development issues”, whose goal is not only to ensure information connectivity, but also to address new global challenges such as digital gap, cyberspace ethics, and cyber terrorism. These international institutions have expressed similar ideas to the values of wide consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits defined in the concept of a community of shared future for mankind. All related parties, especially countries that enjoy technological advantages, should adhere to the ethical value and keep providing more and better public goods for the development and utilization of new frontiers.
New frontier governance is to address issues beyond, of, and above sovereignty. The approaches to addressing issues above sovereignty can offer some enlightenment to issues beyond and of sovereignty, especially with regard to dispute resolution. If this way of peaceful dispute resolution and the consensus on building a community of shared future could be further consolidated, the positive spillover effect of new frontier governance can be accelerated, facilitating the formation of a new governance order in new frontiers. Two preliminary conditions for this further advancement have already been fulfilled.
First, the differences in new frontier governance by different countries have become reconcilable. With the long period of overall peace after WWII, citizens of most countries started to have a renewed understanding of survival and development. Those in the developed nations have made global problems associated with the new frontiers a new priority, like the melting of polar ice caps caused by climate change and the rising sea level. The changes in public concerns increasingly affect governments’ allocation of governance resources. Meanwhile, with the deepening of modernization, those in the developing countries have also had a better understanding of the relationship between development and environmental protection and increasingly regard themselves as stakeholders in today’s global and cross-border issues. The cognitive differences between developed and developing countries caused by different stages of development are gradually narrowing, their proposals of new frontier governance thus being more compatible. It is still notable, however, that the compatibility is not equivalent in all fields. For example, regulations of cyberspace governance seriously lag behind. This is because major countries still have vastly diversified understanding of cyberspace legislation and the competition for a dominant role in setting related rules is fierce. In comparison, outer space governance also experienced a period of fierce competition, but is now at a relatively stable stage of development, with peaceful use becoming the main trend. There are also few disagreements with regard to the polar regions, so ideas and proposals are relatively reconcilable.
Second, the increased influence of non-state actors in global governance has made new frontier governance more inclusive. At present, states remain the main actors in the governance and governments are the major owners of governance resources. Non-state actors, such as intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, groups of scientists, and online communities, engage themselves in new frontier governance, their roles and influence increasing day by day. However, states and non-state actors have notably different thinking about new frontier governance. While states aim at maximization of national interests, especially short-term profits, transnational non-state actors think in the long run and care for the future. For example, in the polar regions where scientific knowledge is the basis for any governance, scientific institutions and scientists can participate in agenda setting and priority ranking of the governance. In doing so, they convert their knowledge and professional institutional designs into public goods. The power of non-state actors is limited, but since they usually focus on a specific hotspot issue of new frontiers or governance in a particular field, they can usually offer convincing arguments, raising considerable global awareness. These new actors can serve as important carriers for the philosophy of a community of shared future and organizers for its implementation. Using the philosophy to reconcile different proposals regarding new frontier governance is to provide a common value for the governance and help build a fairer and more reasonable international governance system in the regard.
Under the abovementioned global background, there are three ways to start the practice of building a community of shared future in new frontier governance.
First, it is a common mission for the mankind to conduct scientific exploration in the new frontiers and knowledge is the basis for exploring, using, and managing the new frontiers. Our understanding of these untraversed and boundless areas are far less than what we need to survive and develop. Scientific research projects like landing on the moon and Mars are the collective efforts of our human race to enlarge our living space. New frontiers are often harsh in natural conditions where it is hard for human beings to survive. Besides, the cost and risk of scientific exploration is so high that it is difficult for any single country to complete a comprehensive exploration in the new frontiers. This is why the US astronauts continued to carry out cooperative exploration in the Russian International Space Station project even in the wake of US sanctions against Russia in 2014. This interdependence illustrates the need for international cooperation in scientific exploration. The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies also stipulates “desiring to contribute to broad international cooperation in the scientific as well as the legal aspects of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes”.
Second, we need to improve mechanisms of new frontier governance. The institution building in new frontiers should reflect fair distribution of benefits, effective governance results, and the advanced nature of civilizational development. Scientific research is the basis and prerequisite for understanding the new frontiers. In the process, many new problems and issues have been discovered and discussed, which not only stimulates us to further develop and utilize the new frontiers, but is also a catalyst to building a new governance system. Countries often seek greater institutional cooperation after intensified scientific cooperation. Guided by values of a community of shared future for mankind, the international cooperation in new frontiers needs to overcome unfairness and injustice in governance. This could be implemented in three ways. First, we need take the philosophy of a community of shared future as the ethical foundation to build the institutions for new frontier governance. Second, we need to expand international participation in and engagement of the institutions, especially to improve the limited involvement and less protected interests of some under-developed countries. If possible, we should call for lower barriers for the participation of new frontier governance and ensure the engagement of more countries and their utility. And third, we should promote democracy in the institutions, and improve transparency and participation of the current decision-making process where large nations lead and all countries coordinate their interests.
Third, we need to build a community of common interests in different fields of new frontiers through international cooperation, which will lay a foundation for the community of shared future. There are obvious differences between countries in institutional designs and their interests in new frontier governance. Due to limited national strength and technological power, the vast developing world cannot join the new frontier club for the time being. Therefore, they want to maintain the co-ownership of new frontiers by all mankind, and reserve the right to participate in joint development in the future. In comparison, most EU member states, Australia, New Zealand, and other Western developed countries advocate mutual benefits based on matching the distribution of interests and rights with the input of resources. Most non-governmental organizations focus on protecting the ecological environment and the sustainable development of new frontiers. In this regard, building a community of shared future for mankind can be inclusive. The philosophy of such a community is different from others because of its inclusiveness to different ideas and its compatibility with interests and demands of different groups. Such a community stands for a brand new value that focuses on the well-being of all mankind, taking into account expectations of different countries in different stages of development. It takes fair care of the weak (or less developed countries), applies necessary constraints on the strong (some developed countries), and meets the political demands of other participants (non-state actors).
