Just as the development of aviation required working out common rules for new human uses of the air, successful launches of satellites and other space craft required developing common rules for the use of space

Common rules emerge in one of two ways:

Rules are formed over time through tacit convergence of state interests
Rules are formed by explicit multilateral agreements

Situational Definitions:

Outer space negotiations have largely followed reasoning by analogy over inductive/deductive reasoning or even reasoning by metaphor

There are processes of interaction through which outer space agreements (or regimes) develop:

Pressure: deprivations (coercion) or rewards (inducement)
Exchange: transactions for mutual gain
Persuasion: altering preferences through argument

The United Nations has provided a structure for situation definition and interaction, but it has not precluded unilateral action in space.

Outer space as a location:

Res Nullius: an area outside the control of any individual state, but open to appropriation by the first one that establishes effective occupation (high seas analogy, whereby celestial bodies are "islands" that may be claimed)
Res Communis: areas outside national jurisdiction not open to state appropriation but to be used in common by nationals of all states (Antarctica analogy)
State Domain: areas within the territorial, maritime, or aerial jurisdiction of an individual state (national airspace analogy)

Jurisdiction in outer space:

Air and maritime analogies helped to establish registration and rescue/return norms among states
The Antartica analogy helped to inspire the notion of space as a sanctuary from military activity
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.