Political Spaces Beyond the Nation State: The Global Commons in International Security Studies

Abstract The global commons have come to play an increasingly prominent role in the field of international security as scholars seek to better understand the causes and consequences of interstate cooperation, competition, and conflict in political spaces that lie beyond sovereign jurisdiction. In this piece, we make the case that by grouping all extraterritorial spaces into a single, not further differentiated conceptual category, the notion of the “global commons” as it is presently employed obscures important variation in the way these spaces are governed. Specifically, we argue that there exist two distinct types of spaces that legally do not belong to any one state: those that all states are effectively able to freely use for their own strategic purposes; and those that are de facto dominated and thus defy the ideal of universal accessibility their status as a global common supposedly entails. The updated conceptual framework we develop in response—which explicitly distinguishes between two distinct types of extraterritorial spaces—promises to advance security studies research on the global commons in several ways: it helps scholars avoid the issue of causal heterogeneity which current conceptual foundations introduce into causal analysis; it facilitates normative discussions about the global commons and their political future; and it produces novel insights into the governance problems policymakers will confront when seeking to maintain states’ access to extraterritorial spaces in the new age of great power competition.