| Summary/Abstract |
How do the three major schools of international relations theory – liberal internationalism, realism, and constructivism – account for the second space race, the rivalry between China and the United States to scientifically explore and economically develop the Moon? This article assesses answers drawn from these three schools of international relations. Rather than distance from the Earth, surface area, and resource endowment, it is the lack of native population and status as a commons in international law that make the Moon a novel object of international relations. From the perspectives of both liberal internationalism and constructivism, the Sino-American rivalry represents failure. International institutions and organizations, which were established to extend the liberal world order into outer space, failed in this case to restrain the behavior of China and the United States. The diplomatic communication between Chinese and American national decision-makers failed to draw them into adherence with the norm of international cooperation encoded in those international institutions and organizations. By contrast, realism accounts for the second space race as an example of balancing of power. National decision-makers ignored international institutions and organizations together with international norms to gain or not lose relative international prestige, business opportunity, and potential economic growth.
|