We stand at the dawn of a new era. Not just a new technological epoch, but an era where the very concept of "statehood" is undergoing fundamental re-evaluation. With the emergence of Asgardia, the first declared "space nation," the theory of state and law, as well as the bedrock of ...
We stand at the dawn of a new era. Not just a new technological epoch, but an era where the very concept of "statehood" is undergoing fundamental re-evaluation. With the emergence of Asgardia, the first declared "space nation," the theory of state and law, as well as the bedrock of the international legal order, faces challenges as grand as their potential consequences.
As a lawyer and philosopher deeply interested in the theory of state and law, I cannot ignore these "pain points" that Asgardia ruthlessly brings to the surface of traditional theory of state and law, dating back to the time of the world's first states, Sumer (in Mesopotamia) and Ancient Egypt, which emerged around the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE. Sumer consisted of several city-states but functioned as the first state organization, or the Laws of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100–2050 BCE).
1. Sovereignty: A Territorial Phantom or a New Legal Reality?
Classical theory of state and law, along with the fundamental principles of international law, inextricably links sovereignty with territory. Territory is not simply a geographic space; it is the physical space within which a state exercises its exclusive authority, where its laws apply, and where its people reside.
Asgardia challenges this unshakable bond. While declaring itself a sovereign state, it simultaneously acknowledges its lack of recognized territory on Earth, relying on "virtual" citizenship and its cosmic status. Its claim to Marie Byrd Land in Antarctica, devoid of permanent population and subject to international treaties, is not simply a legal dilemma, but a demonstration of the gap between the old legal paradigm and the new legal reality.
• Pain Point: Can sovereignty exist in a vacuum, without a material basis? Asgardia claims sovereignty based on its citizens and their consciousness, a revolutionary claim yet not yet recognized in international law. If sovereignty is, first and foremost, the ability to exercise power, then over whom and what is this power exercised if territory in the traditional sense does not exist?
2. The People: Digital Citizenship as the Foundation of Statehood?
Traditionally, a "people" is a collection of citizens legally bound to a state, residing within its territory and subject to its laws. Asgardia proposes a different model: a "people" as a collection of digital citizens united by shared ideas, choices, and a cosmic mission, regardless of their physical location.
• Pain point: How can a "people" be defined in the absence of a common territory and actual jurisdiction? Can "citizenship" obtained through digital choice be considered equivalent to traditional citizenship? And, most importantly, how can such a "digital" population legitimize state institutions if it has no real control over individuals? This raises the question of the legitimacy of a government that does not represent or protect actual residents in physical territory.
3. Public Administration: Institutions of Power in the Noosphere.
Asgardia demonstrates the existence of institutions of power: parliament, government, and the judicial system. This is an attempt to reproduce state structures in the digital space.
• Pain Point: How "real" are these institutions if they operate in a virtual environment? Their effectiveness and authority depend on the voluntary participation of citizens. In the absence of enforcement mechanisms (such as police or armies in traditional states) and actual jurisdiction, their power becomes more symbolic than real. Can one speak of a fully-fledged "branch of government" if its decisions have no real consequences for those who fail to comply?
4. International Law: An Obsolete Instrument or the Foundation of the Future?
International law, a product of the Westphalian system, is oriented toward sovereign, territorial states. Its norms, including the Montevideo Convention, presuppose certain territorial and political realities that Asgardia deliberately evades. To put it mildly, they are still far from space law.
• Pain point: Asgardia, not being a recognized subject of international law, operates in a kind of "gray zone." It attempts to assert itself by forcing the international community to react, even if...
This reaction is simply condemnation or ignorance. A paradox arises: by violating (or at least ignoring) international law, Asgardia demands recognition of its right to exist and, perhaps, sovereignty. It seems that to achieve recognition, it must first "break" the rules in order to attract attention. This paradox is especially acute when it comes to sensitive territories like Antarctica.
5. Territory: Space and Earth – a dual claim.
The claim to Antarctica, specifically Marie Byrd Land, is a key element of Asgardia's strategy. It is an attempt to acquire a material basis that meets the criteria of statehood.
• Pain Point: This is an attempt to artificially apply the old model of territoriality to a new reality. Marie Byrd Land, although uninhabited, is under the jurisdiction of the Antarctic Treaty. Any unilateral actions, such as "selling parcels," would be seen as a challenge to this treaty and the international order. This could lead to tensions rather than recognition.
Asgardia is not just a "futurological experiment." It poses an existential challenge to the entire system of international relations, the theory of state and law, and, with them, to today's space law. It forces us to consider:
• What are the limits of territoriality in the era of globalization and space exploration? • Can a "people" exist without a common territory and a real government on Earth, in outer space within and beyond the planetary system, and at the center, where the Sun resides?
• How does international and space law adapt to the emergence of actors operating outside its traditional framework?
Asgardia may not become a full-fledged subject of international law in the traditional sense. But its emergence has already forever changed the landscape of our understanding of statehood and sovereignty on planet Earth and in space.
Its "pain points" are our common problems, requiring not only legal but also philosophical understanding. If we don't find answers, we risk remaining in the past, while the future, like Asgardia, rapidly disappears over the horizon. And ahead lies Mars, and before that, the Moon.
Let's ALL think about this.
