IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v62y2025i3p517-534.html

Network analysis of international cooperation in space 1958–2023: Evidence of space blocs

Author

Listed:
  • Svetla Ben-Itzhak

    (West Space Scholars Program, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University)

Abstract

The future of international cooperation in outer space was questioned when, in January 2022, Russia announced that it intended to leave the International Space Station (ISS) in 2024. A symbol of post-Cold War reconciliation, the station has linked Washington and Moscow even when relations on the ground frayed. The ISS has become a bedrock of international cooperation, having welcomed 276 individuals from 22 countries since it was first put in orbit in 1998. Russia’s announced departure from the ISS alarmed proponents of international cooperation in space. Its actions, however, do not signal an end but a new phase in international cooperative dynamics in space. This article examines international cooperation in outer space from 1958 until 2023. Using network analysis, it quantifies cooperative relations between states on space matters to examine the current state of international cooperation in space and its evolving dynamics. It finds that international cooperation in space has become increasingly defined by the emergence of distinct clusters of states, termed ‘space blocs’. Recent patterns of international cooperation in space markedly deviate from past dynamics in three key aspects. First, since 2008, distinct, bound space blocs can be clearly detected. Second, the internal composition of recent space blocs has become increasingly reflective of geopolitical affinities and strategic considerations on the ground. Third, although highly bound and distinct, the more recent space blocs are not entirely isolated and have not instituted any exclusionary practices, which is promising for the future of international space cooperation.

Suggested Citation

  • Svetla Ben-Itzhak, 2025. "Network analysis of international cooperation in space 1958–2023: Evidence of space blocs," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(3), pages 517-534, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:62:y:2025:i:3:p:517-534
    DOI: 10.1177/00223433231225162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433231225162
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00223433231225162?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zeev Maoz, 2009. "The Effects of Strategic and Economic Interdependence on International Conflict Across Levels of Analysis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 223-240, January.
    2. Christensen, Thomas J. & Snyder, Jack, 1990. "Chain gangs and passed bucks: predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 137-168, April.
    3. Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. & Kahler, Miles & Montgomery, Alexander H., 2009. "Network Analysis for International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 559-592, July.
    4. Joshua J. Lewer & Hendrik Van den Berg, 2007. "Estimating the Institutional and Network Effects of Religious Cultures on International Trade," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 255-277, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Baronchelli Adelaide & Ricciuti Roberto, 2025. "The Battlefield and the Wire: Linking Cyber and Material Conflicts, 2000–2014," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 31(3), pages 365-380.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2012. "War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 257-278, July.
    2. Zeev Maoz, 2012. "How Network Analysis Can Inform the Study of International Relations," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 247-256, July.
    3. Bunte, Jonas B. & Kinne, Brandon J., 2025. "Strategic interdependence in sovereign lending," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Zeev Maoz, 2012. "Preferential Attachment, Homophily, and the Structure of International Networks, 1816–2003," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 341-369, July.
    5. Jacob Wood & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2015. "International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 537-556, October.
    6. Devin Case-Ruchala, 2025. "A paradox of openness: Democracies, financial integration & crisis," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 33-58, March.
    7. Han Dorussen & Hugh Ward, 2011. "Disaggregated Trade Flows and International Conflict," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 25, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    9. Vincenzo Galasso, 2020. "Market Reactions to Quest for Decentralization and Independence: Evidence from Catalonia," CESifo Working Paper Series 8254, CESifo.
    10. Cynthia Couette, 2024. "Epistemic competition in global governance: The case of pharmaceutical patents," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(3), pages 516-527, June.
    11. Maryam Asghari & Elham Oliagard, 2017. "Trade and National Security: A Test for Best-Known Hypothesis," Iranian Economic Review (IER), Faculty of Economics,University of Tehran.Tehran,Iran, vol. 21(2), pages 403-431, Spring.
    12. Michael Kenney & Stephen Coulthart & Dominick Wright, 2017. "Structure and Performance in a Violent Extremist Network," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(10), pages 2208-2234, November.
    13. Carattini, Stefano & Fankhauser, Sam & Gao, Jianjian & Gennaioli, Caterina & Panzarasa, Pietro, 2023. "What does network analysis teach us about international environmental cooperation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    14. M. Leroch & C. Reggiani & G. Rossini & E. Zucchelli, 2012. "Religious attitudes and home bias: theory and evidence from a pilot study," Working Papers wp811, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    15. Stefan Niederhafner, 2014. "The Korean Energy and GHG Target Management System: An Alternative to Kyoto-Protocol Emissions Trading Systems?," TEMEP Discussion Papers 2014118, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Sep 2014.
    16. Parizek, Michal & Stephen, Matthew D., 2021. "The long march through the institutions: Emerging powers and the staffing of international organizations," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 56(2), pages 204-223.
    17. Srigiri, Srinivasa Reddy & Breuer, Anita & Scheumann, Waltina, 2021. "Mechanisms for governing the water-land-food nexus in the lower Awash River Basin, Ethiopia: Ensuring policy coherence in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda," IDOS Discussion Papers 26/2021, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    18. Stanzel, Volker (Ed.), 2018. "Die neue Wirklichkeit der Außenpolitik: Diplomatie im 21.Jahrhundert," SWP-Studien 23/2018, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
    19. Daniel S. Andrews & Stav Fainshmidt & Michael A. Witt & Ajai Gaur, 2025. "Foreign policy: implications for multinational firms," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 105-119, March.
    20. Ivan Savic & Zachary C. Shirkey, 2009. "Trust in the Balance," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 483-507, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:62:y:2025:i:3:p:517-534. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.