Podcasts about All Mankind

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Katia Coutant, Alban Guyomarc'h & Yann Robert : General Discussion, introduced and chaired by Young ResearchersPanel 4: General Conclusions and DiscussionColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Yannick Radi : General Conclusions Panel 4: General Conclusions and DiscussionColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Stéphanie Ruphy : CommentPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Jonathan B. Wiener : Space as Province, Property, and Planetary Protection: Risk and the Rise of the InterplanetaryPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Margaret Moore : Exploration and Exploitation: Territorial Rights in Outer SpacePanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Michela Massimi : Lunar Grabbing. On Scientific Commoning in Outer Space (and Oceanic Seabed too)Panel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Fabio Tronchetti : Rethinking "Common Heritage of Mankind" in the 21st Century: a Pathway towards Enabling Lunar Activities for the Benefit of AllPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026Colloque - The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy: Property in Outer Space: Context, Stakes and PossibilitiesColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Michael Byers : Que le jeu commence ! Commercial Space Mining and the Politics of Treaty InterpretationPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Niki Aloupi : CommentPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Philippe Achilleas : International Space Law Facing the Commercial Exploitation of Celestial Body ResourcesPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Isabelle Sourbès-Verger: CommentCommentPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Alex Mills: Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Lukas Rass-Masson: Property in Outer Space and Competition between Legal Orders from a Private Law PerspectiveProperty in Outer Space and Competition between Legal Orders from a Private Law PerspectivePanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Katrina M. Wyman: Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Anna Stilz: Sovereignty and Property in Celestial ResourcesSovereignty and Property in Celestial ResourcesPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Stephan Hobe: Sovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space LawSovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space LawPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Alessandro Morbidelli: Outer Space Exploration and Use: What Resources Out There?Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Rather than man looking to God as his all-sufficient one, Adam chooses to walk another path, and from that moment on, All Mankind lost its God given identity.

Send us a textIn this episode, we head to the Rid-All Farm to speak with Keymah Durden, a co-founder of Rid-All Green Partnership. What was once a notorious dumping ground in Cleveland's "Forgotten Triangle", the farm is now one of the largest minority-owned urban farms and a nationally recognized model for urban agriculture, environmental stewardship, and resilience. In this episode, Keymah talks about how Rid-All is growing communities and changing Lives. Rid-All was originally a pest control company started by farm co-founder Damien Forsche. As he worked in public housing projects, Damien observed some things, including what people were eating - unhealthy, processed food due to a lack of access to fresh food and nutrition education. This sparked a dream of bringing a farm to Cleveland's Kinsman neighborhood that would fill that void. That was in 2010. That dream is now a 26-acre campus in Cleveland's Urban Agriculture Innovation Zone. The name Rid-All stands for Redeem, Integrity, and Determination for All Mankind. Tragically, Damien passed away in 2018, but his partners continue to expand the Rid-All mission to honor his legacy and train the next generation of farmers. Carrying on the farming traditions of their African ancestors is central to Rid-All's mission. And that is what makes it truly special. They are not just growing food; they are rebuilding community connections, honoring cultural traditions, and creating pathways to health, prosperity, and circularity. Join us for a meaningful conversation about farming, soil, raising fish, sequestering carbon, celebration, music, learning, health, and the intersection of all these topics. Then go to the farm for Taco Tuesday or Fish Friday in the Rid-All Community Kitchen to experience this special place for yourself.  Guest: Keymah Durden, Farmer and Co-Founder of Rid-All Green PartnershipLearn More:Meet the Rid-All PartnersTraining programsYouth programsVideosFollow us: https://www.facebook.com/ecospeaksclehttps://www.instagram.com/ecospeakscleContact us:hello@ecospeakscle.com

One man is believed by many to be the savior of ALL MANKIND, while multitudes of others believe they have a successful claim on the martyr himself, and have since the crucifixion named themselves for a specific human sacrifice.Each segment of this episode addresses the impact that this sect of faith has had throughout time, on historical and religious evolution.**Please leave comments or questions below any episode, let us know your thoughts on the discussion!**

Asian Wars BrewingBy FinalStand. Listen to the Podcast at Explicit Novels.[World News]It was the happenstance of another conflict that encouraged Turkish solidarity and Khanate action, the Crimea. Russia had opened a serious door to the Abyss by annexing the Crimea from the Ukraine by force. Technically, Russia had violated Ukrainian sovereignty by seizing that region.The Russians (with tacit support from China) put forth the political notion of 'lost territory'. Thus Vladimir Putin had unwittingly 'green lighted' the greatest consumption of 'lost territory' in the history of mankind. Following Putin's reasoning, all Temujin was doing was reuniting the widely separated pieces of the Great Khanate. His invasion of Xinjiang and Nei Mongol were also part of that policy.The 'Carolina Reaper' spice in this chili was a group called the Crimean Tartars. It didn't get too much press in the West, but in the spring of 2014, the Crimean Tartars, a Turkish ethnic minority, attempted to do to Russia and the new Republic of Crimea what those two had done to the Ukraine. They declared their own autonomous state within the Crimea.Russian security forces quickly squashed that movement, and in doing so, managed to incite the Turkish Republics and the minority Turkish populations living inside the Russian Federation. It was a low grade irritant to the Turkish people that would, in time, have dwindled into being yet another indignity, much like the Uyghur struggles for independence. By the dictates of Fate alone, it was the right irritant at the magic time for the Khanate.The Turkish people were being reacquainted with the clarion call of Pan-Turkish Nationalism. It was an idea that was over 100 years old and rather discredited in most circles, treated as an anthropological discipline, but not as a political ambition. But there were now three igniters for the Khanate Phoenix.The dismissive treatment of the Crimean Tartars was the smallest spark, yet also the most crucial in that it reminded your average Turk that for 100 years, they had been the victims of secular, oppressive regimes, the Soviets (Russian) and the Communist Chinese. That oppression was still living its fifteen minutes of fame.The second factor was the boogeyman of the West that had been burning bright-hot over the past twenty years, the Islamic Identity movement. It wasn't just fanatics running around the Syrian Desert, or the Afghan/Pakistan border. It was a strong undercurrent in the Muslim world that recalled the halcyon days of the Caliphate.The original Mongol Khanate hadn't championed any religious doctrine. It had been the Mongol-Turkish successor states that had turned Islam into a weapon to strike down their enemies. That was the history that Temujin and the Earth  and  Sky were embracing. This was both a jihad and a struggle to reassert their ethnic identity.The Russian Federation had arrogantly discarded Turkish appeals. Turkish nationalists were incensed, but they were never big fans of Russia anyway. It was the commuters on their way to work who found this utter dismissal to be insulting. It was the Imams who spoke out against still more sectarian oppression. It was the journalists who wrote a few scathing articles about the new Russian imperialism.When that tiny core of Earth  and  Sky seized power in those four countries, their power was more ephemeral than substantive. The important factors working against them were that they had relatively little power in those countries and no organized political support. (They had been a secret society, after all.) What they did have going for them was an antsy, dissatisfied public and an on-edge military.Remember, the Chinese had launched a series of apparently unwarranted attacks into their nations only forty-eight hours ago and had given these countries some trumped up claims of combating terrorism. The militaries of Kazakhstan and Mongolia discovered that they were at war before sunrise. Not knowing the score, unengaged PLA border units began clashing with their Mongolian and Turkish counterparts.In War as in Love, the same rules held true. The quality of your 'game' was secondary to who approached the girl first. If the girl was on the prowl, you were the answer to her desires. Unless the second guy to show up was remarkably superior, she'd stick with the one who recognized her qualities first.Girls are not nearly as shallow and superficial as guys would like to believe. Unless she's looking for a three-way, she'll take the guy she feels is the least likely to stick with her for the night, rather than become a date-jumper herself. (If she is a party girl, all bets are off.) For the militaries of Kazakhstan and Mongolia, they were about to be that 'second guy' to get to Lady Victory if they didn't get moving.If they hesitated much longer, they knew they'd get clobbered. The unknown person talking to them from the Ministry of Defense was saying that their countries were at war. Shots were being fired. If those generals and colonels had believed there was still time for rational discourse, they would have realized they were engaging in madness.But every second that passed increased the likelihood of planes being caught in their bunkers, runways being cratered, their troops being caught in their barracks and their reserves left unarmed in their homes. The Khanate was broadcasting that a State of War existed. The legitimate governmental infrastructure hadn't adjusted yet, so those militaries went into 'pre-emptive' strike mode.[End World News]So the UN was meeting in Special Session, trying to figure out what had gone wrong in Central Asia. The UN representatives of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan didn't know what was going and as seasoned diplomats, they kept their mouths shut. Only four people in the UN knew the real score.One was my old friend, Oyuun Tömörbaatar, Kazakhstan's Permanent UN Representative. He was fresh off the jet back to New York and most likely, the Khanate's silent ambassador. The other three didn't include the US. No, two of them were Sir Grant, Her Majesty's Representative, and David Donoghue, Ireland's Representative and member of the Illuminati, the O'Shea faction.There also was yet another 'slight problem'. The former Mongolian Representative seemed to have vanished and his Youth Panel Advisor was handing over his own bona fides, which no one at the UN could confirm because the Mongolian Capital, Ulan Bator, was in the midst of a regime change. Until then, Tuguldor Batjargal could speak and talk, but not vote.That news wasn't all that relevant to the Amazons. To the US and the Brits, it was critical. The US Cabinet was still assembling and had no specific orders for their UN Ambassador yet, so it fell to the United Kingdom to make the first move. From the minimal expressions Delilah and Chaz were slipping our way, the Amazons were getting 'Brownie Points' with at least one world government.I had little doubt I was gaining status in Temujin's eyes too. I had delivered diplomatic contact in less than eleven hours, even if it was the British, and not the Americans, putting forth the first feelers. I was soul-sick looking over at Katrina and Elsa. They respected my pain by not congratulating me on a successful diplomatic stratagem.St. Marie had already honored my initiatives by agreeing to send help to the ninja. I doubted such a mission was in the Amazon War Plans Manual. In their past, Amazons always fought alone. Even allies were little more than different factions fighting the same enemy. In the past two weeks that had changed.By my interpretation of events, the Augurs had bound us to the Earth  and  Sky. By conception, I was tied to the Illuminati. I had manipulated my birthright via Vranus to intertwine the blood of House Ishara with that of the 9 Clans. Was I making a difference, not only within my Amazons, but to the World at large?Maybe I was. I would have been happier if I wasn't being such a spaz, stumbling from one encounter to the next, hoping I was doing the right thing. I would have settled for doing the least harm. To survive this, I had to get back to my roots, ambitious playboy. I was going to let people down because of my sexual ambitions. Okay.If I suddenly began to embrace traditional Western morality it was going to break me. I had to prioritize. I was giving women, trapped in the ghostly place between the outside World's secularism and Amazon spiritualism, immortality. I had two unborn daughters and one unborn son who might actually want me around as they grew up."Cáel?" Helena beckoned me. I hadn't heard her come in. I had no idea she was here, which implied another disaster had befallen people in life I cared about. She foisted a box on me. It was wooden, about 30cm x 30cm x 10cm. It had a simple latch that I flipped so that I could look inside. Inside was,"We, the Isharans, decided that if you are going to make a pledge to this outsider woman, then you should give her something of us," she explained. "We were unaware of you making other arrangements, so three of us examined a few of the artifacts Krasimira had transferred to Havenstone and decided on this."I put the box down on the side table. The necklace inside was beautiful, fragile and ancient-looking."It was the gift of a Parthian princess to an Isharan Emissary from, we think it is from the 2nd century," Helena explained. She meant 2nd century CE.The artifacts transferred must have been from the repository of the Amazons, location unknown, that had been held in the Isharan vaults. My House had anticipated my mind-splitting day and selected an engagement gift for Hana Sulkanen."The small selection of rings was unpromising, so, we figure she knows you are unconventional," Helena shrugged.I began crying. I hugged her, then motioned Buffy over to share in the 'family' moment."You are getting married?" CIA Officer Cresky ruined the mood."Yes. I proposed marriage to Hana Sulkanen and she has accepted, but circumstances interrupted my search for the ring," I interlaced deceptions with the truth.I did not mention the timing of the arrangement in order to buy Hana some time to prepare for the CIA rectal probes coming her family's way. I had forgotten the company I ran with."Officer Cresky, if I may?" Chaz spoke in a smooth, yet lethal intonation. "I suggest you circle-file that bit of data." Cresky looked his way, still so sure he knew better than the rest of the room."Very well," Chaz nodded to Cresky. "Before you trip over your own arrogance, think about what we are doing here? Highly equipped mercenaries operating without concern for legal prosecution, bio-terrorism on a scale to rival the European colonization of the Americas, and a military conflict on your soil involving perhaps seven hundred well-armed, experienced light infantry and Special Forces, does any of that ring a bell?""Thank you for that summary, Mr. Whoever-You-Are," Cresky smirked. That lasted about two seconds before FBI Agent Vincent stepped over and landed a painful Gibb-slap (that is from NCIS) to the back of Cresky's head. "What the fuck!" Cresky spat as he stood up, spun around and began to draw down on Vincent.Whoa, we are a fast crowd. Cresky's sixth sense kicked in just in time to realize every Amazon, two of the three Brits, two of the Illuminati and Virginia all held guns pointed at him. Vincent hadn't even bothered to defend himself."Everyone put their guns away," I stated calmly."Let me shoot him," I added with a vicious gleam in my eye. "I've got diplomatic immunity.""Good point," Delilah responded gleefully. "Chaz, go get some of those curtains. We'll used them as a drop cloth. I'll call housekeeping.""I like this plan," Buffy jumped in. "I think we can stuff his body in the refrigerator.""I'll make sure to leave a 'Do Not Disturb' sign on the door when we leave," Helena finished up our murderous conspiracy. They weren't done with Cresky. Color Sergeant Chaz Tomorrow strode purposefully to the closest drapes and yanked them down with no effort."I'm afraid I can't let you do this," Vincent extended a palm to Chaz.I couldn't begin to describe how stupid that was, had Chaz not been a consummate professional. He dropped the curtains, moved past Vincent and returned to his station by the MI-6 leader who was continuing an unbroken telephone conversation. No sooner had we re-holstered our firearms,"Sulkanen eh?" Senior Field Officer George Cresky looked back at me.The entire time Deidre, Riki, Javiera, Katrina and Captain Moe were on their phones, giving and receiving information from their various organizations. That explained the lack of refereeing from the people with authority, unless you counted on me to be in charge. No one was. The ATF guy had open his laptop and was streaming some data with Elsa looking over his shoulder.The ICE agent was playing phone tag with his brethren in Arizona. They were trying to figure out who all those dead Chinese guys were and how they had gotten into the country, with all their freaking armory. With old Jonas still waiting for his bail hearing, the ICE guy was also juggling the Homeland Security inquiries that Javiera couldn't deal with at the moment."George," I shrugged. "I'm not going to threaten you. It is pointless. You think you are the smartest man in the room. I think you are the fifth smartest and that's only because I've recently experienced a lobotomy that gifted me with five thousand years of life experiences. My money is on Katrina being smarter than Javiera, but I don't really know her yet.""Who do you think is fourth?" George scoffed."Riki, of course, moron. I only rate her below Javiera and Katrina because she even remotely believes I might be Irish," I chuckled."No, I don't," Riki corrected me in a brief interlude in her phone conversation."What about me?" Delilah mused."If you were smarter than me, you would be halfway to Heathrow by now," I pointed out."Damn it!" Delilah snapped her fingers, conceding me this round."Agent Loire, I see you aren't arguing with him," Virginia prodded her colleague."I learned some time ago that I don't need to possess the highest IQ to get the job done. Smart people screw up just as often as dumb ones," Vincent related. "I'm a big believer in common sense and the remarkable ability for most people to ignore it.""Thank you for that wisdom, Sir," I bowed to Vincent. "I'm glad today hasn't been a total waste.""You are saving lives," Virginia brought up. By the looks I was getting from the 'talkers', they agreed with her. I didn't."By all means, when I've actually saved a single soul, let me know," I countered unhappily."Wakko Ishara," Wiesława got my attention, "we need to be going."Making it to Hana on time was on my wish list, so I gave the various female authorities a quick acknowledgement, grabbed the box, and then made for the door. For a split second, I almost made it out the door with only two bodyguards (Wiesława and Saku), almost."Cáel? Where do you think you are going?" Buffy inquired.I was head of a First House of the Amazon Host, a Prince of Hungary, a diplomat from the Pugnacious Nation of Ireland and, a prospective sex toy to the Illuminati."Run for it!" I urged my two companions as I raced past them."Son of a Bitch!" Buffy yelled after me. "Get him!"I really am a bad influence on most of the people I meet. And the three of us were safely ahead of the pack until I had to stop to pound on the elevator button. The reactions of Nikita and Skylar saved me. Nikita put her hand on her piece and took two steps my way. Skylar turned the other way, trying to figure out what we were running from.Buffy collided with her, became tangled up and they fell over together. Helena, coming right behind Buffy, leapt over those two and ended up impacting with Nikita. Helena landed face-first on Nikita's back. Wiesława, Sakuniyas and I fled into the elevator and hit a button for a lower floor."What are we doing?" Wiesława inquired in a nervous tone."I don't want to walk around with a freaking army, Wiesława," I confided. "I want to have a bit of intimacy when I meet with Hana.""Why didn't you tell our sisters that?" she reposted."Would they have listened?" Saku snorted. "Amazon, would you have listened if he insisted you stay away?""I, " Wiesława looked from Saku to me then back to me. "No, but why are we running away from his 'First'?""Child, this oddity I understand," Saku studied me. "Before battle, we would kick the heads of dead enemy scouts around to ease the tension. It was a nonsensical thing to do before facing death. Whatever else I dislike about this one," she gave me a sign of her approval, "he does not shy away from the fight, nor deludes himself into thinking a fight is not coming.""He is easing his nerves," she concluded."That is the nicest thing you've ever said about me," I gave her a respectful nod."I was wrong to doubt you were the grandson of Alal," she explained. "That was one of the things that drew me to him, I loved battle too much and he loved it not at all. We complimented each other."The elevator opened up on the tenth floor and off I ran. The Odd Couple was on my heels."Where are we going?" Wiesława asked."The service elevator. There must be fifty people in the lobby waiting for us and I'm not pulling a Butch and Sundance," I huffed. Those two didn't get it. Pamela would have.Not only did I have to find the service elevator, but I had to find someone in Facilities or Housekeeping because this elevator wasn't for guests and had its own key code. I found the elevator first. The doors opened. It was Pamela."How the?" I huffed as I jumped on board."Rachel fitted you with a tracking device, Chumley," Pamela joked. The four of us were heading down into the bowels of the hotel and, hopefully, an unguarded exit."Damn it!" I groused. "Tennessee, you need to keep me abreast of such things.""Don't Tux your tail between your flippers and waddle away," Pamela chortled."This isn't nearly as much fun when they don't get it," I reminded her."Be patient," Pamela snickered. "I'm sure their curiosity is eating them alive."

Take Your Power Back Show Host Kim Yeater speaks with Eric B. Maldonado, Christian author, and scholar of "The V Prophecy,"A Revelation to the Churches & All Mankind explores ancient prophecies and their connections to modern times. A sought-after speaker and evangelist, Eric's message of HOPE & EDEMPTION RESONATES GLOBALLY. We will discuss the connection between the Covid Vaccine & The Mark of The Best. Stay tuned you don't want to miss this one!!!  KIM YEATER -TAKE YOUR POWER BACK SHOW HOST & TAKE OUR BORDER BACK STEERING COMMITTEE CO-FOUNDER & TEAM LEAD:https://KimYeater.comhttps://www.TakeYourPowerBackShow.comRumble:  https://rumble.com/c/TakeYourPowerBackShowLiveStream:   https://rumble.com/TakeYourPowerBackShow/live

In professional wrestling, the card is always subject to change. World Classic Professional Big Time Wrestling Promoter Dillon Hines is back to explain some changes to The Reunion 4 All Mankind were made.These changes can be out of the hand of the promoter as this episode explains just that, On March 8th, Big Time Wrestling is in Chillicothe, Ohio changes had to be made to the card due to talents dropping out and two talents being pulled that are out of Big Time Wrestling's hands. However, Dillon Hines has replaced some guests already and three have not been together in a long time!With Big Time Wrestling, this card you're getting a lot of bang for your buck including a meet and greet convention with all the stars on the card from Mick Foley, Kevin Von Erich, Hillbilly Jim and The Godwins and much more from 11-4. There is a Mick Foley Q & A session with surprise guests. PLUS you're getting a Hall of Fame Ceremony AND you still have a lot of awesome wrestling matches!Dillon also discusses Penta's debut on WWE Raw and how exciting it is that he drew over 26 million views on WWE social media accounts in under 24 hours!Tickets for March 8th: https://www.brownpapertickets.com/producer/2393041#BTW #WCPBTW #WWERaw #WWEonNetflix #WWEUniverse #WrestlingCommunity #WrestlingPodcast #PerchedOnTheTopRopeSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/perchedonthetoprope/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

There are days where you are beaming with confidence. However, statistics say that women wait to be 105% qualified before they ever apply for the job. One of the things often holding us back are the "preferred certifications". Today's guest helps transfer those project management skills and prepare for the certification that will land you, your next Full-Time or Consulting role.   Tamara McLemore, PMP is the founder of Tamara McLemore Enterprises, an executive consultant, certified Project Management Professional (PMP) Instructor, and a sought after award-winning speaker. Her expertise lies in coaching mid-career professional women, empowering them with the necessary skills, confidence, and language to obtain their PMP Certification and secure significant career advancements.    Through her PMP Exam 2-Week Intensive, she has successfully shortened the traditional preparation timeline, enabling candidates to pass their PMP exam within 30 days (a process that typically takes 6-8 months). This accelerated timeline not only aims to achieve certification but also to position women in the careers they truly deserve.   With a wealth of experience spanning over 25 years in various industries including technology, federal government and aviation, Tamara has risen from being a project manager to now serving as the chief impact officer (CIO) of her own company. Tamara's expertise has been recognized through her appearances as a guest on the Women Of Project Management® and the Harvard Business Review, Women at Work podcasts and has been a keynote speaker at prestigious events such as the Women of Project Management Conference, AE Ignite conference, and the Wonder Women Tech summit. She is also a LinkedIn Top Voice In Project Management. Additionally, she has shared her knowledge by teaching project management at universities and organizations worldwide, including appearances in India and Dubai.    Outside of her professional endeavors, Tamara enjoys traveling extensively and lives by the motto: "To be a Service to All Mankind."   Tamara's Links:  Website & Free Gift: IWantMyPMP.com  Instagram: www.instagram.com/tamarajoyful  LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/tamaramclemorepmp   Links + Resources: ✨ Let's connect on IG--> instagram.com/kris10edwards_ ✨ Book a Free Leadership Audit—> www.amplifyambition.com/links ENJOYING THE PODCAST? Follow/Subscribe, rate this show, and share it on social media too!

Solo Leveling ReAwakening features a catch-up recap of the first season coupled with an exclusive sneak peek of the first two episodes of the highly anticipated second season in one momentous theatrical fan experience. Over a decade has passed since a pathway called a "gate" which connects this world and another dimension suddenly appeared, and people with superhuman powers called "hunters" have been awakened. Hunters use their superhuman powers to conquer dungeons inside the gates to make a living, and Sung Jinwoo, a hunter of the lowest rank, is considered the Weakest Hunter of All Mankind. One day, he encounters a double dungeon, a high-level dungeon hidden inside a low-level one. In front of a severely wounded Jinwoo, a mysterious quest window pops up. On the verge of death, Jinwoo decides to take on the quest, which makes him the only person who can level up. Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/5knAeTAYpIE0RuswBrKfVe? si=a713499c4f2a42a5 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/roose366 Gaming Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RooseJp Trailer Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIBXA1Tpp8U&t=1s

What is Project Management and How Will It Improve Nonprofit's Effectiveness? Having a Project Management Professional (PMP) Certification can do many things for leaders of nonprofits. It not only makes you a more efficient employee, it's going to open up a lot of opportunities. Project management is a growing career industry, particularly in the nonprofit sector, and having a PMP certification shows organizations that you're capable of effectively managing projects, budgets, and time. Tamara McLemore, PMP is the founder of Tamara McLemore Enterprises, an executive consultant, a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) Instructor, and a sought-after award-winning speaker. Her expertise lies in coaching mid-career professional women, empowering them with the necessary skills, confidence, and language to obtain their PMP Certification and secure significant career advancements. Through her PMP Exam 2-Week Intensive where she has successfully shortened the traditional preparation timeline, enabling candidates to pass their PMP exam within 30 days (a process that typically takes 6-8 months). This accelerated timeline not only aims to achieve certification but also to position women in the careers they truly deserve. With a wealth of experience spanning over 25 years in various industries including technology, federal government, and aviation, Tamara has risen from being a project manager to now serving as the chief impact officer (CIO) of her own company. Tamara's expertise has been recognized through her appearances as a guest on the Women Of Project Management® and the Harvard Business Review, Women at Work podcasts, and has been a keynote speaker at prestigious events such as the Women of Project Management Conference, AE Ignite conference, and the Wonder Women Tech summit. She is also a LinkedIn Top Voice In Project Management. Additionally, she has shared her knowledge by teaching project management at universities and organizations worldwide, including appearances in India and Dubai. Outside of her professional endeavors, Tamara enjoys traveling extensively and lives by the motto: "To be a Service to All Mankind." More about Tamara at - https://iwantmypmp.com/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode #179 Jesus' Gospel story is told, by God's design, from 4 different perspectives. Matthew tells if a Lion of Judah— a Jewish perspective. Mark emphasizes Jesus as the ‘sacrifice' for sin. John reveals Jesus from a ‘heavenly view (which is shying is called the ‘Eagle Gospel'. Then there is Luke! The only non-Jewish author in the Bible — Luke, the doctor and historian— writes of Jesus from a ‘human perspective'. His life, his family, his friends. Luke is written to show Jesus came to die for ALL MANKIND.

EP 132: Transforming Careers: Project Management Certification and Mentorship with Tamara McLemore  Summary: In this episode of Coaching for Millennials, host Jose Miguel Longo sits down with Tamara McLaremore, an accidental project manager turned expert, to explore the journey from unexpected career paths to mastering project management. Tamara shares her unique story, the importance of mentorship, and the critical skills needed to thrive in project management. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just starting out, this episode is packed with actionable insights and inspiration. Takeaways: - Embrace the Unexpected: Tamara's journey from journalism to project management highlights the power of transferable skills. - The Role of Mentorship: Discover how mentors and sponsors can propel your career forward. - Everyone's a Project Manager: Understand how everyday tasks and roles can translate into project management skills. - Overcoming Imposter Syndrome: Learn how to recognize and leverage your unique strengths. - Certification Insights: Get the inside scoop on the PMP certification process and its value in the job market. Chapters: 00:00 Introduction and Welcome 02:15 Tamara's Journey: From Journalism to Project Management 07:40 The Real-World vs. College Education 11:30 The Power of Mentorship and Sponsorship 18:50 Understanding Project Management: Beyond the Textbook Definition 24:15 Recognizing Transferable Skills in Project Management 30:00 The Importance of Communication and Collaboration 35:10 Overcoming Certification Challenges: Tamara's Story 43:00 Tamara's Enterprise and Bootcamp: What You Need to Know 50:00 How to Get Started in Project Management 55:30 Final Thoughts and Call to Action   Want to Connect and learn more about Tamara?  Tamara McLemore, PMP is the founder of Tamara McLemore Enterprises, an executive consultant, certified Project Management Professional (PMP) Instructor, and a sought after award-winning speaker. Her expertise lies in coaching mid-career professional women, empowering them with the necessary skills, confidence, and language to obtain their PMP Certification and secure significant career advancements.  Through her PMP Exam 2-Week Intensive where she has successfully shortened the traditional preparation timeline, enabling candidates to pass their PMP exam within 30 days (a process that typically takes 6-8 months). This accelerated timeline not only aims to achieve certification but also to position women in the careers they truly deserve. With a wealth of experience spanning over 25 years in various industries including technology, federal government and aviation, Tamara has risen from being a project manager to now serving as the chief impact officer (CIO) of her own company. Tamara's expertise has been recognized through her appearances as a guest on the Women Of Project Management® and the Harvard Business Review, Women at Work podcasts and has been a keynote speaker at prestigious events such as the Women of Project Management Conference, AE Ignite conference, and the Wonder Women Tech summit. She is also a LinkedIn Top Voice In Project Management. Additionally, she has shared her knowledge by teaching project management at universities and organizations worldwide, including appearances in India and Dubai.  Outside of her professional endeavors, Tamara enjoys traveling extensively and lives by the motto: "To be a Service to All Mankind." Connect with Tamara on LinkedIn and at her website.  Need Support & Assistance to Get You Connected & Hired? Check out my Career Coaching Packages on my website! Jose Miguel Longo's Website: https://coachingformillennials.com Follow the podcast for more valuable insights and reach out with any questions or topics you want to hear about next. Let's turn your career dreams into reality! Be sure to connect with us on social! Instagram: @coachingformillennials @josemiguellongo Facebook: @coachingformillennials @josemiguellongo TikTok: @josemiguellongo LinkedIn: @josemiguellongo Twitter aka X: @josemiguellongo Keywords: #ProjectManagement #Mentorship #CareerAdvice #PMP #TransferableSkills #ImposterSyndrome #CareerGrowth #Certification #Leadership #CoachingForMillennials #CareerPivot   #CoachingforMillennials 

A new MP3 sermon from Killeen Bible Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: The Doctrine of Man, Pt #4: The Universal Guilt of All Mankind Subtitle: Doctrine Speaker: Jack Williamson Broadcaster: Killeen Bible Church Event: Sunday School Date: 8/4/2024 Length: 44 min.

Hey Everyone! Marvelous Marqui, Retro Raymond and EL discuss "Solo Leveling" episode 11 & 12 which also means it's the finale of this anime! There was an official Season 2 announcement so what's in store for the future of "Solo Leveling" and what do we plan on covering next! Reminder that we are all only purely Anime watchers of Solo Leveling. We may reference the manhwa or webtoon from time to time but we're primarily discussing the Anime episode content only! "Solo Leveling" Episode 11 - "A Knight Who Defends an Empty Throne" Released on Mar 23, 2024 Out of the blue, a "job-change quest" pops up in Jinwoo's window. Feeling that it may help him get stronger, he enters the gate. Inside, he fights wave after wave of enemies, culminating in a knight who brings back memories of the Cartenon Temple. Episode 12 - "Arise" Released on Mar 30, 2024 Drained from endless battle, JinWoo sees a phantom of his past self. To overcome his own past as the Weakest Hunter of All Mankind, he struggles to find a way to clear the job-change quest. via Crunchyroll.com Overview: Ten years ago, "the Gate" appeared and connected the real world with the realm of magic and monsters. To combat these vile beasts, ordinary people received superhuman powers and became known as "Hunters." Twenty-year-old Sung JinWoo is one such Hunter, but he is known as the "World's Weakest," owing to his pathetic power compared to even a measly E-Rank. Still, he hunts monsters tirelessly in low-rank Gates to pay for his mother's medical bills. However, this miserable lifestyle changes when JinWoo — believing himself to be the only one left to die in a mission gone terribly wrong—awakens in a hospital three days later to find a mysterious screen floating in front of him. This "Quest Log" demands that JinWoo completes an unrealistic and intense training program, or face an appropriate penalty. Initially reluctant to comply because of the quest's rigor, JinWoo soon finds that it may just transform him into one of the world's most fearsome Hunters. Japanese: 俺だけレベルアップな件 Synonyms: Na Honjaman Level Up, I Level Up Alone, 나 혼자만 레벨업 Aired: Jan 7, 2024 to March 30, 2024 Premiered: Winter 2024 Duration: 24m Status: Currently Airing MAL Score: ? Genres: Action, Adventure, Fantasy Studios: A-1 Pictures Producers: Aniplex, Crunchyroll What did you think of the "Solo Leveling" anime and our discussion of it? Feel free to give us feedback! Work Time Fun Podcast contact info: Email: worktimefundpodcast@gmail.com and Twitter: @WorkTimeFunPod

In this episode of THAT ANIME PODCAST,  The Casual Anime Fanatics discuss the Season 1 Finale of Solo Leveling, titled, "Arise".This is the official Podcast for Casual Anime Fanatics. We hit your ears with fresh episodes at the start of every week. So if you're needing a fantastic and casual podcast for all things anime, Look no further. This is “THAT ANIME PODCAST”  you've been searching for.If this is your first time tuning in, welcome to THAT ANIME PODCAST! We can't wait to discuss this Manwa turned Anime in a spoiler-free format. If you like what you hear and end up tuning in every week, we invite you to write us up a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts and/or Spotify! The reviews are a great way for us to reach more casual anime fanatics just like you!Episode Synopsis (according to Crunchyroll):Drained from endless battle, Jinwoo sees a phantom of his past self. To overcome his own past as the “Weakest Hunter of All Mankind”, he struggles to find a way to clear the job-change quest. THAT ANIME PODCAST:IG: https://www.instagram.com/thatanimepodcast/Discord: https://discord.gg/H9k5nknzSz

     The gospel is the solution to a problem. The problem for us is that God is holy, mankind is sinful, and we cannot save ourselves. Salvation is never what we do for God; rather, it's what He's done for us through the Person and work of Jesus who is the Son of God incarnate (John 1:1, 14; 20:28; Heb 1:8; 1 John 4:2), whose sacrificial death on the cross atoned for our sins (Rom 6:10; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 2:2), who was resurrected (Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 15:3-4), and who grants eternal life to those who place their trust solely in Him (John 3:16-18; 10:28; Acts 4:12; 16:31). Jesus died for everyone (John 3:16; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2), but the benefits of the cross, such as forgiveness of sins (Eph 1:7), and eternal life (John 10:28), are applied only to those who believe in Him as Savior. God is Absolutely Righteous and Hates Sin      The Bible reveals God is holy, which means He is righteous and set apart from all that is sinful and can have nothing to do with sin except to condemn it. It is written, “For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness” (Psa 11:7), and “Exalt the LORD our God and worship at His holy hill, for holy is the LORD our God” (Psa 99:9; cf. Isa 6:3). Habakkuk wrote, “Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You cannot look on wickedness with favor” (Hab 1:13). And, “God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). This means God is pure and free from all that is sinful.      Being absolutely righteous, God can only hate and condemn sin. God Himself said, “Pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate” (Prov 8:13b), and “let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I hate, declares the LORD” (Zech 8:17). And of God is it written, “everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God” (Deut 25:16b), and “You hate all who do iniquity” (Psa 5:5), and “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness” (Psa 45:7), and “the way of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD” (Prov 15:9a), and “evil plans are an abomination to the LORD” (Prov 15:26), and “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness” (Heb 1:9a).[1] All Mankind is Sinful      To be saved, a person must accept the divine viewpoint estimation of himself as sinful before God. The Bible reveals “there is no man who does not sin” (1 Ki 8:46), and “no man living is righteous” (Psa 143:2), and “there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins” (Eccl 7:20), and “your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear” (Isa 59:2), and “all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away” (Isa 64:6), and “there is none righteous, not even one” (Rom 3:10), and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), and “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8), and “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10). Solomon asked, “Who can say, ‘I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin?'” (Prov 20:9). The answer is: no one! God is righteous and we are guilty sinners. Biblically, we are sinners in Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22), sinners by nature (Rom 7:18-21; Gal 5:17; Eph 2:1-3), and sinners by choice (1 Ki 8:46; Prov 20:9; Isa 53:6; Rom 3:9-23). Sin separates us from God and renders us helpless to merit God's approval. We Cannot Save Ourselves      All humanity is quite competent to produce sin, but utterly inept and powerless to produce the righteousness God requires for acceptance. Scripture reveals we are helpless, ungodly, sinners, and enemies of God (Rom 5:6-10), and prior to our salvation, we were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). We cannot save ourselves. Only God can forgive sins (Eph 1:7; Col 1:13-14), and only God can give the gifts of righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9) and eternal life (John 10:28) that make us acceptable in His sight. Our good works have no saving merit, as God declares righteous “the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly” (Rom 4:5a), for “a man is not justified by the works of the Law…since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” (Gal 2:16), for “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9), and God saves us, but “not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness” (Tit 3:5a). We cannot save ourselves any more than we can stop the rotation of the earth, jump across the Grand Canyon, or run at the speed of light. Christ alone saves. No one else. Nothing more. Salvation is by Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone      The Bible teaches that we are “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24), and “justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom 3:28). Salvation is free, and it is received freely by “the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:5). Our salvation was accomplished entirely by Jesus at the cross when He shed His blood at Calvary, for we are redeemed “with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet 1:19). And because our salvation was accomplished in full at the cross, it means there's nothing for us to pay. Nothing at all. Salvation is a gift, given freely to us who don't deserve it. That's grace, which is unmerited favor, underserved kindness, unwarranted love, unearned generosity, and unprovoked goodness. Scripture reveals, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9). Salvation is never what we do for God; rather, it's what He's done for us by sending His Son into the world to live a righteous life and die a penal substitutionary death on the cross in our place, “the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God” (1 Pet 3:18).      Our faith needs to be in Jesus alone. This, of course, is the Jesus of the Bible, for no other Jesus will do. A false Jesus does not save anyone, such as the Jesus of Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness. The Jesus of Scripture is the second member of the Trinity, God the Son (John 1:1; Heb 1:8), who added perfect humanity to Himself two thousand years ago (John 1:14; 1 John 4:2), was born of a virgin (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:26-35), in the prophesied city of Bethlehem (Mic 5:2; Matt 2:1, 6), a descendant of Abraham and David (Matt 1:1), as the Jewish Messiah (Matt 1:1, 17), who lived a sinless life (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5), and willingly went to the cross and died for us (John 10:18; Rom 5:8; 1 Pet 3:18), atoning for our sins (Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27; 1 Pet 1:18-19), and was raised again on the third day (Acts 10:40-41; 1 Cor 15:3-4; 1 Th 4:14), never to die again (Rom 6:9). This is the Jesus of Scripture, the One who saves those who trust solely in Him for salvation. No one else can save. Scripture says of Jesus, “whoever believes in Him will have eternal life” (John 3:15), and “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16), and “He who believes in Him is not judged” (John 3:18), and “He who believes in the Son has eternal life” (John 3:36). Jesus Himself said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life” (John 6:47), and “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies” (John 11:25), and “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved” (John 10:9), and “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6), The apostle John wrote, “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life” (1 John 5:12). These passages emphasize that eternal life is obtained through belief in Jesus Christ. Salvation is exclusively in Jesus. Those who reject Jesus as Savior will spend eternity away from God in the lake of fire, for “These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Th 1:9; cf., Rev 20:15).      To be saved, one must turn to Christ alone for salvation and trust Him 100% to accomplish what we cannot – to rescue us from eternal damnation. We must believe the gospel message, “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4). Knowing the good news of what God accomplished for us, we must then “Believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31), and trust exclusively in Him, for “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). We should not look to ourselves for salvation, for there is nothing in us that can save us. Nothing at all. Christ alone saves. No one else. Nothing more. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Walk Worthy of the Lord      God's children are called “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called” (Eph 4:1), to “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (Phil 1:27), to “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Col 1:10), and to “walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory” (1 Th 2:12). In biblical language, the term “walk” often represents one's way of life or conduct. It's a metaphor for the journey of life and how one navigates it. To walk “worthy” emphasizes the importance of living in a manner that is fitting or appropriate for the calling we have received as Christians. We are children of God by faith in Christ (Gal 3:26), adopted brothers and sisters to the King of kings and Lord of lords, and our performance in life should match our position in Christ. Salvation is free. It's a gift, paid in full by the Lord Jesus who died on Calvary. God's gift is received freely, by grace, no strings attached, and is received by faith alone in Christ alone (John 3:16; Acts 4:12; 16:31; Eph 2:8-9). That's all. However, living the sanctified life as a new Christian is radical and calls for commitment to God. This requires positive volition and dedication to learning and living God's Word on a daily basis. It means prioritizing and structuring our lives in a way that factors God and His Word into everything. It means bringing all aspects of our lives—marriage, family, education, work, finances, resources, entertainment, etc.—under the authority of Christ. This is the sanctified life when we learn Scripture (Psa 1:2-3; Jer 15:16; Ezra 7:10; 2 Tim 2:15; 3 :16-17; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18), walk by faith (2 Cor 5:7; Heb 10:38; 11:6), and advance to spiritual maturity (Heb 6:1). As we advance, God's Word will saturate our thinking and govern our thoughts, values, words, and actions. A sign of maturity is when God and His Word are more real and dominant than our experiences, feelings, or circumstances. This is the place of spiritual maturity and stability.      Unfortunately, not everyone answers the call to Christian service, as our justification does not guarantee sanctification. But for those who have positive volition and who answer the call, there is no better life, no higher calling, no nobler pursuit, than that which we live in our daily walk with the God of the universe who has called us “out of darkness and into His marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9; cf. Eph 4:8-9). As those who are now “the saints in Light” (Col 1:12), we need to act like it, “for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light; for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth, trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph 5:8-10). And we are to “lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light” (Rom 13:12), and learn to function “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Phil 2:15). Being a light in the world means helping those who are positive to God to know Him. It means sharing Scripture with them. It means sharing the gospel of grace to the lost who want to know God so they might be saved (John 3:16; Acts 4:12; 16:31; 1 Cor 15:3-4; Eph 2:8-9). And for Christians who want to grow spiritually, it means helping them know God's Word so they can advance to spiritual maturity (Heb 6:1; cf., 2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18). This life honors the Lord, edifies others, and creates within us a personal sense of destiny that is tied to the infinite, personal, creator God who has called us into a relationship and walk with Him. Dr. Steven R. Cook     [1] The atheist rejects the existence of God; therefore, in his mind, there is no One to whom he must account for his life. In the mind of the atheist, good and evil are merely artificial constructs that can be arbitrarily adjusted to suit one's life. Apart from the atheists, there are many who desire to be religious, but do not acknowledge or accept the true God, which was the case with the scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees. Religion is man, by man's efforts, trying to win the approval of God. Worldly religion is a works-based salvation where a person tries to live a good-enough-life to gain entrance into heaven. A false god is always self-serving and rarely condemns. And if the man feels condemned by his false god, there's always a way for him to correct his wrong, pay some penance, and save himself by his own good works. Salvation by good works tells you the person worships a false god and not the God of the Bible.

In the season four finale of For All Mankind, titled “Perestroika”, Margo gets bad news from Aleida and comes to a realization about the future of the Mars program, Dev's plan to steal Goldilocks gets complicated, and things get a little heated in Happy Valley. Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

In episode nine of For All Mankind, titled “Brazil”, Margo works with Sergei and Aleida on the Asteroid Capture mission, while Dev's crew on Mars continues planning the greatest heist in history. Meanwhile, things get complicated on Happy Valley as Danielle suspects some nefarious activity occurring on base. Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us build the network by filling out a quick survey: https://forms.gle/AsBrAQD3zD3Ra6Qr7 Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

In episode seven and eight of For All Mankind, Margo returns the US, the workers strike ends on Mars, a familiar face returns, Alex adjusts to life on Mars, and Dev strikes up a big plan. Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us build the network by filling out a quick survey: https://forms.gle/AsBrAQD3zD3Ra6Qr7 Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

In episode six of For All Mankind by Story Archives, Margo reunites with Aleida, Ed stirs the pot, and Miles goes full Heisenberg. Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us build the network by filling out a quick survey: https://forms.gle/AsBrAQD3zD3Ra6Qr7 Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

Rev. Karen Worth was interviewed by Laura “Joy” Bedford. Karen's journey towards understanding began in 2006 while standing at her mailbox. As A Course in Miracles teaches, “The wish to see calls down the grace of God upon your eyes and brings the gift of light that makes sight possible” (25:6:3:1). It was at this moment that Grace intervened, and Karen came to a profound realization that her own mind could be her downfall if she didn't make a change. This marked the beginning of her path of surrendering to the truth. Her journey started by working with the subconscious mind through Centerpoint Holosync meditation. She then progressed to working with the conscious mind through Vipassana meditations, A Course in Miracles (ACIM), and eventually Self Inquiry. Alongside these practices, she sought guidance from various gurus and teachers. It was during this time that she met Regina at a local ACIM meeting, which led her to further explorations, including ACIM gatherings, the CMC Ministerial program Ministerial program, Awakening Together's MPP, Ramana Maharishi's teachings, Michael Langford's insights, and AHAM meditation and retreat center. In 2018, Karen dedicated several weeks to a Rupert Spira meditation on Existence. She was determined to grasp the essence of Rupert's teachings before moving forward. During a walk, she posed a profound question to her mind: “If I'm not the body, then what exists?” Everything came to a halt as her mind grappled with the question and eventually surrendered, realizing that it did not exist as a distinct identity. There was only existence. This revelation echoed the words of Moses, “I am that I AM.” As a community, our mission is to guide individuals toward self-reliance on their inner wisdom, and Rev. Karen Worth exemplifies the heart of this mission through her personal journey of aligning with her inner wisdom. She  shared how her path evolved from being an “Awakening Together member with a seeker identity” to experiencing the shedding of various identities. Here are the various links to different tools that Rev. Karen used over the years: CMC referrs to the Community Miracles Center in San Francisco, CA: https://www.miracles-course.org/ AHAM is Association of Happiness for All Mankind: http://aham.com Holosync Meditation by Centerpointe: https://www.centerpointe.com/what-is-holosync/ Astrology of the Soul by Jan Spiller: https://www.amazon.com/Astrology-Soul-Bantam-Classics-Spiller/dp/0553378384/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=jan+spiller+astrology+for+the+soul&sr=8-1⁠ If people have questions or comments they can reach Karen Worth at Kbworth64 (at) hotmail.com. If you enjoyed this podcast you may enjoy exploring our other podcasts: https://awakening-together.org/interact/podcasts/

In episode five of For All Mankind by Story Archives, Dani and Ed confront the past and what happened to Danny Stevens, Kelly makes a big decision for her career that concerns her son Alex, we learn a bit about Dev and his past as well as his future plans, and an Asteroid with 20 trillion dollars worth of Iridium is now the focus of Happy Valley Base. Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us build the network by filling out a quick survey: https://forms.gle/AsBrAQD3zD3Ra6Qr7 Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

In episodes three and four of For All Mankind season four, respectively titled: ‘The Bear Hug' and ‘House Divided', the Soviets are dealing with a coup that has stripped Gorbachev of his Presidency. As Margo deals with the repercussions of this, she is reunited with the mysterious woman at the park and is finally being put to good use for the Russians. Meanwhile, on Happy Valley, due to increased pressure from his wife on money issues, Miles has taken desperate measures to increase the cashflow by taking on some side work as a space smuggler. Up top, Ed kindles his relationship with Russian Cosmonaut, Sveta, who gets herself into some trouble by accidentally hurting a comrade. And back on earth, Kelly and Aleida team up with Dev to take control of Helios and get the SEEKER Program up and running. Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us build the network by filling out a quick survey: https://forms.gle/AsBrAQD3zD3Ra6Qr7 Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. In episode two of season four titled, ‘Have a nice Sol', Danielle and Miles have arrived on Mars to two very different realities. While the higher-ranking officials up top live more comfortable lives in Happy Valley Base, those below like Miles, are met with harsh living conditions. Luckily for them, it seems Danielle is going to make things better. Meanwhile on Earth, Aleida teams up with Kelly Baldwin in an effort to continue pushing forward Kelly's research outside of Nasa. Lastly, Margo gets a harsh dose of Soviet reality. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us build the network by filling out a quick survey: https://forms.gle/AsBrAQD3zD3Ra6Qr7 Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. On this episode, we cover the premiere of season 4, titled: “Glasnost”. We find ourselves eight years later, with faces old and new. Ed Baldwin finds himself once again about to make history as part of the Mars-7 alliance. The Cold War is over and Americans, Russians, and several other countries are working together towards Space's new frontier, mining asteroids. Back on earth, Danielle is offered a position she has to think about, Aleida is still dealing with the aftermath of surviving the bombing of JSC, and Margo adjusts to life abroad. We're also introduced to Miles, a struggling husband and father of two and an ex-oil rigger who finds himself taking a risky opportunity to save his family. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us build the network by filling out a quick survey: https://forms.gle/AsBrAQD3zD3Ra6Qr7 Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

Welcome to our series coverage of For All Mankind (on Apple TV+) by Story Archives. Join us week to week as we cover the hit Apple TV Plus show and it's interesting retelling of how history would have unraveled had the space race never ended. On this episode, we'll be doing a high level recap of what went down in seasons one through three and just how much occurred in that 30+ year span. From the first moon landing, to establishing a base on Mars, let's just say a lot has gone down. For All Mankind is an American science fiction drama television series created by Ronald D. Moore, Matt Wolpert, and Ben Nedivi and produced for Apple TV+. The series dramatizes an alternate history depicting "what would have happened if the global space race had never ended" after the Soviet Union succeeds in the first crewed Moon landing ahead of the United States. The title is inspired by the lunar plaque left on the Moon by the crew of Apollo 11, which reads, in part, "We Came in Peace for All Mankind". The series stars an ensemble cast including Joel Kinnaman, Michael Dorman, Sarah Jones, Shantel VanSanten, Jodi Balfour, Wrenn Schmidt, Sonya Walger, and Krys Marshall. Cynthy Wu, Casey W. Johnson, and Coral Peña joined the main cast for the second season, while Edi Gathegi joined in the third. The series features historical figures (played by actors or appearing through archival footage) including Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, Mercury Seven astronaut Deke Slayton, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, astronaut Sally Ride, NASA administrator Thomas Paine, NASA flight director Gene Kranz, U.S. senators Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart, along with U.S. presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Keep up with all things Story Archives Official Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠soapbox.house⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: contact@soapbox.house Join our newsletter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/696a96e28b6f/newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Help us build the network by filling out a quick survey: https://forms.gle/AsBrAQD3zD3Ra6Qr7 Support this show: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | PayPal Follow the hosts on Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mario Busto | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary Newton⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional show sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠1992 Films | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zachary R Newton --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/story-archives/support

In this episode of the Sci-Fi Talk  podcast's Byte,, host Tony Tellado is joined by executive producer Ronald D. Moore and producer Maril Davis to discuss the upcoming season four of the hit series All Mankind.  Ronald D. Moore explains how the expansion of the Martian base introduces civilians with different motivations and backgrounds, leading to conflicts and social interactions between miners, astronauts, and civilians. Maril Davis highlights the ambitious production of season four, which involved shooting in Bulgaria to depict Russia. Subscribe To Sci-Fi Talk Plus

HBO's Chernobyl miniseries tells the story of the worst nuclear disaster in history. Today, we'll be looking at the fourth episode in the miniseries called The Happiness of All Mankind.Did you enjoy this episode? Join the BOATS Discord community: https://links.boatspodcast.com/discord Find the transcript and full show notes: https://links.boatspodcast.com/249 Support our sponsors: https://links.boatspodcast.com/advertisers Remove the ads by supporting the show: https://links.boatspodcast.com/support Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

HBO's Chernobyl miniseries tells the story of the worst nuclear disaster in history. Today, we'll be looking at the fourth episode in the miniseries called The Happiness of All Mankind. Did you enjoy this episode? Join the BOATS Discord community: https://links.boatspodcast.com/discord Find the transcript and full show notes: https://links.boatspodcast.com/249 Support our sponsors: https://links.boatspodcast.com/advertisers Remove the ads by supporting the show: https://links.boatspodcast.com/support Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode of The Jason Cavness Experience is a replay of my talk with Kerry Steuart - Entrepreneur/Philosopher/Gulf War Veteran/Yoga Our Affiliates Close.com - If you hate your sales CRM or know that you inevitably need to make a change because what you have is not working, certainly check out Close. It's quick and easy to set up and sales rep adoption is extremely high! Give their trial a shot PeopleKeep - If your company has 49 or fewer employees a PeopleKeep personalized benefits advisor can evaluate whether a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) is right for your business. Reach out today to get your questions answered. https://www.peoplekeep.com/cavnesshr Everee Payroll - Run payroll or contractor payments from anywhere in seconds with just one swipe on a mobile app. Focus on growing your business instead of on compliance. We remit, file and report on federal, state, local and unemployment insurance taxes, as well as handle your W2s and 1099s. https://offers.everee.com/cavness-hr CavnessHR - CavnessHR delivers HR companies with 49 or fewer people with our HR platform and by providing you access to your own HRBP. www.CavnessHR.com Kerry's Bio Kerry is a Gulf War Veteran who spent eight years in the Air Force. He has a BS in Business Management, is a 500hr Registered Yoga Teacher (RYT) with Yoga Alliance and has been retired since 2014. Suffering from chronic pain and PTSD since his military days, Kerry understands first hand the numerous benefits of yoga and meditation for pain reduction and mental clarity. He is a yoga instructor that recognizes and believes that yoga can cause both physical and mental transformations that result in less pain, reduced PTSD symptoms and a reduction in stress. He provides a variety of classes that serve those looking for a physical challenge as well as a complete mindfulness/meditation practice. He realizes that people come to the mat at all different levels with different intentions and he welcomes everyone to come and make the class their unique yoga experience. His personal objective is to make yoga available and affordable to everyone in the Community by providing a variety of yoga classes, workshops and teacher training in a space that is comprised of unconditional love and acceptance. He is available for private or corporate yoga, mindfulness, meditation and speaking engagements including, exercise, sleep, yoga, self care, Ayurveda, healthy boundaries, and turning conflict into intimacy. We talk about the following Warriors Ascent and MYKC Yoga Entrepreneurship Being Authentic and Building Community Mental Health Kerry's Social Media Warriors Ascent: https://www.warriorsascent.org/ MYKC: https://www.midtownyogakc.org/ Kerry's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kdsteuart/ Kerry's Email: steuart@me.com Kerry's Twitter: https://twitter.com/kdsteuart Kerry's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/kerrysteuart Kerry's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kdsteuart/ Kerry's TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kdsteuart Kerry's Cell: 816-313-2013 Kerry's Gift To receive a daily motivational text from Kerry text 918-262-5195 or his cell above Kerry's Advice Once again I love you guys. I love and accept you guys for who you are today. I want you to be able to feel that. I want you to begin to feel excited about transforming from the role of a victim, but into that warrior. You're forging your own path, you're choosing your own destiny. You're finding that community and the society that you really appreciate, respects and loves you. We only have one life to live and this year, I really want you to find joy, peace, acceptance, unconditional love, and Hope for All Mankind.

This is the final tale of the pirates from Henry Every's Fancy. The Pirate History Podcast is a member of the Airwave Media Podcast Network. If you'd like to advertise on The Pirate History Podcast, please contact sales@advertisecast.com Sources : The Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies from British History Online The Trial of Joseph Dawson (et al.) for several Piracies & Robberies A General History of the Pirates by Captain Charles Johnson Enemy of All Mankind by Steven Johnson King of the Pirates by E.T. Fox The Pirates' Pact by Douglas R. Burgess Jr. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The six pirates who were found not guilty of their piracy against the Ganj-i-Sawai were tried for another, earlier act of piracy. The Pirate History Podcast is a member of the Airwave Media Podcast Network. If you'd like to advertise on The Pirate History Podcast, please contact sales@advertisecast.com Sources : The Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies from British History Online The Trial of Joseph Dawson (et al.) for several Piracies & Robberies A General History of the Pirates by Captain Charles Johnson Enemy of All Mankind by Steven Johnson King of the Pirates by E.T. Fox The Pirates' Pact by Douglas R. Burgess Jr. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On 19 October, 1696, seven men stood trial for piracy.  The Pirate History Podcast is a member of the Airwave Media Podcast Network. If you'd like to advertise on The Pirate History Podcast, please contact sales@advertisecast.com Sources : The Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies from British History Online The Trial of Joseph Dawson (et al.) for several Piracies & Robberies A General History of the Pirates by Captain Charles Johnson Enemy of All Mankind by Steven Johnson King of the Pirates by E.T. Fox The Pirates' Pact by Douglas R. Burgess Jr. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices