What is Public- Private Partnership?

          Public-Private Partnership is a contractual agreement between a public agency and a private sector entity. With Public-Private Partnership, the public agency and the private sector entity share assets, skills, risks and rewards and set up one project. Public- Private Partnerships combine the public sector capital and private sector capital to improve public services or the management of public sector assets. Public-Private Partnership contributes more advantages to the government than privatization form due to the fact that PPPs emphasizes the role of the government whereas in privatization form, the whole business needs to be transferred to the private sector. 

Why developing countries need Public-Private Partnership?

Developing countries usually have a budget deficit based upon low tax base, weak tax administration, and poor business environment. With budget deficit shown, adopting PPPs enables the government to be able to afford to deliver good public services. PPPs are being widely used among governments when it comes to procurement processes when public funding is inadequate. PPPs is also a reliable form of investment from the perspective of private investors as it guarantees the long-term delivery of public services. 

The origin of Public-Private Partnership in world countries

          The history of Public-Private Partnership dated back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when countries focused on developing public infrastructure in the form of joint financing and operation of infrastructure.  In Britain and the United States around eighteenth centuries, over 2500 companies were chartered and incorporated to develop private turnpikes. In France, around the seventeenth century, the government used concessions to finance its infrastructure development, which means its private enterprises and banks are granted to design, construct, finance and operate infrastructures such as railways, roads, electricity and tramways. In the later decades, PPPs are commonly used by most countries as it proves easy procurement and construction method and financing model.

Common types of PPPs

Basic PPPs contract types vary in terms of levels of responsibility and risk to be taken by the private operator so that different countries adopt a particular PPP contract type that meet the local requirements on a country-to country basis. According to Asian Development Bank (ADB), PPPs are commonly used in most countries as follows- 

1. Service Contract

2. Management Contract

3. Lease Contract

4. Concession

5. Build- Operate- Transfer (BOT)

6. Joint Venture

7. Service Contract: This is a model which the government partners with a private entity to perform one or more services for 1 to 3 year limited period. In this model, the government funds capital investment and a private partner performs the service at the agreed cost and in line with the performance standards set by the public sector. The public authority takes operation and management responsibility and commercial risk whereas the risk taken by the private entity is minimal. 

8. Management Contract: In management contract, daily operation and management responsibility is assumed by the private entity with its own working capital whereas the public authority finances capital investment with asset ownership. The contract generally lasts for 2 to 5 years. 

(3) Lease Contract:   In lease contract, the initial establishment of the system is financed by the public authority and contracted to a private company for operation and maintenance. The contract usually lasts for 10 to 15 years. The private sector has to take responsibility for service provision and financial risk for operation. 

(4) Concession: In concession model, the private sector needs to provide all capital investment (assets) and these assets belong to both the public authority and a private company. In this model, the public authority just needs to take the role of regulating the price and quality of service while the private partner takes full responsibility for funding, management, operation and maintenance. 

(5) Build Operate Transfer (BOT):  There may be various forms of BOT-type contracts such as Build-Operate Transfer, Build-Own-Operate, Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build and Design-Build-Finance-Operate.         

(6) Joint Venture: Joint Venture is a model in which the infrastructure is co-owned and operated by the public sector and private partner. In this model, both the public sector and private partner are shareholders so that both parties have to invest in the project and share risks. 

How did PPPs evolve in Myanmar?

          From 1962 to 1988, Myanmar practiced the "Burmese Way to Socialism" under the leadership of the Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) as a one-party system and in economy, it practiced centrally planned economy. In 1988, after the Burmese Way to Socialism, in the aftermath of tremendous uprising due to the inflation and demonetization of Myanmar kyats, the State Law and Order Restoration Council took office for the period of 1988-1997. In 1997, the State Law and Order Restoration Council was reformed as State Peace and Development Council from the period of 1997 until 2011. In 1997, State Peace and Development Council announced the transition into a market-oriented economy. With this transition, the government started to pave the way for Public- Private Partnerships and privatization. In 1997, PPPs started in Myanmar to fulfill the infrastructure needs of the country. However, the projects during those days were based upon unsolicited proposal (a proposal made by a private party to undertake a PPP project, submitted at the initiative of the private party, rather than in response to a request from the relevant government agency) under Build-Operate-Transfer form. In 2011, President U Thein Sein government took the state of duties and some reforms were made significantly. In October 2011, 11 private banks were allowed to trade foreign currency. In November 2012, the new Foreign Investment Law (2012) was enacted and special economic zones started in Thilawa and Dhawei. In 2016 and 2017, Myanmar Investment Law (2016) and Myanmar Companies Law (2017) were enacted. In April 2015, to improve the reliability and stability of Myanmar’s power supply and to prevent the power shortage problem, Myingyan Natural Gas Power Project was initiated. This is the first PPP project that was adopted through solicited proposal (solicited bid received from private parties via a competitive tender process for PPP Projects under the purview of an Implementing Government Agency) between Singapore-based Sembcorp Utilities and Ministry of Electricity and Energy. This project is located in Myingyan Township of Mandalay Region and this project was governed by a 22-year Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement and a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

          When PPPs are widely used in Myanmar, the government has started using Swiss challenge (a public procurement process designed to encourage private sector initiatives to engage in PPP Projects. Under the Swiss Challenge tender process, if a relevant government agency wishes to proceed with a project that was received as an unsolicited proposal, the agency is required to publish a bid and invite third parties to exceed it) to welcome private sector involvement in the tender processes recently. With regard to Public Private Partnership implementation, the Project Bank Notification was one of the greatest achievements. It was issued on 30th November 2018 by Office of the President after Public Private Partnership Center was established through Notification No. (24 /2021) of Union Minister’s Office of the Ministry of Planning and Finance.  

Public-Private Partnership in Myanmar

          Myanmar government budget is shown as deficit as the country is one of the countries with the lowest tax-to- GDP ratio. As Myanmar's tax to GDP ratio is very low, the government cannot afford to make sufficient investment in infrastructure. Although Myanmar, being a recipient of  Official Development Assistance (ODA), a kind of aid given by developed countries to assist the development of developing countries, the fund from public capital and ODA is insufficient to meet the infrastructure gap. In Myanmar, PPPs has been practiced in the form of Build Operate and Transfer mostly in road, power sectors and some projects in hotels. Some forms of PPPs in Myanmar are categorized as Greenfield projects (any investment in a structure or an area where no previous facilities exist and without constraints imposed by prior works), Brownfield projects (any investment that uses previously constructed facilities that were once in use for other purposes), Production Sharing Contracts and Joint Venture Agreements between ministries/ government organizations and private companies. In Project Bank Directive issued by the government, common types of PPPs which have been practiced in Myanmar are  categorized as Build-Own-Operate (BOO), Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT), Build- Transfer-Lease (BTL), Build-Transfer-Operate (BTO), Operation and Management (O & M) and other forms of PPPs. 

  Legal framework governing Public Private Partnerships

           In Myanmar, Ministry of Planning and Finance, Myanmar Investment Commission and Directorate of Investment and Company Administration are government agencies that regulate PPPs projects. The laws governing Public Private Partnerships before and after the issuance of Project Bank Notification are mentioned as follows-

• Myanmar Companies Law (2017) 

• Myanmar Investment Law (2016) 

• Permanent Residence of a Foreigner Rules (2014)

• Myanmar Special Economic Zones Law (2014)

• Securities and Exchange Law (2013)

• Myanmar Citizens Investment Law (2013)

• Central Bank Law (2013)

• Foreign Investment Rules (2013)

• Foreign Investment Law (2012)

• Law Amending the Commercial Tax Law (2011)

• Private Industrial Enterprises Law (1990)

• Financial Institutions of Myanmar Law (1990)

• State-Owned Economic Enterprises Law (1989)

• Special Company Act (1950)

In Myanmar, apart from these laws, for the commonly used Build Operate Transfer project form, general tendering processes have been widely practiced under Directive No. 1/2017 (Tender Rules), which is widely used as PPP manual in Myanmar. In addition to that, State Administration Council issued the tender notifications (1/2022). In PPP, if the private party is involved in international connection, the project is liable to Myanmar Investment Law (2016) and some restricted business activities are outlined in the notification 15/2017 of the Myanmar Investment Commission.

Public-Private Partnerships in the form of Production Sharing Contract in Myanmar

          Production Sharing Contract is used in Myanmar’s Oil and Gas sector and it is a contract signed between a government entity and private companies. In Myanmar, under Production Sharing Contract, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise acts a body for the state and invites oil companies as contractors to make financial and technical investment in the oil and gas extraction. According to MOGE data, over 150 oil companies were registered as local partners with MOGE. According to terms and conditions of model production sharing contract set up by MOGE, there are two periods listed as the exploration period (an initial term of up to three years) and development and production period (commenced on notice of commercial discovery and continues for at least twenty years from the date of completion of the development phase) in the oil and gas operation. 

State Administration Council highlighting the role of Public Private Partnership in Special Economic Zones 

Three currently established Special Economic Zones are Thilawa SEZ, Dawei SEZ and Kyauk Phyu SEZ, but this article wants to highlight on two of these. The incumbent government, State Administration Council is attempting to develop Kyauk Phyu Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in the form of PPPs for economic development. In Kyauk Phyu Special Economic Zone Project, the China International Trust and Investment Corporation Consortium contributes 70 % and Myanmar side contributes 30 % when implementing the Kyauk Phyu Deep Seaport project. It is a four-phase project building ten jetties where the ships can berth. After this project, the livelihood of people in Rakhine State particularly those in Kyauk Phyu district will become better and Myanmar can directly transport goods to countries in African, South Asian, and Europe. In responding media, Union Minister U Aung Naing Oo and Mr Liang Chuanxin told that “the deep-sea port is a four-phase project containing ten jetties and it can accommodate about seven million 20-foot containers per year once completed. The consortium of this project will be incorporated by both domestically owned private or public companies registered under the Myanmar Companies Law 2017.” What’s more beneficial about the project is that State Administration Council has already planned to prioritize the investment of ethnic businessmen in the consortium. 

Thilawa Special Economic Zone is another successful example of PPPs project in Myanmar which has been carrying out by Myanmar government and Japanese government. Myanmar Japan Thilawa Development Limited has acted as a developer. Myanmar Japan Thilawa Development Limited was formed in January 2014, as a joint venture between MMS Thilawa Development Company, Thilawa SEZ Management Committee, and Myanmar Thilawa SEZ Holdings Public Limited. In Thilawa SEZ, in Zone A, a Residential and Commercial Area was firstly established covering offices, residences, restaurants, hotels, international schools and hospitals and it has begun operation since September 2015 whereas in Zone B, 3 types of land are categorized as industrial land, logistical land, residential or commercial land. 

          To sum up, State Administration Council is currently putting an emphasis on Public –Private Partnership and Small and Medium Enterprises for boosting economy in the aftermath of the Covid-19 implications. The actions of State Administration Council such as developing Special Economic Zones, encouraging SMEs to produce value-added goods to penetrate into export market, providing tax exemptions and incentives in the existing tax laws prove that State Administration Council is making an earnest effort to keep the existing economic infrastructure and projects working. The implementation of Public Private Partnership can pave the way for infrastructure development in Myanmar and the opportunities can be seen under this initiative.                                                                            

References 

• Asian Development Bank’s PPP Handbook
• The establishment of PPP center
• Project Bank Notification 
• Myanmar Companies Law (2017)
• Myanmar Investment Law (2016)
• Ministry of Information’s press release
• Special Economic Zone Law (2014)

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into modern warfare has revolutionized military strategies, introducing unprecedented capabilities while presenting profound legal and ethical challenges. From autonomous drones to AI-driven cyber defense systems, these advancements have outpaced existing international legal frameworks, creating a pressing need to address gaps and ambiguities in laws governing AI in conflict. This article explores the use of AI in military operations, focusing on its application in the Middle East and Ukraine, and examines the challenges it presents under international law.

Evolving Legal Frameworks: Old Principles Meet New Technologies

The rules governing warfare, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, are grounded in principles like proportionality, distinction, and necessity. However, these frameworks were crafted in an era when AI was not a consideration, leaving significant gaps in addressing its unique challenges.

The emergence of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) poses one of the most significant tests for international law. These systems operate with minimal human intervention, blurring lines of accountability and complicating enforcement of principles like distinction and proportionality. AI’s ability to independently analyze vast data sets and execute operations challenges the traditional understanding of state and individual accountability under international humanitarian law (IHL).

Innovations and Implications

AI's military applications are prominently displayed in the Middle East and Ukraine, regions marked by complex and dynamic conflicts.

In the Middle East, autonomous drones and AI-powered targeting systems are central to military operations. For instance, Israel employs cutting-edge AI programs such as "Daddy’s Home," "Gospel," and "Lavender." These systems integrate machine learning to enhance target identification, surveillance, and missile defense, with "Lavender" playing a crucial role in the Iron Dome’s precision defense capabilities. 

"Daddy’s Home"

"Daddy’s Home" is a high-precision targeting system that utilizes advanced machine learning algorithms to assist in identifying and prioritizing military targets. By analyzing vast datasets from multiple intelligence sources, including satellite imagery, drone feeds, and human intelligence, "Daddy’s Home" offers real-time insights to decision-makers. It is designed to minimize civilian casualties and ensure compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). The system is particularly effective in urban warfare settings, where distinguishing between combatants and civilians is critical. However, critics have raised concerns about the system's reliance on data accuracy, as errors in input data could lead to unintended consequences.

"Gospel"

The "Gospel" program focuses on real-time surveillance and intelligence gathering. Using sophisticated AI algorithms, it processes video and sensor data from drones, satellites, and ground-based sensors. "Gospel" excels in pattern recognition, enabling it to detect unusual movements, potential threats, or hidden combatants that may escape human observation. This capability allows military commanders to act on intelligence with speed and precision. However, the autonomy of such systems raises ethical and legal questions, particularly regarding their use in environments where accurate differentiation between civilian and military targets is essential.

"Lavender"

The "Lavender" project integrates AI with Israel's renowned Iron Dome missile defense system, adding an extra layer of predictive analytics to existing capabilities. "Lavender" enhances the system’s ability to evaluate threats by considering multiple factors such as the trajectory, size, and payload of incoming projectiles. This rapid analysis enables the Iron Dome to prioritize which missiles to intercept, ensuring optimal resource use. In addition to missile defense, "Lavender" is applied in offensive operations, leveraging AI to determine the most effective strike points. The speed and accuracy of this system are unparalleled, but it also faces scrutiny for the potential lack of human oversight in critical decisions.

These programs showcase Israel's commitment to leveraging AI for military advantage while adhering to the principles of precision and proportionality as mandated by international law. Nevertheless, they raise broader concerns about transparency, accountability, and the ethical implications of AI-driven warfare.

While these technologies aim to minimize civilian casualties, their autonomous nature raises questions about compliance with IHL principles, especially in distinguishing between combatants and civilians.

Similarly, in Ukraine, AI systems are employed to counter cyber threats, improve surveillance, and enhance missile defense capabilities. Ukraine's innovative use of AI to predict and respond to Russian military strategies showcases its potential for real-time decision-making. However, such systems, if not properly regulated, risk violating IHL’s prohibition of indiscriminate force, particularly when algorithms lack contextual judgment.

Who is Liable?

Determining responsibility for AI-driven military actions is a critical legal and ethical challenge. Under current IHL, states are accountable for their armed forces' conduct. However, when lethal decision-making is delegated to machines, it becomes difficult to attribute blame for unlawful acts, such as targeting errors or civilian casualties.

 The lack of clear accountability mechanisms undermines the very foundation of IHL, necessitating urgent legal reforms. Proposals such as the concept of "meaningful human control" over AWS emphasize the need for human oversight in all AI-driven military actions to ensure ethical and legal compliance.

Bridging the Gap: Proposals for Regulation

To address the challenges posed by AI in warfare, international law must evolve to balance technological innovation with ethical accountability. Possible approaches include:

• Updating Existing Treaties: Expanding the scope of treaties like the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) to include specific provisions on AI technologies.

• New Legal Instruments: Crafting treaties that regulate autonomous decision-making, mandate human oversight, and limit the deployment of AWS in sensitive conflict zones.

• Regulation of Private Sector Involvement: Establishing guidelines for private companies developing military AI technologies to ensure compliance with IHL principles.

Efforts by organizations like the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross to address these issues demonstrate global recognition of the urgency of regulating AI in warfare.

A Call for Action

AI’s integration into military operations offers both unparalleled advantages and complex challenges. While its potential to enhance precision and reduce human casualties is undeniable, its autonomous nature raises ethical and legal concerns that current frameworks are ill-equipped to address.

For AI to be used responsibly in warfare, the international community must urgently establish comprehensive legal standards that uphold the principles of accountability, proportionality, and distinction. Only through proactive regulation can the global community ensure that AI serves as a tool for enhancing security rather than exacerbating the horrors of war.

References

1. United Nations. (2018). International Law and the Use of Force. Retrieved from https://www.un.org

2. Schmitt, M. N. (2013). The Regulation of Autonomous Weapons in Armed Conflict. International Law Studies, 89(1), 87-108.

3. Sharkey, N. (2018). The Ethics of Autonomous Weapons Systems. International Review of the Red Cross, 100(909), 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383119000325

4. Scharre, P. (2018). Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. W.W. Norton & Company.

5. Cummings, M. L. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare. Chatham House Report. Retrieved from https://www.chathamhouse.org

6. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2019). Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: A View from the ICRC. Retrieved from https://www.icrc.org

7. Binns, L. (2019). AI in Warfare: The Global Arms Race and Ethical Dilemmas. Journal of Strategic Studies, 42(5), 640-658.

8. Elbit Systems. (2022). Iron Dome and AI-Powered Targeting Systems. Retrieved from https://www.elbitsystems.com

9. Israel Defense Forces (IDF). (2022). Use of AI in Israel's Military Operations. Retrieved from https://www.idf.il

10. United States Department of Defense. (2020). Artificial Intelligence Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov

Beneath the velvet canopy of the night sky, our eyes have long wandered toward the moon—a beacon of mystery, wonder, and eternal longing. Once the muse of poets, dreamers, and lovers, the moon now finds itself at the crossroads of ambition and law. The question looms larger than ever before: who owns this celestial body? Who owns the Moon?

When Neil Armstrong famously declared his “small step” for mankind in 1969, the legal ownership of the lunar surface was likely the last thing on his mind. In an era where the infinite expanses of space beckon us beyond the boundaries of Earth, humankind must grapple not only with the technical feats of space exploration but with the complexities of law and ownership—concepts far more terrestrial in origin. As humanity extends its reach toward the stars, the age-old ideals of sovereignty, power, and property are thrust into the void, demanding that we ask: to whom does the moon truly belong?

The Outer Space Treaty: A Framework for Space Exploration

In the 1960s, during the space race, global leaders came together to create a treaty aimed at regulating the use of space. The result was the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which has since become a fundamental part of international space law. The treaty’s primary goal is to ensure that space remains a peaceful domain for exploration, free from territorial claims by any nation.

The treaty is a significant shift from past practices, as it explicitly prohibits any state from claiming sovereignty over celestial bodies such as the moon. According to Article II, no country may assert territorial control over the moon or other outer space objects. While this provision prevents territorial ownership, it does not address issues related to the extraction and ownership of resources found on the moon or other celestial bodies. This gap in the treaty has become more relevant as interest in space mining grows.

The Potential for Space Mining

The moon is believed to contain valuable resources, including Helium-3, a potential fuel for nuclear fusion, and water ice, which could support long-term space missions. As these resources become more valuable, space mining is gaining attention. The legal question arises: does extracting resources from the moon grant ownership, or does it violate the principle of non-appropriation set forth in the Outer Space Treaty?

In 2015, the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act allowed private companies to claim ownership of resources they extract from celestial bodies. Luxembourg followed with similar legislation to encourage space mining. However, these national laws conflict with the Outer Space Treaty’s prohibition on claiming ownership over celestial bodies, raising legal concerns about their compatibility.

Some view space mining as similar to harvesting resources from international waters, where no one owns the sea but everyone can benefit. Others see it as the beginning of corporate dominance over space, challenging the principle of space as a common resource for all. Legal scholars have not reached a consensus, but the question of who controls lunar resources remains unresolved.

The Moon Agreement: An Attempt at Regulation

In response to the gaps in the Outer Space Treaty, the Moon Agreement was adopted in 1979. This treaty sought to establish that the moon and its resources are the "common heritage of mankind" and called for an international system to regulate the exploitation of these resources. Despite its intentions, the agreement has not gained significant support, with only 18 countries ratifying it and none of the major spacefaring nations participating. As a result, the Moon Agreement has had little impact on shaping space law.

Without a binding international framework, questions remain about who will benefit from the resources of the moon. The silence surrounding the Moon Agreement highlights the need for updated legal frameworks to address the evolving dynamics of space exploration and resource extraction.

Private Industry and Lunar Settlements

As private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin plan lunar missions, the role of the private sector in space exploration becomes more significant. The possibility of establishing lunar colonies raises new legal challenges. Under the Outer Space Treaty, private enterprises face unclear regulations regarding land ownership and governance on the moon.

If a private company establishes a base on the moon, questions arise about whether it can claim ownership of the land and what laws would apply to the colony. As the private sector increasingly participates in space exploration, the need for clear legal guidelines becomes more urgent to avoid conflicts over jurisdiction and property rights in space.

The Need for Updated Legal Frameworks

As humanity moves further into space, it is evident that existing legal structures need to be updated. The Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement, created in the 20th century, are insufficient to address the realities of space exploration today. New international agreements are necessary to regulate the extraction of resources, the governance of lunar settlements, and the overall use of space.

The future of space law will require a balance between the interests of nations, private companies, and the global community. A comprehensive legal framework is needed to ensure that space exploration benefits all of humanity and that space remains a shared domain.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the legal status of the Moon remains one of the most pressing and complex challenges of space law today. While the Outer Space Treaty has laid a foundational framework by preventing territorial claims and emphasizing the peaceful use of space, the evolving ambitions of private enterprises and the growing interest in lunar resource extraction highlight gaps in the current legal structure. The Moon Agreement, though an attempt to address these issues, has failed to gain widespread international support, leaving the future of lunar governance uncertain. As space exploration continues to advance, the need for a comprehensive and universally accepted legal framework becomes more urgent. How humanity chooses to manage and regulate the Moon’s resources will shape the trajectory of space exploration for generations to come, determining whether the Moon remains a shared resource for all or becomes a contested prize for a few. The question of ownership, exploitation, and governance of celestial bodies is no longer theoretical—it is a matter of immediate concern that will require global cooperation, innovation in law, and ethical considerations to ensure that space remains a common frontier for all.

References

1. Treaties and International Agreements

• United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty, 1967). Available at UNOOSA website.
• United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Agreement, 1979). Available at UNOOSA website.

2. Books

• von der Dunk, Frans G., and Fabio Tronchetti (Eds.). Handbook of Space Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015.
• Jakhu, Ram S., and Paul Stephen Dempsey. The Global Space Governance: An International Study. Springer, 2017.
• Freeland, Steven. Outer Space Law: Legal Policy and Practice. Ashgate, 2010.

3. Journal Articles

• Tronchetti, Fabio. “The Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act: A Move Forward or a Step Back?” Space Policy, vol. 34, no. 2, 2015, pp. 6–10. DOI:10.1016/j.spacepol.2015.08.004.
• Lyall, Francis, and Paul B. Larsen. “Who Owns the Moon? Legal Issues Surrounding Space Resources.” International Law Review, vol. 47, no. 1, 2020, pp. 87–96.
• Markoff, Matthew. “Legality of Space Resource Mining: The Impact of International Law on Commercial Space Ventures.” Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol. 80, 2015, pp. 139–173.

4. Reports

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA’s Artemis Program Overview. NASA, 2020. Available at NASA Artemis Program.
• European Space Policy Institute (ESPI). Space Resources Utilization: A Legal Perspective. ESPI Report 62, 2017.

5. News Articles and Analysis

• Grush, Loren. “What Laws Currently Exist for Space Mining?” The Verge, April 7, 2020. Available at The Verge.
• Reuters. “Luxembourg Takes the Lead in Space Mining Legislation.” Reuters, 2017. Available at Reuters.

6. Web Resources

• Space Foundation. Space Law Resource Guide. Available at Space Foundation.
• International Institute of Space Law (IISL). Position Paper on the Legal Aspects of Space Resource Utilization. Available at IISL website.

The future will be the child of the past and the present. (George Crumb)

Everyone may have a dream for a better future for himself, for own family, for country and beyond it- for the whole world. However, the future inherits all good and bad legacies from the past and the present. There is no other way but to execute good things right now if we would like to have a better future as we possess only the very present moment.

However, it is so crucial to have sufficient knowledge and intelligence to differentiate between the good and the bad (plus the ugly may be) things. It will depend upon the viewer’s position and lineage. The birds tend to see the world from atop while a worm from the ground. Likewise, in this world of unequal distributions of wealth and power, there exist different perceptions and views on how to build better future of the world. 

I have also my own perspective and opinions on this important issue. The following paragraphs are extracted from my speech to be delivered at the 2nd Minsk International Eurasian Security Conference in Minsk, Belarus from 31 October to 1 November 2024 with kind support of respective officials from MOFA and some parts of the speech are inspired from the idea of my colleague U Khin Maung Zaw from MISIS, Yangon.

“In recent discussions during the Seventy-ninth Session of the UN General Assembly, many leaders of the developing countries around the world elaborated their grave concerns on such a depressing thing as deterioration of global security, unjust and imbalanced world order, diminishing capacity of international institutions including the UN, unruly situations in global trade and finance transactions, sufferings of developing nations and etc.

What they have expressed are not incorrect nor nonsense. “The world is facing multiplying regional conflicts, an accelerating arms race, nuclear proliferation and an ebbing of collective security”, one leader said. It is the UN, the unique world body founded since nearly eighty decades ago, assigned to solve these problems. However, the organization was not observed impressively in the discussions. Another leader alleged that the UN has failed to fulfil its founding mission and has become “a dysfunctional structure”. Not a few leaders lamented that more than 80 percent of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) are off track. Regarding poverty reduction, one third of the world’s poorest 75 countries are worse off today than they were five years ago, while the top 1 percent of people on the planet own 43 percent of all global financial assets.

The principal challenge today is that the powerful group of global elite, on the pretext of amicable rhetoric such as freedom, democracy, human rights, equality and humanitarian assistance, applies its prowess of wealth, political influence, military might, diplomatic dominance, media influences and economic apparatuses as the instruments of hegemony. They have every appliance to do so. They have the UN Security Council’s majority veto power. They have military alliances like NATO, AUKUS and SQUAD. They have Bretton Woods System controlling the whole international monetary and financial system through IMF and World Bank. They have the US Dollar serving as the principal de facto international currency. They have SWIFT mechanism to dictate every bank transaction across the world.

By using these appliances the Global North can maximize their interests while marginalizing the other part of humanity. It is not so strange that while the military, industrial and political complex of the West is quite pleased with global defence expenditure of 2.4 trillion dollars, the richest countries’ Official Development Assistance funding never exceeds one tenth of that amount for 733 million people in extreme poverty.

However, the order is profoundly changing nowadays. Emerging powers are entering the international political stage as new actors in collaboration with Global South countries to counterweight the balance of power against the incumbent supreme powers in geopolitical and geo-economic architectures. For example- the BRICS group, founded by five emerging economies in 2009, has surpassed the G7 in total GDP in term of PPP since 2018 and by 2024, the difference had increased even further, the BRICS now holding a total 35 percent of the world's GDP compared to 30 percent held by the G7 countries. Many countries across the planet are in ardent enthusiasm to join the bloc as a beacon of hope. It seems quite apparent that imminent power rivalry between the group of old power and the new ones leading into the probable scenario of Thucydides Trap in a collective way. We could dub it a confrontation between the Global South Vs. the Global North as traditional notion of the “Us Vs. Them” mentality always mentions.

Again, the other interesting phenomenon is that while the Global North as an organized group possesses some significant common features, unified institutions and common interests, the other side still has diverse grounds of history, cultures, geopolitical positions, political systems, socio-economic situations and security interests. In the light of this, it is inevitable that the Global South themselves must explore the correct and effective way to establish unity in diversity among them. What-so-ever we have had diverse factors, the common interest and unified goal of us are clear that we the Global South must prevail in developing our countries and keeping our people safe in our own ways in accordance with our own policies and determination. 

Nevertheless, the paradigm shift and transition to a new global order would not be smooth and easy as the old powers certainly will be striving utmost to maintain their dominance of the whole international community. According to Alexander Dugin, the author of the Fourth Political Theory, there are three different ways of the incumbent superpower to sustain its global influence: Creation of an American Empire with developed in the core area and fragmented periphery in chaos (the neoconservative idea of Republicans), Creation of a multilateral unipolarity where the USA would cooperate with other friendly powers and putting pressure on ‘rogue states’, or preventing other powers from achieving regional independence and hegemony (liberal idea of Democrats), and Promotion of accelerated globalisation with the creation of a world government and swift de-sovereignisation of nation-states in favour of the creation of a ‘United States’ of the world ruled by the global elite on legal terms (progressive liberal idea of George Soros) . All these three ideas seem to be rooted in the strong conviction of Pax Americana centralism and Us Vs. Them mentality.

Literally and categorically, the whole world has been still in the hand of the global power elite whether we like it or not. In order to deter and overcome this colossal menace, the Global South must have an overwhelming power in all sectors of international arena. It is obvious that we need more comprehensive and efficient efforts to achieve our goal. Yes, we do have BRICS. We also have regional organizations like CIS, CSTO, SCO, ASEAN, SAARC, BIMSTEC, AU, etc. Regarding economic development and financial institutions, we have EAEU, BRI, AIIB for BRI, NDB For BRICS and so on. Certainly, the primary goal of these organizations is to foster unity of mankind and pursue equality, prosperity, positive peace and harmony through the development of various initiatives within the realms of political stability, security, socio-economic development and livelihood of peoples. Yet, we have to admit that we need further more endevours for synchronization and consolidation of our efforts to acquire sufficient synergy the paradigm shift we have desired. 

To achieve this goal, we need to discuss to establish appropriate principles and comprehensive guidelines for further deepening of mutual understanding and cooperation among the Global South nations.  Even though some cry aloud about the inevitable potential of decoupling of the world, I do not think it is the real solution of mounting problems of the world.

It may be the best way to modify the existing international institutions into a more suitable for developing nations as much as we can, while creating new ones for the betterment of the whole mankind. 

Core values and aspirations of the United Nations Charter regarding peace and security must be preserved to prevent conflicts around the world while unacceptable behaviors of powerful nations such as- abuse of power, selfishness, hegemonic tendency, discrimination, unwillingness for cooperation- must be rejected and contained in the international systems. 

With regard to the world peace and security, nations of the South should pursue the soft-power of positive peace including dialogues and peaceful settlement of disputes noticing negative security measures of intervention and deterrence policies usually applied by big powers only create insecurity and instability, instead of peace and security. Regional military alliances or security organizations of certain blocs usually create power rivalry, mutual mistrust, various forms of arms races and they would not reduce security risks rather enhance as we have had many bitter lessons learnt during the Cold War.

Hence, effective conduct of diplomacy in bilateral, regional and international contexts, sincere cooperation among nations for common interests, and renunciation of interventionist and deterrence policies and practices are the most appropriate measures to prevent war and conflict and achieve peace and security. 

In this regard, I am very much delighted to point out that Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence which were jointly initiated by China, India and Myanmar and adopted by developing countries 70 years ago have been instrumental in supporting the efforts of developing countries, including Myanmar, for maintaining international peace and security. These time-tested principles encompass respecting one another’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, refraining from aggression, mutual non-interference in internal affairs, promoting equality and mutual benefit, and fostering peaceful coexistence. Myanmar has been upholding these five principles as integral part of our foreign policy. I would like to propose that these principles of peaceful coexistence should be the core norms and values of international relations of all developing countries to reinvigorate diplomacy of peace rather than military deterrence.

And as the representative of Myanmar, a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement which had been much influential in the early Cold War era, I would like to suggest that the Group of 77 comprising 134 developing countries should be further strengthen and closely collaborated with BRICS’ activities in South-South cooperation to check the challenges of global power transition. I am sincerely convinced that with the leadership of the BRICS combined with the collective power of the coalition of developing countries, it would create an existential power to make the paradigm shift.

Regarding global polarity of the future, my opinion is that there may be two separate parts due to the directions of relations. To face the challenges from existing dominant power of the Global North, a unified stance of all Global South nations would be essential to some extent a bi-polarity between competing powers. For the realistic existence in the whole international community, multi-polarity would be the most suitable model for both emerging powers and developing countries as they need peaceful co-existence, pursuance of self-determination and right to choose their own ways of national developments.

In the light of these circumstances, adopting the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence as the core principles, I would like to recommend some common and collective stances to be taken by the Global South nations for the betterment of our shared destiny;

1.       To safeguard Sovereignty, Self-determination and Freedom of choice on own path of national policy and development,

2.       To resist any forms of interventions, coercion and illegal influence of out powers and preserve the status of equality among nations large or small,

3.       To resist collectively any form of security threats and military interventions with inappropriate intentions by powerful nations individually or grouping as the blocs against the weaker states and to support the targeted countries,

4.       To organize unified diplomatic efforts in protecting the common interests of developing countries in the international arena,

5.       To reject any means of economic, monetary and financial activities applying as the instruments of foreign policy to insert pressures on the targeted nations and to establish collective systems, mechanisms and institutions to protect against them and to maintain economic independence and free trade,

6.       To promote social connectivity such as public diplomacy, trade, business and commercial relations, academic and cultural exchanges, and media interactions among developing countries,

7.       To enhance the unity and fraternity among developing countries and to be vigilant against wedging tactics of “Divide and Conquer”,

8.        To develop capacity of human resource in developing countries in order to keep abreast of modern technologies.

As for Myanmar, we are steadfast in abiding by the principles of the United Nations Charter, which aims to maintain international peace and security and cultivate respectful relations between nations. 

Regarding regional and multilateral cooperation, it is a matter of profound satisfaction that Myanmar and Belarus enjoy close cooperation in regional and international frameworks.

Myanmar has received the Dialogue Partner Status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with the support of the friendly countries in May 2023. I would like to this opportunity to reiterate Myanmar’s strong commitment to actively participate in SCO activities to achieve greater progress in SCO development.

Myanmar is also eager to pursue a free trade zone agreement with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Myanmar highly values the principled position and consistent support of Belarus and other friendly states in the region and look forward to continuing our cooperation in the regional and multilateral arena.

When it comes to ASEAN, we have been closely in cooperation with ASEAN to implement ASEAN\s Five-Point consensus in line with our Five-Point Roadmap. For us, we are determined to promulgate the provisions and fundamental principles of the ASEAN Charter, especially non-interference in the internal affairs of the member states. 

Myanmar underscores the significance of resolving armed conflicts through preventive measures, protection, dialogue, and collaboration between states. We emphasize the need for a global security framework anchored in multilateralism and our unwavering commitment to peace, security, and stability in the region and on the international stage.

I firmly believe that through our collective efforts, we will make meaningful contribution to regional peace, security, and prosperity, while encouraging the diverse Eurasian community to unite for a future characterized by tranquility and economic well-being.”

I sincerely hope that my ideas will contribute for those who are interested in this issue as a food for thought.

WORLD Habitat Day, observed on the first Monday of October each year, serves as a reminder that everyone has the power and responsibility to shape the future of urban spaces. The theme for the significant day in 2024, “Engaging youth to create a better urban future,” highlights the critical role young people play in shaping sustainable cities. The global event on 7 October 2024 will be held in Querétaro, Mexico, and will focus on addressing the challenges and opportunities of rapid urbanization by actively involving youth in planning and decision-making processes.

Urbanization is happening at a fast pace, and young people, particularly in regions like Africa and Asia, make up a significant portion of the urban population. Currently, youth in the global South represent over 70 per cent of urban residents. The United Nations projects that by 2050, nearly 70 per cent of the world’s population will live in cities, making inclusive urban planning more urgent than ever. This trend underscores the need for youth involvement in building sustainable, inclusive communities.

The concept of habitat is central to human development. Since prehistoric times, humans have lived in organized societies to protect themselves from dangers and improve their living conditions. Over time, these societies evolved from small villages to towns, cities, and eventually countries. As civilizations advanced, so did their ability to use technology and innovation to shape their environments. Today, society benefits from these advancements, but it is crucial that the younger generation be empowered to continue this development and create sustainable urban futures.

The United Nations recognizes the ongoing challenges in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

particularly in urban areas. Issues such as inequality, lack of resources, and environmental concerns pose significant threats to the growth and resilience of cities. Engaging youth is essential in addressing these obstacles. By involving them in urban planning and leadership roles, cities can harness their energy, creativity, and fresh perspectives to promote more sustainable and equitable urban development.

As such, World Habitat Day 2024 emphasizes the importance of youth engagement in shaping the future of urban spaces. By giving young people a platform to participate in decision-making and planning, cities can move towards more resilient and inclusive futures, benefiting both current and future generations. Empowering youth is not just an option but a necessity for creating a brighter, more sustainable urban future for all.