Update on Japan's space policy

Neural activity in the human brain involved in strategic rule identification

From outer space to Earth—The social significance of isolated and confined environment research in human space exploration

This article gives an outline of conceptual foundations of Japan's political course towards the post-Soviet states and analyzes evolution of its foreign policy in the region since the collapse of the Soviet Union until Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's administration in the period from 1991 to 2016.As a result of conducted research the author concludes that Japan's policy in the post-Soviet region has expanded gradually from East to West and that its original strategy is still utilized by Japan's government.After the collapse of the Soviet Union, besides financial and nuclear security assistance to the region, the government of Japan focused on two main tasks, one being search of ways to resolve the dispute of the Kuril Islands - one of the most important issues of Japan's modern foreign policy, and the other one - establishing relations with Central Asian republics. The development of relationship between Japan and Central Asia was achieved by introducing the concept of "Eurasian diplomacy" and "Central Asia plus Japan" dialogue which led to further expansion of the scope of Japan's foreign policy towards the West. In 2006 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan Taro Aso introduced the concept of "Arch of Freedom and Prosperity"in which Ukraine was mentioned for the first time. It is proved that the value-oriented diplomacy of Japan has deep roots and forms the basis of the policies of Japan's current administration. As for the financial assistance allocated to the region, the author emphasizes Japan's Official Development Assistance which was provided starting from1994. Inthis regard it is noted that the biggest recipient in the period from 1994 to 2014 was Uzbekistan.Further development of relations between Japan and post-Soviet states has good perspectives. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's policy in the region is based on the previously introduced concepts and, at the same time, is more proactive compared to Japan's past governments. Therefore, one can expect positive trends and continued success of Japan's "soft power" diplomacy in Central Asia against its non-interference in the internal affairs of its Central Asian partners. On the other hand, an issue for Japan could be Shinzo Abe's promise to resolve the dispute of the Kuril Islands and to improve relations with Russia. It is believed that Japan will continue to support Ukraine in the issue of Russia's occupation of the Crimean Peninsula which took place in 2014 and its military aggression in Eastern Ukraine, and will be forced to balance its interests in both countries.

I discuss and define seven types of Space Art. The most familiar type is the work of space illustrators. The work of these artists has been crucial in communicating the promise of space and creating a receptive public Artworks in space made to be viewed from earth or from space are of particular long term importance. In this type of art the artist is an active participant and not just an observer of space exploration. There has been strong objections by some space scientists to such types of space art. I argue that such artworks should be reviewed within the same constraints as all other space artifacts. Given that very few space artworks will be created because of the high cost, the regulatory framework should should not seek to prevent space art, but to encourage it. I review the few space art works that have been created to date, and some of the proposals for orbiting space structures visible to global audiences. I argue that the International Academy of Astronautics is uniquely well placed to take leadership in discussing technical aspects, space policy and social issues surrounding space art. The United Nations is the right forum for review of space art as a public art form. willing to pay for space exploration.

Japan's policy to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds: factors that facilitate industry participation in voluntary actions

U.S. Space Policy and Theories of International Relations: The Case for Analytical Eclecticism

While the space shuttle is expected to be the principle Space Transportation System (STS) of the United States, the Reagan Administration is moving ahead with the President's declared space policy of encouraging private sector operation of expendable launch vehicles (ELV's). With the signing of the “Commercial Space Launch Law” on October 30, the administration hopes that it has opened up the door for commercial ventures into space by streamlining regulations and coordinating applications for launches. The administration considers the development and operation of private sector ELV's as an important part of an overall U.S. space policy, complementing the space shuttle and government ELV's. The law follows by nearly a year the creation of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which will coordinate applications for commercial space launches.

After an 11-month review, a new National Space Policy was announced by President Reagan on July 4, 1982. That policy did not reflect major changes to existing NASA programs, but placed increased emphasis on private sector and military space activities. A lasting impact of the policy was to create a Senior Interagency Group for Space [SIG (Space)], operating under the auspices of the National Security Council and having as members heads of major executive branch agencies or their deputies. SIG (Space) was to be the forum for developing Reagan administration space policy. President Reagan announced the new policy as he watched space shuttle orbiter Columbia land at Edwards Air Force Base in the California high desert after its fourth flight and as the transport plane carrying the second orbiter, Challenger, took off, headed to the Kennedy Space Center to enter service.

The authors present a dataset that contains the positions of 231 political parties across 28 countries on 30 policy issues that were considered salient for the 2014 elections to the European Parliament. The party position estimates were originally used in a voter information tool which compared the policy preferences of citizens to those of political parties. The paper discusses the estimation method in the context of the literature on estimating party positions, outlines the coding methodology, and introduces the value of the dataset for third-party users interested in studying political participation and representation.

Space is nowadays conceived not only as important for scientific, cultural or security motivations but as a symbol of modernity, of political identity and as a strategic instrument on the international scene. That represents a new challenge for Europe puzzled by the weakening American leadership, the uncertainties of the Russian complex and the rise of the Asiatic nations. In such a context, while too many space policy experts see the space policies of the major space powers as rather conservative and “as usual”, the author cross examines in five points the main policy lines of the space strategies of the US, Russia, China and Europe. Many things have changed in the last ten years and there are today new dynamics at work. Considering these evolutions, it is suggested to start thinking to the future policy lines of the major space powers: towards a broader competition, or the beginning of a new rationale for international co-operation?

This paper examines commonalities and difference between China and Japan with regard to investment policy and treaty practices. Despite that the two countries achieve economic development in very different external environment, their investment policies fundamentally share more commonalities than differences. Both used investment policy as a core component of industrial policies and regarded investment critically important as a source of technology, in addition to capital. For both China and Japan, the fundamental goal was to build-up their own national industries for self-reliance, and maintenance of policy space for industrial polices was critically important. However, although Japan was able to rely on the World Bank loans as the source of capital, while securing technology transfer between foreign and domestic private sectors arranged by the Japanese government, China had a greater need for inward investment for development, and has signed a large number of IIAs that may restrict policy space.

Canada's early space policy development 1958–1974

Japan's post war development has been through major transformations as a result of ferocious economic growth and a rapid population growth. The treatment of environmental issues has placed Japan under scrutiny both at national and international levels (Kazu 1993). The treatment of the environment is an interesting issue for those concerned with Japanese society in general and environmentad issues in pairticulau*. As the only non western society to Industrialize fully, Japan has in the last decades become a vital case study of industrialization. However, most of these studies have tended to concentrate on Japanese business practices and technology development. It is therefore signiflcamt to view how Japam has adapted to the problems of industrialization. The "Japam Model" or the "economic miracle" becaune the model for developing countries to emulate (Mouer & Sugimoto, 1990). As such, Japam hais am important role in the prevention of environmentad degradation in nations attempting to follow the Japanese example. This is pairticulainy the case in Asia Pacific countries.

Our societies are approaching and engaging with a number of policy moments, we are presented with opportunities to develop the discourse surrounding a sustained vitality of the worlds in which we live. One way of undertaking this is through extensive consultation with those of whom the discussions impact the most. Often this includes industry and government stakeholders, but more importantly is the process of including the voices of the groups and individuals who will be left to function within and around these policy interventions. This article highlights several moments there has been a successful consultation process within policy and internet arenas, and also highlights some key examples of when user consultation failed or was marginalised, resulting in less than acceptable outcomes. Further to this, policy intervention is a unique opportunity for scholarly research to demonstrate some of its best impact: its inclusion of intensive and often publicly funded research within the societies it examines. The contemporary take on the inclusion of user perspectives and scholarly research provides the backdrop for the seven articles of this issue that in many ways integrate this approach and highlight the importance of all voices within the policy development for the internet and its surrounding technological and cultural spaces. Secure global net-zero by mid-century and keep 1.5° within reach. Adapt and protect communities and natural habitats. Mobilize Finance. Work together to deliver the outcomes (ukcop26, 2021). This list seems a feasible agenda for a gathering of this sort, yet it was not without its own controversies as leaders gathered from most countries to talk through their strategies for the next 5 years. Central to these discussions was the communication of the critical information about climate change. In the lead up to the summit, and in the moment of the Pandemic, we have seen such an increase in misinformation, which has been fuelled too often by disinformation. Entangled in this space are also “propaganda, selective reporting, conspiracy theory, inadvertent misinformation, and deliberate disinformation” (Angus et al., 2021, p. 1), where these scholars argue misinformation is not new in itself but is being amplified by users and algorithmic distribution techniques. It is the information communication input and output moments of COP26 that is crucial for citizens around the world to ensure we are across the current debates, science and outcomes of this critical gathering for climate change. Yet in all this discussion, there remains one thing that is missing: us. And this is a somewhat common practice at these often-high-level policy-generating gatherings between our global leaders, where the focus could be for reasons other than the titles on the banners. Aditya Chakrabortty (2021) of the Guardian makes a wonderful argument for just that: it's a great idea to get everyone wanting the same thing, but in reality it's just unworkable. The key point to take away from his discussion is that any significant moment, movement or policymaking gesture should always try to make change with people and not just for them. While discussions are underway at the global level for environmental decisions that are, and continue to remain, unfolding at time of writing, the user-focus is something that is still relatively un-inclusive and emblematic of our communication and technology policy dialogue. In our last Editorial for Issue 13, volume 3, we revisited the Mark Deuze concept of living in the media to make sense of some of the contemporary media and technology policymaking moments currently underway (Stilinovic & Hutchinson, 2021). Yet in the 3 months since its publication, the adaptation of top-down driven regulatory decisions has appeared across several our favorite and everyday platforms—a return to the enduring issues that plague Tumblr. In 2012, Tumblr changed its content publishing policy to remove all blogs that were related to self-harm, attempting to improve the so-called quality of its published content. This was driven internally, and the decision was made in the interest of “all” users. However, as Tiidenberg et al. (2021) articulate, this was catastrophic for users who found community and belonging on Tumblr when they had been pushed away from other online spaces. The questions then emerge, where do these users go and what happens when they cannot connect with other users? Could the policy of this one social media platform been derived in a better method to not other, alienate or displace digital users? How might we learn from the outcomes of Tumblr and apply those insights to other aspects of our digital communication environments? The absence of users, particularly in the online environment, is nothing new and we have seen this occur across a number of settings. To briefly return to Tumblr as one of the most fascinating cases studies in recent times, it's useful to highlight the spectrum of issues at play when activities come under the policy re-shaping spotlight. Seko and Lewis (2018) made a critical observation of Tumblr and the fringe sorts of online communities that gather in that space, highlighting the importance of community-making though online cultural curation. In describing the unique reblogging affordance of the Tumblr platform, they describe how online community has formed, consolidating what Marwick and Boyd (2011) argued as avoiding a fear of being stigmatized online. Seko and Lewis argue “that unique affordances of the Tumblr platform shape distinct ways in which SI (self-harm) is told and shared. These affordances also imply the broader sociocultural context drawn by the particular audiences in making sense of the shared story” (2016, p. 182). The important takeaway from these scholars and others working in this space is the variety of users and how they rely on a broad range of sociocultural affordances in their online selves, communities and existence. For Tumblr, they were trying to combat the public view that providing a place for those interested in self-harming would encourage the activity to occur. In fact, as the research indicates, this type of content provides a place for users to gather, provide support, share knowledge, and feel included. Instagram has shown a consultative approach towards policy design, but also has significant leaps to make that work for its large user base. In 2019, the platform made a move to restrict content that includes dieting, detoxing, losing weight, and cosmetic surgery (iweigh, 2020). What was of note here is the consultative approach they used to include the users themselves, body positivity campaigners (see, e.g., Jameela Jamil), alongside academics researching in this space (see, e.g., Dr. Ysabel Gerrard), to produce policy that was inclusive and representative. While this may seem a positive step forward, it also introduces the broad discussion of content moderation and the role it plays within policymaking, especially for areas such as young social media users and their health. Further to this, content moderation demonstrates the role that those who administer or police these sorts of policies play across social media, but also in other spaces of communication and technology. “Emerging policies will be limited if they do not draw on the kind of expansive understanding of content moderation that scholars can provide” (Gillespie et al., 2020, p. 2). These scholars highlight that what is happening on social media platforms, is reflective of what then happens across other digital spaces—it is a call for academics to take an increasingly important role in policymaking. Yet they further argue academic involvement in policymaking discussions “must be grounded in an understanding of moderation as an expansive socio-technical phenomenon, one that functions in many contexts and takes many forms” (p. 3). Beyond the location of content moderation of social media platforms, the point of socio-technical phenomenon is a grounding standard for all policymaking processes. The current focus within the communication and media space is very much on the regulation of platforms as a key issue for a variety of governments, it is important to also be considerate of how this discussion extends beyond platforms alone and towards other aspects of policymaking. In this conversation, it is important to highlight the importance of the user voice and perspective when these debates emerge and indeed when the action of policymaking occurs. Further to this, the inclusion of these voices, such as activists, campaigners, interest groups, lobbyists and academics, the holistic understanding of the social and cultural affordances of these spaces are critical—these are the indicators on how good policy should be designed and implemented. This is where much of our policymaking falls short in the contemporary space. While the policymaking is accommodating for certain sectors of the userbase, it is inherently ignorant of others which often causes sever ruptures of the status-quo—this has consistently been the experience in the Australian context. we want to better match people's evolving expectations of how advertisers may reach them on our platform and address feedback from civil rights experts, policymakers and other stakeholders on the importance of preventing advertisers from abusing the targeting options we make available (Mudd, 2021, n.p.) Yet, the outcome is less than desirable for a breadth of Facebook stakeholders. Jordan Taylor (2021) wrote on Twitter that this move not be a good thing: “Public health researchers & communicators, local advocacy groups, and Big Pharma likely use this feature to target ads related to HIV treatment and prevention. Removing this targeting may make reaching marginalized communities more difficult for small advertisers.” This is but one area of a policy change that will impact a significant group of stakeholders on the platform. Albury (2021) continued Taylor's support against this policy change by highlighting the continued difficulties academics and researchers face when trying to interface with social media platforms: “…these kinds of policies make it very hard to do health promotion—or recruit research participants.” In many cases, these moves are as Burgess (2021) noted, going to cause harm if they are not connected to context and theories of power. This is an important backdrop for the setting of this issue of Policy & Internet: the importance of users and their social and technological contexts when policymaking consultation emerges and through its implementation. Good policymaking is done with a sincere and thorough understanding of all those who will be effected by changes, and done with a view to increasing the status quo of the environment. It is also important to continually highlight that while this is happening in the media and communication space, particularly in the social media space, it is representative of how policymaking should be undertaken more broadly. It is a continuing discussion between the users (Hoffmann et al., 2018), the technologies (Hutchinson, 2021), the socio-cultures (Cabalquinto & Soriano, 2020), the moderators (Gerrard & Thornham, 2020), the researchers (Gillespie et al., 2020) and the policymakers that enable good policy design and implementation. With an undertow for more scholarly research for and within policymaking as a thematic thread throughout this issue, the first article by Suominen and Hajikhana (2021) systematically explores the implication of big data on the policymaking processes. Through three key indices that have emerged from nine communities engaging in this study—namely the policy cycle, data-base decision-making, and productivity—these authors articulate a research agenda for further studies in public policy through big data. That is, these scholars are grounding the research agenda for policymaking in the context of what it seeks to regulate. The second article in this issue turns its attention toward the China context, specifically looking at the role social media has played on the country's family planning policy. As the media landscape has shifted and changed in the last ten years, so too has the agenda setting mechanisms for policy surrounding public issues, where a strong focus was on the revision of the one-child policy. Deng et al. (2021) have engaged text-mining analysis across a corpora of 74,000 Sina Weibo user comments on The People's Daily published content to understand how the agenda has shifted. They specifically focus on the interactions between users and state-run news media to reveal how other public issues have emerged as important to the Weibo users during this time and how approaches towards agenda setting have changed over time. Konikoff (2021) explores the space of toxicity and abusive content policy for Twitter in our third article, and argues for how we might reconceptualize policy within this communication space. By implementing a gatekeeper theory approach, and engaging in a discourse analysis, Konikoff presents a compelling argument that the policy and the technological affordances indeed perpetuate the toxicity of hate and vitriol content on the Twitter platform. This article signals how the freedom of speech rhetoric is not a useful mechanism to limit hate speech, which can also be applied to other social media platforms beyond Twitter itself. Public policy discussion between the US and the UK come under the comparison lens in our fourth article by Barrett et al. (2021). These scholars identify six common ideals across the UK and the US for digital threats to democracy: transparency, accountability, engagement, informed public social solidarity, and freedom of expression. They also argue that policymaking is out of step with current literature by demonstrating how the framing of these democratic ideals often lead to specific sorts of evocative practices and promotion of the ideals themselves. This study is especially important with the growing rise of right-wing politics and other democratic crises. Costa e Silva and Lameiras (2021) provide a Portuguese perspective on civil society and internet governance in our fifth article of this issue. By taking a national-level perspective, these scholars critically examine the impact of participation on the conditions of civil society by reviewing activism within Portugal, based on the Portuguese and EU policy space. Through the integration of mobilization theory, these scholars identify a lack of horizontal networking because of the lack of civil structural resources such as knowledge and legitimization which is often achieved through international collaboration. Ultimately, they argue, and are in support of, multistakeholderism is a core principle for European civil society, yet the Portuguese case provides unique insights and a space for learning for the broader European context. Ng and Taeihagh (2021) turn to a more technology approach in the sixth article of this issue, in How does fake news spread? Understanding pathways of disinformation spread through APIs. As an often-overlooked stakeholder for internet policy, these scholars ask how technology infrastructures are impacting on how disinformation spreads through our networks. Through extensive analysis of how application interface programs (APIs) operate—especially their code repositories on GitHub and the like—across Telegram, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. Through this analysis, these scholars highlight a four-stage framework that enables disinformation to travel across social media platforms, with a view to providing policy input on how APIs can be better managed. This study provides unique insights on how platform governance can continue to evolve for improved regulation on social media networks. The final article in this issue focusses on the scholarship of digital diplomacy while exploring the Twitter use of three countries: Israel, Turkey, and Russia (Danziger & Schreiber, 2021). Through a content analysis and topic mapping, these scholars highlight how the countries’ Ministries of Foreign Affairs use Twitter to present an international and somewhat positive face to their audiences. What is of interest here is how these digital diplomacy efforts act differently towards their Ministry's strategies to promote their foreign policy goals. By highlighting that Twitter is a legitimate platform to implement foreign state policy, and through a sociopragmatic framework, it can be seen that each country is addressing foreign audiences within the international arena.

Viewed historically as the lapdog of business, bureaucratic and political interests, Japan's Fair Trade Commission has had mixed success in promoting its agenda for stronger antimonopoly policy since the early 1970s. Dr. Beeman unravels antimonopoly politics in Japan through an analysis of the diverse interests of industry, government, and other parties to reveal how and why antimonopoly policy has made important inroads yet ultimately failed to gain deep acceptance in Japan.Employing extensive use of primary research materials and numerous interviews, Dr. Beeman finds predictable patterns of change as well as themes of continuity in the development of Japan's antimonopoly policy. By addressing a broad array of industry sectors and policy issues, the book provides fresh insight into an agency and a policy that have often been criticized from within Japan as too stringent and from outside Japan as too lax.