Talk:Global commons/Archives/2016

Lead speculation
"Cyberspace may also meet the definition of a global commons." - does it or doesn't it? This is speculation not definition. Dougsim (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

. This is simply a question posed in the lede to alert the reader to an issue discussed further on in the article text, in the first section, in fact. As such, it is not really speculation. The answer? Myself and others don't think so, however, some authors write as if it is a fact. Meclee (talk)

So why raise it? Would surely be better if the lead did not mention a particular possible speculation, but actually quoted the UNEP definition....................

"The ‘Global Commons’ refers to resource domains or areas that lie outside of the political reach of any one nation State.

Thus international law identifies four global commons namely: the High Seas; the Atmosphere; Antarctica; and, Outer Space. These areas have historically been guided by the principle of the common heritage of humankind - the open access doctrine or the mare liberum (free sea for everyone) in the case of the High Seas. Despite efforts by governments or individuals to establish property rights or other forms of control over most natural resources, the Global Commons have remained an exception."

The additional commons can then be mentioned with citations.

Definitions appear elswehere in text but surely the above is quite definitive coming from a major international body?

Dougsim (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)