by the statement that the devices to be placed permanently on the segment of a geostationary orbit of an equatorial state require "previous and express authorization on the part of the concerned 35 state" and an additional assertion that the equatorial states do not condone existing satellites or the position they occupy on their segments of the geostationary orbit nor does the existence of said satellites confer any rights of placement of satellites or use of the segment unless expressly authorized by the state exer- • 4 cising sovereignty over the segment. 36 The only clarification that the Declaration makes with respect to foregoing demand is that the equatorial states do not object to the free orbital transit of satellites approved and authorized by the International Telecommunication Convention when these satellites pass through their space territory in their gravitational flight 37 outside their geostationary orbit and that the segments of the orbit corresponding to the open sea beyond national jurisdiction 38 constitute the 'common heritage of mankind'. 3.1.3.2 Arguments Pro and Con A sampling of some of the arguments advanced in the Declaration reveals that they have been based on such considerations as: The geostationary orbit is a physical fact arising from the nature of our planet because it depends exclusively on its relation to gravitational phenomena caused by the Earth;3$ Under the current rules of the International Telecommunication Union, geostationary orbit was a limited natural resource over which the equatorial countries exercised permanent sovereignty in line with U.N. resolutions;^ There is no satisfactory definition of outer space to support the argument that the geostationary orbit is included in outer space;41
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==