The ban on national appropriation is not applicable in view of the lack of definition of outer space; Technological partition of the orbit is inappropriate;^ The geostationary orbit is not covered by the Outer Space Treaty; The Outer Space Treaty can not be a "final answer"; To the preceding considerations certain additional points were added in the course of subsequent U.N. discussions in 1977 and 1978. Some of them were expressed in such statements as: The prevailing uncertainty on the matter of outer space was illustrated by the variety of criteria suggested for its definition;4$ Until an international definition of outer space had been arrived at the provisions of domestic law would apply to demarcate space;47 There is no right of succession in regard to satellites; Exercise of sovereign rights is in keeping with positive international law; Countries that had not ratified the treaty were not bound by it;50 Orbit was unique because it was the only point at which it was economically feasible to maintain a satellite in a stationary position and because it was the only feasible position for solar energy platforms; Geostationary orbit was a limited natural resource because of its possible saturation with solar energy platforms and telecommunication frequencies. That the legal and scientific considerations which were invoked in support of the claim of equatorial countries had no valid basis became apparent from their overwhelming rejection by other countries represented before UNCOPUOS including, for instance, Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==