the German Democratic Republic, Iran, Italy, Mexico, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States. Some of the counter arguments were reflected in such statements as: The concept of natural resources had never been defined in General Assembly resolutions; Art. 33 of the International Telecommunication Convention had described the parameters of geostationary orbit from a purely technical standpoint and had never defined it in legal terms; the only stipulation of a legal nature in those regulations was that allocation of an orbital position could not confer permanent priority or possession;$D Geostationary satellites were not permanently located at the same point on the equatorial plane No state ever protested against the ever-growing outer space activities carried out for the progress of civilization and the benefit of mankind;67 The use of geostationary orbit was subject to the legal regime of the Outer Space Treaty; There was no parallel between the jurisdiction of the coastal states extending over the continental shelf and the extension of national sovereignty to positions on the geostationary orbit;69 A claim of sovereignty was valid only if it was based on effective occupation; There was no legal or scientific basis for claiming national jurisdiction over segments of the geostationary orbit. The interest of mankind could be served only by free and equitable use, and exploitation of outer space by all countries claiming national sovereignty over the geostationary orbit did not serve these interests. All countries would lose if a monopoly over the geostationary orbit was established; The geostationary orbit was a construction of the mathematical and scientific mind and belonged to all mankind; The view that geostationary orbit was a natural resource and subject to the sovereignty of the equatorial states was absurd requiring no further comment.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==