issue of the proposed regime to govern the exploitation of the resources of the moon and other celestial bodies has been debated for some time. while the differences of opinion may have been narrowed to enable the negotiators to conclude a treaty, the crucial issues of the meaning of common heritage of mankind, the form, authority, composition of the eventual international authority, and the question of what state or group of states is to wield control over it will have yet to be determined in future negotiations . It should also be borne in mind that there is a substantial difference between the question of obtaining international agreements on geostationary orbit allocation and problems of achieving agreements on the exploitation of resources of the deep sea bed or the moon and other celestial bodies. Utilization of the geostationary orbit has already been underway and the principles of both customary and international treaty law fully support the existing practice from a purely legal point of view. With respect to the law of the sea, exploitation of the deep sea bed appears to have hardly started in any appreciable manner and in relation to the moon and other celestial bodies such exploitation is at present nonexistant. Also, in case of the deep sea bed there is a U.N. General Assembly resolution regarding the exploitation of resources whereas there is no such resolution with respect to the use of geostationary orbit or resources of the moon and other celestial bodies. There is a need to emphasize this because it appears to give the United States a much stronger negotiating posture apart from the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==