fact that international support for the U.S. position vis-a-vis the stance of the equatorial countries appears to be much greater if compared to the support for the U.S. position on issues of the deep sea bed or the moon and other celestial bodies. Notwithstanding the rationale of the foregoing analysis—should it be correct--the history of the last decades appears to be indicative of a growing demand on the part of the Third World countries to champion rights and interests which would provide them with a larger share of the world's material benefits. This demand has found expression in a number of U.N. resolutions such as, for instance, those pertaining to the 'Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States', 'Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources of Developing Countries' and also in the opportune and frequent reference to the term 'mankind' in such phrases as the 'common heritage of mankind', 'province of mankind', 'envoys of mankind', as well as in the increasing invocation of such pro- vision as the 'common interests' clause. The preceding array of considerations appears to suggest that rational policy making cannot afford to ignore the implications of recent trends in the world community. In view of this it may be a circumspect policy for the United States not to close the door to the development of orderly procedures leading to the acceptance of principles and rules governing allocation of the use of geostationary orbit in such a manner that would give recognition to the interests of all countries, including the equatorial countries as well as the space powers, commensurate with their positions. One of the key issues will be to determine on the basis of what criteria
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==