Third, it was urged that an allocation plan would possibly have a "detrimental effect on the conservation of the geostationary orbit." It was feared that a premature and even excessive amount of regulation could thwart innovative uses of space objects and might even impose constraints on their development. Finally, as previously indicated, an institutional allocation of a permanent orbital position would violate the freedom of use provisions of the Principles Treaty and also its prohibition against a national appropriation by claim of sovereignty or by any other means. It has been suggested that an alternative to international allocations or to national assignments would be a "rational licensing or sharing system operated by an international agency. . . ." A fully negotiated agreement following such a direction would undoubtedly advance the province of mankind prescription of the Principles Treaty. Presumably any licensing would authorize use of positions having special value to States. The portion of the geostationary orbit "of greatest interest to the United States lies between 60° and 135° West longitude. This arc covers the forty-eight contiguous mainland states; and all satellites in that sector are visible for radio transmission from any earth station within the continental United States." The Israeli initiative may have influenced the 1973 revision of Article 10 of the ITU convention dealing with the functions of the IFRB. The 1965 ITU convention, Article 13 dealing with the IFRB, did not Ibid. Ibid., p. 105. Ibid., p. 103.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==