in their sovereign orbital areas is not condoned nor will these States allow such presence to constitute the basis for a claim of preemptive rights. Fourth, they assess their relationship to the Principles Treaty. That Treaty is not to be considered a "final answer" to the exploration and use of outer space. It was entered into at a time when the LDCs "could not count on adequate scientific advice and were thus not able to observe and evaluate the omissions, contradictions and consequences of the proposals which were prepared with great ability by the industrialized powers for their own benefit." Here the Bogota States refer to the absence of a final definition of outer space. A consequence of the lack of such a definition, according to the Declaration, has been to allow the resource States to engage in a national appropriation. Since the Principles Treaty is regarded as incomplete, this provides a basis for the equatorial States to claim that the geostationary orbit was intended to be excluded from its coverage. Further, the absence of a definition of outer space in the Treaty allows the equatorial States to conclude that the prohibition against appropriation has no application to the geostationary orbital area. This being the case the equatorial States that had ratified the Treaty are not inhibited from claiming the orbital slot area as a part of their sovereign areas. Fifth, the equatorial States refer to diplomatic and political action. They acknowledge that the 1967 Treaty does not specifically exclude the geostationary orbital position from the prohibitions against appropriation Ibid., p. 7. Ibid.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==