Brazil, taking into account the possibility of making a distribution of benefits to be derived from the use of the geostationary orbit, suggested that the Principles Treaty did not preclude the establishment of a specific legal regime for the geostationary orbit. Those States, including Colombia, inclined to support the formation of such a regime mentioned the sui generis quality of the geostationary orbit as a limited natural resource. On the other hand, the space resource States urged that the Principles Treaty fully covered the peaceful and beneficial use of the geostationary orbital area by space objects. Pursuant to the Treaty such orbits are inseparable from the space environment, and are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. In their view, the geostationary orbits are free for use by all States without discrimination of any kind on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law and the UN Charter. Emphasizing that geostationary space objects were engaged in a use of the space environment, these States urged that such use did not create a right of ownership over the respective orbital positions of the satellites or over segments of the orbits. They also noted that under the Principles Treaty users of the geostationary orbit were obliged to take into account the corresponding interests of other States and that they had to be guided by the principles of cooperation. The space resource States also were inclined to doubt the legal worth of the General Assembly resolutions relating to full and complete sovereignty over natural resources. They were considered to be more a statement of political and economic expectations than existing rules of international law.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==