Some States made mention of the scientific and legal complexities involved in the claims of the equatorial States. They suggested that further studies along such lines would be required before it would be possible to pass judgment on such claims. In assessing the nature of the debate one commentator has added another dimension to the problem. It has been suggested that "realism appears to dictate that international rule-making either for the geostationary orbit or any other orbital location in space should only be considered when there are real as opposed to fanciful conflicts between states relative to the orbital locations involved. 3.7 Present Use of the Geostationary Orbital Position is Lawful It is clear that the successful operation of a SPS will depend on the use of the geostationary orbital position. In order to be successful such use must conform to the principles, standards, and rules of international law. At the present time the space resource States are using orbital slots lawfully. The introduction of a SPS into orbit would constitute a new use and activity in the space environment. Up to the present there has been no evidence on the part of the resource States that their orbital uses and activities reflect an intention or constitute a claim to the appropriation of an orbital slot or segments of the space environment. They have been guided by the belief that the 1967 Treaty has confirmed the application of the res communis principle to the space environment. The same principle would apply to a SPS operating at geostationary orbital level. Thus, the mere presence of an operating Glazer, op. cit., p. 82.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==