SPS could not constitute evidence of the intent of a space resource State to establish either de facto or de jure rights to the orbital slot. Although the SPS would be performing a different service than the space objects providing radio or television broadcasts, the common commitments of such space objects to a use of the space environment rather than its appropriation would require the application of the same legal guidelines. Consistency would require that the right to use rather than the acquisition of property or sovereign rights be accepted. Thus, with respect to the possible future use of a SPS, an advanced State is fully entitled to urge that its prospective conduct fully conforms to existing international law. The equatorial States, speaking for themselves and generally for as yet a highly amorphous contingency of LDCs, argue that they are now within their rights in asserting that the space environment at orbital levels is a part of their sovereign territory. The resolving of such differing views, even assuming that such views can be reconciled, will take much time. It may even lead to the formation of a new space regime in the form of a new international organization. However, pending the resolution of contending positions, it is clear that the space resource States can rely on the Principles Treaty. Further, a formal, treaty-contained definition of the delimitation between sovereign airspace and the non-sovereign space environment is not wholly needed. The practices of the resource States since 1957 have clearly established a customary rule of international law to the effect that outer space exists at distances from the Earth where space objects successfully orbit, and this surely must include the heights at which
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==