appertaining to either juridical or natural persons. Thus, Article 11, paragraph 3, of the proposed Austrian text provides that "neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person." Nonetheless, the parties to the agreement are to be granted the right to explore and use the Moon without discrimination of any kind of a basis of equality pursuant to international law and the Treaty.^ Article 1, paragraph 2, in defining the Moon includes "orbits around or other trajectories to or around it." The foregoing is relevant to the present analysis since the focus of the proposed agreement is generally on tangible resources, since it allows limited privileges for activities having a scientific or technological orientation, and because it identifies an orbit to or around the Moon as the legal equivalent of the Moon and thus subject to the non-property limitations set out in Article 11, paragraph 3. But, the Austrian draft did not propose rules of international law pertaining to those natural resources found in the spatial area adjacent to the Moon, nor to the natural resources of the high altitude, such as solar energy. The Austrian draft, following earlier drafts, does provide in paragraph 1 of Article 11 that "the moon and its natural resources shall be considered the common heritage of mankind. ..." This outlook or trend was seen above in the analysis of the use of geostationary orbital Ibid. , p. 6. Ibid., Article 11, paragraph 4. Ibid., p. 2.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==