each of these considerations is the fact that the radio spectrum is a natural resource, and, pursuant to the ITU is a "limited natural resource." In this connection it should also be kept in mind that the ITU has linked this characterization of the radio frequency with the "limited natural resource" of the geostationary orbit. These positions are specifically asserted in Article 33 of the 1973 ITU Convention. After examining the not entirely unanimous views of respected United States commentators on these matters, who, on the whole have focused more on the radio spectrum than on orbital positions, the relevant language of the several agreements will be examined. Thereafter suitable conclusions will be drawn. The absence of agreement on the part of commentators may be explained in part by the fact that the "legal significance of the elaborate notification and registration procedure is nowhere clearly defined." This is admitted by the ITU. In referring to the findings of the IFRB the ITU has stated that the Board's findings do: confer certain rights on Administrations [nation-states], the right to international protection, or at least the right to official international recognition, and place certain obligations on them, the obligation to respect the rights conferred on others. These rights and obligations are invoked by Administrations when they discuss cases of harmful international interference that have actually occurred in practice. The nature of this task can be compared to traffic control on the radio roads in which the Board, before giving an indication with a green, yellow, or red light, has to take careful stock of the existing traffic situation.25 Leive, op. cit., p. 22. From Semaphore to Satellite, International Telecommunication Union, p. 253.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==