To this last statement Leive has observed "If the Board can be compared to a traffic officer, it is an officer unable to adequately measure the traffic, whose 'tickets1 for violations are often ignored, and who lacks not only a jail but also a court for the offenders.Nonetheless, he has written that two principles govern the rights and obligations of States that have registered national assignments with the IFRB. These are applicable international law consisting of the relevant conventions and ITU Radio Regulations and a State's earlier use of a frequency and due notification of this fact to the Board. He has observed: While the significance of the first principle has not been adequately recognized, the importance of the second principle has been generally overemphasized. It has been widely assumed that harmful interference disputes between two countries generally are resolved strictly on the basis of a "first-come first-served" principle. This is not true. In many disputes first use of a frequency is a controlling factor, and often is not even relevant to a determination of the respective rights of the parties concerned.27 ^^Leive, op. cit., p. 22, fn. 8. Ibid., p. 23. Italics added. For Leive's further assessment of this issue see Chapter 4 "Rights and Obligations," pp. 144 ff. In his final assessment of the importance of priority of notification to the IFRB and use on the right of space telecommunications to immunity from harmful interference by other services he stated that the Radio Regulations in force in 1970 "do not explicitly establish the respective rights and obligations of the parties to a harmful interference dispute (e.g., an earth station and a terrestrial station) both of which are in conformity with the Convention and Regulations. In view of the enormous investment in space and earth stations and the likelihood that the probability may increase as space communications services expand, it would appear prudent to attempt to clarify the state of the law applicable in such cases." Ibid., p. 240. Despite this fact as of 1970 the IFRB's powers to examine national notices of frequency assignments to space objects was "substantially narrower than its examination of terrestrial and earth station notices." Ibid., p. 235. Further, the Board's coordination procedures for space stations was considered "weaker" than those available for "terrestrial and earth stations." Ibid., p. 234.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==