which denies to States the right to appropriate the space environment, a representative of France at COPUOS urged that this provision implied a limitation on the complete freedom of States in space. He stated: In fact, the very use of geostationary satellites can be regarded as an "appropriation" of the equatorial orbit, which is a privileged portion of space. In return for such a de facto occupation, the State responsible for the satellite should agree to submit to certain rules. The same applies to the use of a frequency band for broadcasting. . . . In reply to this position the representative of the United States said: . . . the use of space or a celestial body for activities that are peaceful in character and compatible with the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty is, by definition, entirely legitimate. Using a favorable orbit for a legitimate activity cannot reasonably be classified as a prohibited national appropriation in the sense of Article II. The point I wish to make is that using a favorable geostationary orbit is no more an "appropriation" or "de facto occupation" than using a particularly favorable area of the lunar surface . . . for a manned landing. If, as suggested, a primary purpose of the Principles Treaty was to allow States to enjoy the peaceful use of the space environment, then the intent of a using State becomes important. If the intent is not an intent to assert an exclusive right to a given use, and if that use is designed to and is carried out, as provided in Article 1 of the Principles Treaty, "for the benefit and in the interests of all countries ..." U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/62, pp. 3-4 (June 1969). United States Delegation to the Second Session of the Working Group on Direct Broadcast Satellites, Statement made by United States representative Herbert Reis at the Working Group Meeting, July 31, 1969 (mimeo.).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==