A/42/427
English
Page 272
the geosynchronous orbit. largely between industrial nations that have the capacity to put satellites in this orbit and the equatorial developing nations that do not but that lie beneath this band of space.
66. The first effort to devise a property regime for geosynchronous orbit was the 1976 Bogota Declaration, signed by seven equatorial countries.[1] These countries declared that the orbits above them were extensions of their territorial airspace. The Bogota Declaration has been challenged by some nations that see it as contradicting the 'non-appropriation' principle of the Outer Space Treaty. Another group of developing countries proposed a licensing system for the use of geosynchronous orbits.[2] Countries would be awarded slots that could then be sold, rented, or reserved for future use.
67. Another way of managing this resource an capturing its rental value for the common interest would be for an international body to own and license the slots to bidders at an auction. Such an alternative would be analogous to the Seabed Authority in the Law of the Sea Convention.
68. Industrial countries have opposed the creation of a property rights regime for geosynchronous orbit, especially a regime that granted rights to slots to countries that cannot now use them. They argue that a regime of prior allocation would drive up costs and reduce the incentive of the private sector to develop and use this orbit. Others. who see a rapidly growing role for satellite communications, argue that regulatory regimes should be established before competition makes such a step more difficult.
69. Since satellite communications involve the use of radio waves, a de facto regime for the parcelling out of slots in geosynchronous orbit has emerged through the activities of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in the past several years, The ITU allocates the use of the radio waves (those parts of the electromagnetic spectrum used for communication).[3] The highly technical character of the task of parcelling out radio waves, combined with the fact that strict compliance is necessary to allow any user to enjoy access to this resource, has produced a successful international resource regime, based on three regional conferences, for effective management of the resource,[4] Whether this approach will endure depends in large part upon the perceived justice of the decisions reached by the regional conferences.
3. The Pollution of Orbital Space
70. Debris in orbit is a growing threat to human activities in space. In 1981, a panel of experts convened by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics concluded that the growth of space debris could pose 'an unacceptable threat' to life in space within a decade.[5] This debris consists of spent fuel tanks, rocket shells, satellites that no longer function, and shrapnel from explosions in space: it is concentrated in the region between 160 and 1,760 kilometres above the Earth.
- ↑ The general case for a regulatory regime and several alternative 'egimes are spelled out in K.G. Gibbons, 'Orbital Saturation: The Necessity for International Regulation of Gsosynchronou Orbits', California Western International Law Journal, Winter 1979
- ↑ A summary of Third World views is found in H.J. Levin, 'Orbit and Spectrum Resource Strategies: Third World Demands', Telecommunications Policy, June 1981.
- ↑ The allocation is done every 10 years at World Administrative Radio Conferences (WARCs), the last of which was held in 1979. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Radiofrequency Use and Manaqement: Impacts from the World Administrative Radio Conference of 1979 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980).
- ↑ These conferences are described in G. Coding, Jr., 'The USA and the 1985 Space WARC'. and A.M. Rutkowski, 'Space WARC: The Stake of the Developing Countries, the GEO and the WARC-ORB 85 Conference', Space Policy, August 1985.
- ↑ AIAA Technical Committee on Space Systems, Space Debris, July 1981.
