Proceedings of the Workshop - United Nations Office for Outer ...

64 EXPANDING GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICESprinciples have been questioned, and new dogmasestablished. In short, Marshall McLuhan’s ‘globalvillage’ is upon us. Nonetheless, and granted all thedangers involved, it is important that as much of thepopulation of the world as possible should be able togain from the benefits that have come since the openingof the space telecommunications systems. How this canbe done efficiently and equitably is a question, and theanswers to it change over time.Our predecessors at UNISPACE I and II faced arather different world. Since 1968 and even since 1983,attitudes and presuppositions have changed. Demandfor telecommunication services has increased in manyways. The privatisation of services formerly thought ofas the responsibility of government has becomecommon in many of the developed states. Correlatively,competition has become a watch-word. It is curious,however, to note how in the technical field at least,modem solutions to modem problems often are directlytraceable to the basic concepts worked out by ourforefathers at the dawn of the modemtelecommunication age.2 It is odd also to see theparallels between Nineteenth Century arrangements andthose of the present day, and to wonder whether thatcycle of underlying philosophies will repeat.But things have moved on since the early days ofspace, and, without further rehearsing history, we mustnow turn our eyes to the future, while learning from thepast. Telecommunications have expanded in manyways. As noted, demand for traditionaltelecommunications services has increased. Newservices have become available, and popular. How tocope institutionally with these developments is aquestion, the answers to which have arguably beencompromised by a failure to tackle it early enough.Many of the relevant institutions that served well in thepast are under pressure. Some are on the brink of2Cf. the International Telegraph Convention, Paris 1865, 130CTS 198; the International Telegraph Convention Vienna,1868, 1366 CTS 292; the International Telegraph Conventionand Regulations, Rome, 1872,143 Consol. TS 415, and thePreliminary Conference at Berlin on Wireless Telegraphy,Proces-verbaux and Protocole Final, (UK) (1903) Cd. 1832;194 Consol. TS 46.; and, the Radio-telegraphic Convention,Final Protocol and Regulations, Berlin, 1906, 1906 UK Parl.Papers, HC 368; 203 Consol. TS 101.metamorphosis, while others have evolved. How tocope with the new level of demand as a matter ofresource allocation is another and equally fundamentalquestion, to which there are several potential concurrentanswers. Telecommunication by cable has its ownpractical constraints, but is relatively easy to deal within that the connection facility is confined and thearrangements a matter for negotiation between thecountries and entities concerned. By contrast, radio isa real problem.That said, many of the problems remain the sameas those faced by our predecessors, albeit in altered oraggravated form. Further, various basic questions arecommon to the sessions to be held during this LegalWorkshop, though the answers may well vary fromcase to case. How best should space be used? What isrequired for the efficient exploitation of spacetechnologies? How can we ensure that exploitation isalso equitable.3 What international procedures exist todeal with such matters? How can they be improved?What controls may be required? How can they beenforced? These, and similar issues, underlie whatfollows. Our subject, telecommunications, requires itsown set of responses to these questions, but we shouldbegin by noting that these basic questions face us all.Three other introductory points must be made.First, the matters discussed below are not exhaustive ofthe issues of space telecommunications. There isneither time nor space for that. This paper simply dealswith matters that seem to me to deserve the attention ofUNISPACE III. Second, assumptions are made aboutthe knowledge of the participants in the Workshop bothas to technical and as to legal matters. Third, while Ihave given sourcing for the documentary materialsreferred to, the citation of scholarly and otherauthoritative discussions is less thorough. More hasbeen read over the years than is cited, and I apologise toany who feel their work has been neglected by myfailure to cite. The problem is the nature of the paper,which is intended to trigger discussion.3 I assume here that the obligation of art. I of the Outer SpaceTreaty (cited below) as to the benefit and interest of allcountries is accepted as legally binding.