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

3. ConclusionHere, I would like to underscore again that rules remain to be constructed concerning thecommercial exploitation of outer space resources. It is currently unclear if the freedom of highseas analogy would be applied or deep seabed exploitation system as a reflection of CHMprinciple would be applied, or some other system, including the Antarctica system might beagreed upon among States. One thing is clear, however. Article I of the OST has to beimplemented through a prospective rule. For that purpose and for orderly development, it isimportant not to allow a first-come-first-serve rule to be prevalent.III.Occupation as de facto Appropriation1. PrincipleAnother question that can develop into an awkward situation is de facto appropriation.Article VIII of the OST implies that a State of registry, one of the launching States, shall exercisequasi-territorial jurisdiction over a space object and personnel thereof. If such exercise ofjurisdiction of a sizable space object lasts for a long time to the extent that seems difficult to bedistinguished from territorial sovereignty, does it amount to de facto appropriation? Still, it shouldnot be construed as territorial sovereignty, since the State of registry supervises the space objectonly while it is functioning 11 .2. “Ownership” Stemming from the EarthAlso, the following may be worth pointing out. It is the treatment of property rightsstemming from ownership started on the earth, which is provided for in Article VIII of the OST.It is quite as a matter of course that property rights of what was launched into outer space shouldbe attributable to the original owner on the earth. The same judgement should be made on a spaceobject fabricated/produced in outer space. Ownership attaches to the person who introduced thefacility, equipment and material from the earth.IV.Examples of the Challenges against the Non-Appropriation Principle1. Territorial ClaimThe first example is the 1976 Bogotá Declaration. This declaration from equatorial Statesregards the geostationary orbit (GSO) not as a part of outer space, but as an integral part of theterritory of eight States, since the GSO is a physical fact arising from the nature of the earth, thatis to say, gravity. Although the claim of sovereign right has been dismissed by internationalsociety as a whole, there has been an understanding that the underlying significance of the BogotáDeclaration lies in the determination towards a more equitable use of outer space. Accordingly,such consideration has been discussed at the legal subcommittee of the COPUOS under the titleof “The character and utilization of the geostationary orbit, including consideration of ways andmeans to ensure the rational and equitable use of the geostationary orbit without prejudice to therole of the International Telecommunication Union” (agenda item 6 (b)).11 See, e.g., Wayne N. White, Jr., “Implications of a Proposal for Real Property Rights in Outer Space”,Colloq. L. Outer S., vol.42 (1999), pp.366-372