Value chain · CLM-1041
In plain terms
In 1978 the programme's lawyer said nobody can own a slot but anyone can use one, sunlight in orbit belongs to everyone, the ITU allocates frequencies but not slots, and if the beam hurt someone there was already a treaty to claim under.
The claim as recorded
The programme's 1978 legal white paper concludes that under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty the geostationary orbital level is not subject to national appropriation, so a state "can use but cannot establish sovereignty in that area"; that the right to use a slot "would have to be temporary, e.g., non-exclusive", and "no preemptive right to the orbital slot would be created by such temporary or non-exclusive use"; that "the solar energy located at geostationary orbital levels is a res communis"; that the ITU "has the legal authority to allocate microwave frequencies" but "has no power respecting the allocation of orbital slots"; that the Liability Convention's reasoning on radiation injury may be applied to microwaves; and that Article IX consultation is a duty on the United States but "does not constitute a veto by another State".
Evidence behind this: T3, one author's legal white paper for the programme, 1978; an argument, not a ruling.
Scope and limits
A 1978 READING: THE 1979 MOON AGREEMENT AND THE 1979 WARC POST-DATE IT, THE ITU CONVENTION HAS BEEN RENUMBERED AND THE RADIO REGULATIONS REWRITTEN SINCE, AND THE REGISTRATION CONVENTION IS NOT DISCUSSED (probed: zero hits). Grove (CLM-1042) disagrees on the ITU's role in slots. Both lawyers find the 1976 Bogota equatorial claims untenable.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.200, raw: "can use but cannot establish sovereignty"; "would have to be temporary, e.g., non-exclusive"; "No preemptive right to the orbital slot would be created"; "res communis"; "does not constitute a veto". PDF p.201, raw: "The ITU has the legal authority to allocate microwave frequencies"; normalised: "At the present time the ITU has no power respecting the allocation of orbital slots". PDF p.202: the Liability Convention takes into account that radiation can produce injury. PDF p.198, normalised: the confusion of treating orbital slots and the solar energy at geostationary level "as essentially one and the same".
Basis: treaty articles as read in 1978
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-019 not published in this release
- Contradicts
- CLM-0945 The article asks whether the orbital slot a solar power satellite sits in counts as a "space... in reasoning not in law: from the same Article II 's 2024 article argues the slot may itself be a space resource so that non-appropriation might bite on an operator; Christol concludes non-appropriation forbids owning a slot and permits using one non-exclusively and names the confusion the later chain rests onCLM-0945 The article asks whether the orbital slot a solar power satellite sits in counts as a "space...
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1041
CLM-1041, Energy Aperture, as of 1978.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Contradicted by
- CLM-0945The article asks whether the orbital slot a solar power satellite sits in counts as a "space resource" under the Outer Space Treaty. If it...