Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:53:35.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Labyrinth of International Telecommunications Law: Direct Broadcast Satellites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

B.A. Hurwitz
Get access

Extract

The conquest of outer space has provided countless benefits and offers limitless potential for mankind. Despite the important developments which have been made in various fields connected with the exploitation of outer space, the predominant application of space science and technology is the communications satellite which is used for the transmittal of audio (radio), telegraph, telephone, and visual (television) transmissions either to a limited (local) or vast (national, regional, international), area. The most controversial of these functions is television broadcasting, as it is generally accepted that individuals are more influenced by what they see than by what they hear.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 1988 , pp. 145 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Woetzel, R.K., ‘International Co-operation in Telecommunication for Education and Cultural Purposes’, 61 Proc. ASIL (1967) p. 31Google Scholar.

2. See Dauses, M.A., ‘Direct Television Broadcasting by Satellites and Freedom of Information’, 3 Journal of Space Law (1975) pp. 59–60Google Scholar; and Perrin, F.G., ‘The Broadcasting-Satellite Service: Freedom or Control’, in Matte, N.M., Earth-Oriented Space Activities and Their Legal Implications, Proceedings of the Symposium held on 15–16 October 1981 (McGill University, Centre for Research of Air and Space Law, 1983) pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

3. ‘Broadcasting service’ is defined in the 1982 International Telecommunication Convention as, ‘a radio communication service in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public. This service may include sound transmissions, television transmissions or other types of transmissions’: International Telecommunication Convention, Final Protocol, Additional Protocols, Optional Additional Protocol, Resolutions, Recommendations and Opinion; Nairobi, 1982, para. 2012. (Hereinafter cited as the 1982 ITU Convention.)

4. Fawcett, J.E.S., Outer Space: New Challenges to Law and Policy (1984) p. 65Google Scholar.

5. Canada, India and Japan have all established satellite television services. The reasons, respectively, for their decisions to invest in DBS technology, are the cost of conventional broadcasting to remote, sparsely populated areas; overcoming mass illiteracy through educational and vocational programming; and the need to circumvent topographic obstacles to conventional broadcast waves. See Christol, C.Q., The Modern International Law of Outer Space (1982) p. 606Google Scholar; Finch, E.R. Jr and Moore, A.L., ‘Outer Space Can Help Peace’, 7 International Lawyer (1973) p. 886Google Scholar; Frutkin, A.W., ‘Direct/Community Broadcasts Using Satellites’, 3 Journal of Space Law (1975) pp. 17–19Google Scholar; and Woetzel, , loc.cit. n. 1, p. 30Google Scholar.

6. Hondius, F.W., ‘European Principles on the Use of Satellites for Television and Sound Radio’, 10 Annals of Air and Space Law (1985) p. 369Google Scholar. He notes that while such a service ‘is neither direct nor “broadcasting” within the meaning of international radio-communication rules, its effects on viewers is the same as direct broadcasting by satellites’: ibid.

7. Galloway, E., ‘Direct Broadcast Satellites and Space Law’, 3 Journal of Space Law (1975) p. 15Google Scholar.

8. Fawcett, , op.cit. n. 4, pp. 66–67Google Scholar. For a discussion of the technical means of prohibiting the reception of foreign broadcasts, see the texts accompanying nn. 200–202 infra.

9. See Clarke, A., Extraterrestrial Relays in Wireless World (1945)Google Scholar, reprinted in A. Clarke, Voices From the Sky: Previews of the Coming Space Age (1965) pp. 233–241, quoted by Galloway, , loc.cit. n. 7, p. 8Google Scholar; Dalfen, C.M., ‘The International Legislative Process: Direct Broadcasting and Remote Sensing by Satellite Compared’, 10 Can. YIL (1972) p. 193Google Scholar; Fawcett, , op.cit. n. 4, p. 67Google Scholar; Goedhuis, D., ‘Legal Aspects of the Utilization of Outer Space’, 17 NILR (1970) p. 30Google Scholar; Gotlieb, A., Dalfen, C. and Katz, K., ‘The Transborder Transfer of Information by Communications and Computer Systems: Issues and Approaches to Guiding Principles’, 68 AJIL (1974) p. 234Google Scholar; Logsdon, J.M., ‘Direct Broadcasting Satellites: International Policy Issues’, in Matte, , op.cit. n. 2, p. 43Google Scholar; Matte, N.M., Space Activities and Emerging International Law (1984) pp. 427–428 and 431Google Scholar; Powell, J.T., ‘Direct Broadcast Satellites: The Conceptual Convergence of the Free Flow of Information and National Sovereignty’, 6 California Western ILJ (1975–1976) p. 1Google Scholar; Woetzel, , loc.cit. n. 1, p. 32Google Scholar; and Zhukov, G. and Kolosov, Y., International Space Law, translated by Belitzky, B. (1984) p. 129Google Scholar.

10. See Matte, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 430Google Scholar; and Matte, N.M., ‘Aerospace Law: Telecommunications Satellites’, 116 RADI (1980) pp. 123 and 145Google Scholar.

11. See Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 610Google Scholar; McGraw, D., ‘Telecommunications: Building a Consensus’, 7 Harvard ILR (1984) p. 28Google Scholar; and Matte, N. M., loc.cit. n. 10, p. 130Google Scholar.

12. Municipal law, including broadcasting and copyright legislation, is beyond the scope of this paper.

13. Treaty of Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies; adopted in UNGA Res. 2222(XXI), 19 December 1966; 610 UNTS 206(1967), 18:3 UST 2410(1967), TIAS 6437; opened for signature on 27 January 1967, entered into force on 10 October 1967 (hereinafter cited as the 1967 Outer Space treaty). See also the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects; adopted in UNGA Res. 2777(XXVI), 29 November 1971; 24:3 UST 2389(1973), TIAS 7762; opened for signature on 29 March 1972, entered into force on 9 October 1973 (hereinafter cited as the 1972 Liability Convention).

14. 1982 ITU Convention, supra n. 3; and various Partial Revisions and Radio Regulations annexed to past Conventions.

15. Including, the International Convention Concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace, Geneva, 23 September 1936, 186 LNTS 4319(1938) (hereinafter cited as the 1936 Broadcasting Convention); the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, reproduced in Brownlie, I., ed., Basic Documents on Human Rights, 2nd edn. (1981) pp. 243–257Google Scholar; the Inter-American Radio Agreement, Washington, 9 July 1949, 168 UNTS 2218 (1953); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, reproduced in Brownlie, ibid., pp. 128–145; and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966, 77 UKTS (1969).

16. Including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Doc A/811, 10 December 1948, reproduced in Brownlie, , op.cit. n. 15, pp. 21–27Google Scholar; the Declaration of Guiding Principles on the Use of Satellite Broadcasting for the Free Flow of Information, the Spread of Education and Greater Cultural Exchange, UN Doc. A/AC.105/109 Corr. 1, 16 February 1973, reproduced in 1 Journal of Space Law (1973) pp. 161–165Google Scholar; and the Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting, UN Doc. A/RES/37/92, 4 February 1982, reproduced in 77 AJIL (1983) pp. 733–736.

17. On the use of analogies in the creation of space law, see Hurwitz, B.A., The Legality of Space Militarization (1986) pp. 24–33Google Scholar.

18. Scott, J.B., ‘The Institute of International Law’, 21 AJIL (1927) pp. 716–728Google Scholar; quoted by Matte, , loc.cit, n. 10, p. 131Google Scholar.

19. Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, p. 132Google Scholar.

20. Ibid., pp. 40–41.

21. UN Doc A/811, supra n. 16.

22. Brownlie, , op.cit. n. 15, p. 21Google Scholar. See the Dissenting Opinion of Tanaka, Justice, South West Africa Cases (Second Phase), 1966, ICJ Rep. (1966) pp. 284–316Google Scholar, reproduced in Brownlie, ibid., pp. 445–449.

23. See the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights; the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; the 1953 Convention on the Political Rights of Women; the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery; the 1957 Convention Concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour; the 1958 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention; the 1960 Convention Against Discrimination in Education; the 1964 Employment Policy Convention; the 1966 International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; and the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights. For the texts and bibliographic information see Brownlie, op.cit. n. 15.

24. See supra n. 15.

25. Ibid., Art. 19(1)(2).

26. Ibid., Art. 19(3).

27. It is interesting to note that the 1982 Plenipotentiary Conference of the ITU passed Recommendation No. 1, ‘Unrestricted Transmission of News’, holding ‘that Members of the Union facilitate the unrestricted transmission of news by telecommunication services’: 1982 ITU Convention, supra n. 3.

28. See supra n. 15, Art. 10.

29. Recently, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of fcurope recommended (Recommendation No. 4(84) 22) to Member States ‘Programme Standards’ for ‘the Use of Satellite Capacity for Television and Sound Radio’ Principle 2 states:

‘2.1 Apart from the provision of the law which is applicable according to Principle 1, service providers shall in general comply with the following basic requirements concerning programme content:

(a) news shall not be presented inaccurately or in a partial manner;

(b) programmes shall not be indecent and in particular not contain pornography;

(c) programmes shall not infringe the right to respect for privacy and family life; they shall respect the views of others;

(d) programmes shall not give undue prominence to violence or incite racial hatred;

(e) programmes shall respect the sensitivity of children and young persons especially when large numbers of them are likely to watch;

2.2 All efforts shall be made to avoid that the acquisition by one service provider of exclusive rights for an event of high public interest will result in depriving a large part of the public of the opportunity to follow that event on television or radio. In particular, the special conditions of sound radio reports shall be taken into account’.

Reproduced in Hondius, , loc.cit, n. 6, pp. 385–386Google Scholar.

30. Supra n. 23, Art. 13.

31. Back in 1949, the American States already expressed their support for the principle of freedom of information. In annexes to the Inter-American Radio Agreement (supra n. 15) they ‘declaref[d],1. that … in order to maintain and further improve the friendly relations existing among their peoples, [they] affirm [ed] the principle of freedom of radio-communication, particularly in those services connected with the dissemination of information to the public …’ Moreover, they recommended (Recommendation No. 5) ‘that the American Governments promulgate the necessary measures to give the expression of thought on the radio the same affective guarantees of freedom as the press enjoys …’

32. Jasentuliyana, N., ‘Space Telecommunications — Issues and Policies: the Role of the United Nations’, 77 Proc. ASIL (1983) p. 349Google Scholar.

33. Zhukov, and Kolosov, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 134Google Scholar. For example, s. 3(2) of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, confirms that ‘the right of persons to receive programs, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations is unquestioned’. This has been interpreted by Muldoon J. (Lount Corporation et. al. v. Ab Canada et. al., [1984] 1 EC. 362–363(FCTD)) to mean that ‘… subject only to the provisions of the Act and regulations, the unquestioned right of persons to receive programs must be understood to be an unlimited, unfettered, unregulated or unrestricted right, since Parliament characterizes it as unquestioned’. Cooper, B.M., ‘Broadcasting by Satellite in Canada: The Down-Link Dilemma’, 10 Annals of Air and Space Law (1985) pp. 307, 315Google Scholar. In the case of the Fundamental Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, it is an established right of the individual ‘to freely express and disseminate his opinion verbally, in writing and by images and to inform himself unimpededly from generally accessible sources. The freedom of the press and the freedom of reporting by broadcasting and film are guaranteed. Censorship does not take place’ (Art. 5(1)). The only exceptions to this right are those contained ‘in the provisions of the general laws, the legal provisions for the protection of youth and the right of personal honour’ (Art. 5(2)). See Dauses, , loc.cit. n. 2, p. 68Google Scholar

34. Dauses, , loc.cit. n. 2, p. 67Google Scholar.

35. Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 608Google Scholar. See also the comments of Galloway, E., ‘Direct Broadcast Satellites and Space Law’, Regional Conference, 1 11 1974, University of Mississippi Law Center, 3 Journal of Space Law (1975) p. 110Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as DBS Conference).

36. Frutkin, DBS Conference, ibid., p. 109. Emphasis added.

37. See Arkin, W.M., ‘Of Drugs and Star Wars’, Bull. Atomic Scientists (02, 1986) pp. 4–5Google Scholar; and Gotlieb, , Dalfen, and Katz, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 235Google Scholar.

38. See Dauses, , loc.cit. n. 2, pp. 70–71Google Scholar; Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, p. 207Google Scholar; Murty, B.S., ‘Direct TV Broadcasting by Satellites and Freedom of Information’, 25 IJIL (1985) p. 22Google Scholar; and Zhukov, and Kolosov, , op.cit. n. 9, pp. 134–135Google Scholar.

39. See Powell, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 16Google Scholar.

40. See Busak, J., ‘The Need for an International Agreement on Direct Broadcasting by Satellites’, 1 Journal of Space Law (1973) p. 148Google Scholar; Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 607Google Scholar; and Murty, , loc.cit. n.38, pp. 12–13Google Scholar.

41. See Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 607Google Scholar; and Zhukov, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 128Google Scholar.

42. Laskin, P. and Chayes, A., ‘A Report of the Panel on International Telecommunications Policy’, in Direct Broadcasting from Satellites: Policies and Problems, 7 Studies in Transnational Legal Policy (The American Society of International Law) (1975) p. 8Google Scholar.

43. See ibid., p. 8; and Powell, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 35Google Scholar. It should be noted that not only ‘developing’ countries are fearful of US ‘cultural propaganda’. The French, for example, have long objected to the threat of the ‘Americanization’ of their culture. Albeit to a lesser extent, the same may be said about the Canadians. See also the texts accompanying nn. 102 and 103 infra.

44. See Busak, , loc.cit. n. 40, p. 147Google Scholar.

45. See Murty, , loc.cit. n. 38, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

46. Supra n. 15.

47. Ibid.; Busak, , loc.cit. n. 40, p. 145Google Scholar; and Gotlieb, A.E. and Dalfen, C.M., ‘Direct Satellite Broadcasting: A Case Study in the Development of the Law of Telecommunications’, 7 Can. YIL (1969) p. 43Google Scholar.

48. Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, p. 141Google Scholar.

49. Brownlie, I., ‘The Maintenance of International Peace and Security in Outer Space”, 40 BYIL (1964) p. 20Google Scholar.

50. Busak, , loc.cit. n. 40, p. 147Google Scholar.

51. UN Yearbook (1947–1948) p. 93.

52. Supra n. 13, Preamble, para. 8. It states:

‘Taking account of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 110(11) of 3 November 1947, which condemned propaganda designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, and considering that the aforementioned resolution is applicable to outer space…’

53. See Lachs, M., ‘The International Law of Outer Space’, 113 RADI (1964) p. 93Google Scholar; Sharma, S.P., ‘International Law of Outer Space: A Policy-Oriented Study’, 7 IJIL (1977) p. 194Google Scholar; and Zhukov, G.P., ‘Tendencies and Prospects of the Development of Space Law: the Soviet Viewpoint’, in McWhinney, E. and Bradley, M.A., eds., New Frontiers in Space Law (1969) p. 78Google Scholar.

54. 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra n. 15, Art. 20. According to Art. 4 of the 1966 International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (supra n. 15):

‘States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offense punishable by law;

(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination’.

55. Zhukov, and Kolosov, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 136Google Scholar.

56. Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, p. 9Google Scholar.

57. According to a news report, ‘enterprising Eastern Europeans do a brisk business in pirated video cassettes, and some have turned their living rooms into impromptu theaters where neighbours pay to see Western films and satellite programs’: ‘Russia Faces the New Age: the High-Tech Communications Revolution Challenges the East Bloc's Closed Society’, Newsweek (18 August 1986) p. 14.

58. See Gotlieb, and Dalfen, , loc.cit, n. 47, p. 43Google Scholar.

59. Patermann, C., ‘Applicable Law in Cases of Tort Damages Caused by Direct Broadcast Satellites’, 3 Journal of Space Law (1975) p. 51Google Scholar.

60. Ibid., p. 52.

61. 1972 Liability Convention, supra n. 13.

62. See Patermann, , loc.cit. n. 59, p. 52Google Scholar.

63. 1974 Brussels Convention, 13 ILM (1974) pp. 1446–1448. Israel was one of the 15 nations which signed the Convention.

64. Christol, C.Q., ‘The 1974 Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite: An Aspect of Human Rights’, 6 Journal of Space Law (1978) p. 23Google Scholar. See also Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, p. 213Google Scholar.

65. See Fawcett, , op.cit. n. 4, p. 74Google Scholar; Finch, E.R. Jr and Moore, A.L., ‘Outer Space Law and the Global Community’, 8 Int. Lawyer (1974) p. 762Google Scholar; and Matte, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 433Google Scholar.

66. See the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, Art. II, supra n. 13; Galloway, , loc.cit. n. 7, p. 5Google Scholar; and Reijnen, G.C.M., Utilization of Outer Space and International Law (1981) pp. 94–95Google Scholar.

67. See Zhukov, and Kolosov, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 133Google Scholar.

68. See Busak, , loc.cit., n. 40, p. 150Google Scholar; Dauses, , loc.cit. n. 2, p. 67Google Scholar; Logsdon, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 45Google Scholar; Powell, , loc.cit. n. 9, pp. 27–28Google Scholar; and ‘Russia Faces the New Age”, loccit. n. 57, p. 14.

69. See Jasentuliyana, , loc.cit. n. 32, p. 350Google Scholar; and Perrin, , loc.cit. n. 2, p. 32Google Scholar.

70. CFR 73.788a., quoted by Price, M.E., ‘First Amendment Constraints and the Direct Broadcast Satellite Controversy’, in Direct Broadcasting from Satellites: Policies and Problems, Studies in Transnational Legal Policy (The American Society of International Law) (1975) p. 58Google Scholar. See also ibid., pp. 65–68; Gotlieb, , Dalfen, and Katz, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 235Google Scholar; and Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n.42, pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

71. See Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, p. 138Google Scholar; and Powell, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 14Google Scholar. There is not even agreement on the definition of ‘prior consent’. For some States it refers to prior consent to the launching of DBS systems; for others it is prior consent to their use; and still others say it is prior consent to specific broadcasts. Galloway, , loc.cit. n. 7, p. 12Google Scholar.

72. Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, p. 207Google Scholar.

73. Supran. 16.

74. Ibid., Art. IX(1).

75. Ibid., Art. IX(2).

76. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra n. 16, Art. 27(2).

77. In May 1933, the Council of the International Broadcasting Union resolved, in regard to a complaint against Radio Normandy, that ‘the systematic diffusion of programmes or messages, which are specifically intended for listeners in another country and which have been the object of a protest by the broadcasting organization of that country, constitutes an “inadmissible” act from the point of view of good international relations’.: Briggs, History of Broadcasting in the nited Kingdom, quoted by Price, , loc.cit. n. 70, p. 46Google Scholar.

78. See Cheng, B., ‘The United Nations and Outer Space’, 14 Current Legal Problems (1961) p. 252CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 612Google Scholar; Gorove, S., ‘International Space Law in Perspective — Some Major Issues, Trends and Alternatives’, 181 RADI (1983) p. 358Google Scholar; and Jasentuliyana, , loc.cit. n. 32, p. 350Google Scholar.

79. Gehring, J. J., ‘Broadcasting Satellites — Prospects and Problems’, 3 Journal of Space Law (1975) p. 30Google Scholar.

80. Dickson, B.H., ‘Effects of 1977 ITU World Administrative Radio Conference on Formulation of UN Draft Principles on Direct Broadcast Satellites (DBS)’, 2 Annals of Air and Space Law (1977) p. 267Google Scholar.

81. The ITU has divided the world into three broadcasting regions: Region I (Europe, Africa and the Middle East); Region II (the Americas); and Region III (Asia).

82. Dickson, , loc.cit. n. 80, pp. 258–260Google Scholar.

83. Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio Conference, ITU, Geneva, 1979, Art. N28/7, Section II, quoted by Dickson, , loc.cit. n. 80, p. 259Google Scholar, and Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10; p. 205Google Scholar. Res. No. 507 of the 1979 WARC states that ‘stations in the broadcasting-satellite service shall be established and operated in accordance with agreements and associated plans adopted by world or regional administrative conferences’: quoted by Perrin, , loc.cit. n. 2, p. 18Google Scholar.

84. See Butler, R.E., ‘World Administrative Radio Conference for Planning Broadcasting Satellite Service’, 5 Journal of Space Law (1977) p. 96Google Scholar; Dauses, , loc.cit. n. 2, p. 66Google Scholar; Dickson, , loc.cit. n. 80, p. 259Google Scholar; DuCharme, E.O. et al. , ‘Direct Broadcasting by Satellite — The Development of the International Technical and Administrative Regulatory Regime’, 9 Annals of Air and Space Law (1984) p. 273Google Scholar; Gehring, , loc.cit. n. 79, p. 37Google Scholar; Hondius, , loc.cit, n. 6, pp. 367–368Google Scholar; Jasentulyana, , loc.cit, n. 32, p. 351Google Scholar; Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, pp. 20–21Google Scholar; Matte, , opc.cit. n. 9, pp. 449, 467Google Scholar, and loc.cit, n. 11, pp. 205–207; and Pal, Y., ‘Space, Man and Interaction’, in Matte, , op.cit. n. 2, pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

85. See Gotlieb, , Dalfen, and Katz, , loc.cit, n. 9, pp. 225 and 227–228Google Scholar; and Powell, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 14Google Scholar.

86. See Vereshchetin, V., ‘On the Importance of the Principle of State Sovereignty in International Space Law’, 7 OIL (1977) pp. 207–208Google Scholar.

87. Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, p. 30Google Scholar. See also Gorove, , loc.cit, n. 78, p. 391Google Scholar.

88. Gotlieb, , Dalfen, and Katz, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 255Google Scholar. They also note that with the development of DBS technology, broadcasting to increasingly limited areas will be possible: ibid.

89. Fawcett, , op.cit. n. 4, pp. 69–70Google Scholar.

90. Pikus, I.M., ‘Legal Implications of Direct Broadcast Technology’;, 3 Journal of Space Law (1975) p. 41Google Scholar.

91. ‘Unintentional’ does not necessarily mean ‘unwanted’. Broadcasting authorities are created to supply a service to their nationals and residents, but they also take advantage of foreign recep-tion of their broadcasts, especially in order to achieve economic benefits, for example, as a result of increased viewing figures (vis-à-vis advertising costs).

92. See the remarks by Patermann, , DBS Conference, loc.cit. n. 35, p. 111Google Scholar; and Pikus, , loc.cit. n. 90, p. 43Google Scholar.

93. See Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 631Google Scholar; and Dickson, , loc.cit. n. 80, p. 265Google Scholar.

94. UNGA Res. 1348(XIII), reproduced in UN Yearbook (1958) pp. 22–23.

95. UNGA Res. 1472(XIV), 12 December 1959, reproduced in UN Yearbook (1959) pp. 28–29.

96. UNGA Res. 2453B(XXIII), 20 December 1968, reproduced in UN Yearbook (1968) pp. 67–68.

97. See Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 605Google Scholar.

98. Logsdon, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 47Google Scholar.

99. See ibid., p. 47; and Dickson, , loc.cit. n. 80, pp. 255–266Google Scholar.

100. See McGraw, , loc.cit. n. 11, pp. 29–30Google Scholar.

101. Jasentuliyana, , loc.cit. n. 32, p. 349Google Scholar. The proposed article stated: ‘The Parties to the Treaty, recognizing the enormous potentialities of space applications for communication purposes and more specifically for sound and television broadcasting, undertake to make use of such applications only in accordance with the resolutions of the General Assembly which condemn using the media of information for hostile propaganda and urge States to utilize them for promoting friendly relations among nations, based upon the purposes and principles of the Charter. In particular, they shall undertake to regulate at the world-wide level, direct broadcasting by artificial satellites, as regards both its technical and programme contents aspects. They undertake to refrain from using communication satellites for direct broadcasting until such regulations are set by the competent international organizations’.

UN Doc. A/AC.105/35, 16 September 1966, Report of the Legal Sub-Committee, Annex III, p. 9, quoted by McMahon, J.F., ‘Legal Aspects of Outer Space: Recent Developments’, 41 BYIL (1965–1966) p. 421Google Scholar.

102. Jasentuliyana, , loc.cit. n. 32, p. 349Google Scholar. The Brazilian proposal (subsequently rejected), made during negotiations on the drafting of the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (UN Res. 1962(XXIII), 13 December 1963), stated that ‘the Declaration should also incorporate a ban on the utilization of a communication system based on satellites for purposes encouraging national, racial or class rivalries’.: UNGA Agenda, Item 28, Annexes, 21 A/5549/Add. 1, quoted by Gotlieb, and Dalfen, , loc.cit. n. 47, p. 44Google Scholar.

103. See Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 629Google Scholar; and Powell, , loc.cit. n. 42, p. 94Google Scholar.

104. UN Doc A/AC.105/83, 25 May 1970, p. 27, quoted by Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 628Google Scholar.

105. UN Doc. A/8771(1972), quoted by Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit, n. 42, pp. 12–13Google Scholar.

106. Ibid., quoted by Powell, loc.cit. n. 9, pp. 31–32, fn. 92.

107. Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, p. 13Google Scholar.

108. 1967 Outer Space Treaty, supra n. 13, Art. 1.

109. Quoted by Dalfen, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 208Google Scholar.

110. 1967 Outer Space Treaty, supra n. 13, Art. 1.

111. Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 628Google Scholar.

112. Galloway, , loc.cit. n. 7, p. 12Google Scholar.

113. See Galloway, , loc.cit. n. 7, p. 10Google Scholar; and Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, p. 16Google Scholar.

114. Matte, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 447Google Scholar.

115. Chapman, J.H. and Warren, G.J., ‘Direct Broadcast Satellites: The ITU, UN and the Real World’, 4 Annals of Air and Space Law (1979) p. 415Google Scholar.

116. Quoted by Jasentuliyana, , loc.cit. n. 32, p. 118Google Scholar.

117. See Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, p. 12Google Scholar.

118. Fourth Canada-Sweden Paper, UN Doc. A/AC1O5/WG.3/1.4, June 1973, Annex Draft Principles, No. V, quoted by Gotlieb, et al. , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 238Google Scholar. See also Matte, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 433Google Scholar.

119. Gotlieb, et al. , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 238Google Scholar.

120. For a detailed review, see Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, pp. 605–719Google Scholar.

121. UN Doc A/RES 37/92 (4 February 1983), adopted by the General Assembly on the report of the Space Political Committee, UN Doc A/37/646 (1982), reproduced in 77 AJIL (1983) pp. 733–736. Hereinafter cited as Resolution of Principles.

122. Ibid., para. 4. Emphasis added.

123. Ibid., para. 6. Emphasis added.

124. Ibid., paras. 8 and 9. Emphasis added.

125. Ibid., para. 12. Emphasis added.

126. 1967 Outer Space Treaty, supra n. 13, Art. III. Emphasis added.

127. Ibid., Art. IX. Emphasis added.

128. Ibid., Art. VI. Emphasis added.

129. Ibid., Art. XI. Emphasis added.

130. Resolution of Principles, supra n. 121, para. 7; and ibid., Art. IX.

131. Ibid., para. 5; and ibid., Art. I.

132. Ibid., para. 10; and ibid., Art. IX.

133. Ibid., para. 1.

134. Ibid., para. 2.

135. Ibid., para. 3.

136. Ibid., para. 11. Emphasis added.

137. Murty, , loc.cit. n. 38, p. 24Google Scholar.

138. Resolution of Principles, supran. 121, para. 13. Emphasis added.

139. Ibid., para. 14. Emphasis added.

140. Ibid., para. IS. Emphasis added.

141. See Chapman, and Warren, , loc.cit. n. 115, p. 426Google Scholar; and Murty, , loc.cit. n. 38, pp. 16–17 and 23Google Scholar.

142. Gorove holds the opposite view, i.e, that prior consent is given priority over freedom of information: Gorove, S., ‘Space Telecommunications — Issues and Policies’, 77 Proc. ASIL (1983) p. 347Google Scholar.

143. See Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, pp. 10–24Google Scholar.

144. See Gaggero, E.D., ‘Quo Vadis COPUOS?’, 2 Space Policy (1986) p. 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gorove, , loc.cit. n. 78, p. 390Google Scholar; Matte, , op.cit. n. 9, pp. 452–453Google Scholar; and Zhukov, and Kolosov, , op.cit. n. 9, pp. 131–132Google Scholar.

145. See UNMC (September 1983) p. 33; and 77 Proc ASIL (1983) p. 365.

146. See Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 549Google Scholar; and Perrin, , loach, n. 2, p. 7Google Scholar.

147. 1982 ITU Convention, supra n. 3, Arts. 4(2)(b) and 10(4)(a) and (b).

148. See Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, p. 153Google Scholar. Since 1977, the ‘first come first served’ principle has been replaced by the principle of ‘equitable access’. Ibid., at p. 159.

‘Harmful interference’ is defined in the ITU Convention as: ‘Interference which endangers the functioning of a radio-navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations’ Ibid., Annex 2, No. 2003. According to Art. 35 of the ITU Convention, which deals with the issue of ‘harmful interference’:

‘1. All stations, whatever their purpose, must be established and operated in such a manner as not to cause harmful interference to the radio services or communications of other Members or of recognized private operating agencies, or of other duly authorized operating agencies which carry on radio service, and which operate in accordance with the provisions of the Radio Regulations. 2. Each Member undertakes to require the private operating agencies which it recognizes and the other operating agencies duly authorized for this purpose, to observe the provisions of No. 158 [i.e., paragraph 1, above].

3. Further, the Members recognize the desirability of taking all practicable steps to prevent the operation of electrical apparatus and installations of all kinds from causing harmful interference to the radio services or communications mentioned in No. 158’.

149. Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, pp. 19–20 and 22Google Scholar.

150. Supra n. 148. See also Arts. 11, 13 and 15 of the 1982 ITU Radio Regulations.

151. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization ‘INTELSAT’ and the Operating Agreement, Washington DC, 20 August 1971, entered into force 12 February 1973, TIAS No. 7532, reproduced in Colino, R.R., ‘A Chronicle of Policy and Procedure: The Formulation of the Reagan Administration Policy on International Satellite Telecommunications’, 13 Journal of Space Law (1985) pp. 108–109Google Scholar. See also Art. XIV(e).

152. Report of the Boards of Governors to the Assembly of Parties pursuant to Art. XIV concerning Co-ordination of the Arab Communication Satellite System (ARABSAT), INTELSAT Doc. No. AP-5-8-/0/3/80 B G 41-51E W/3/80, 14 March 1980, p. 7, quoted by Matte, , loc.cit, n. 10, p. 185Google Scholar.

153. Ibid., p. 8; quoted by Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, pp. 186–187Google Scholar.

154. ‘Intelsat Decides in Favour of ARABSAT’, Intelsat News (7 April 1980) p. 1. See Matte, , loc.cit, n. 10, p. 186Google Scholar.

155. The Agreement of the Arab Corporation for Space Communications, reproduced in US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Space Law: Selected Documents, 2nd edn. (1978) pp. 449–468 (hereinafter cited as ARABSAT Agreement).

156. The ARABSAT members are: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, ‘Palestine’, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates.

157. Matte, , loc.cit. n. 10, p. 194Google Scholar.

158. ‘The Pride and the Profit: NASA Stops Commercial Satellite Launches — and Sets Off a Global Space Race’, Newsweek (1 September 1986).

159. ARABSAT Agreement, supra n. 155, Art. 3.

160. They are by no means alone in this respect. President Reagan and Secretary of State Schultz did not hesitate to use US communications networks, including the ‘Voice of America’, on 15–16 and 18–19 April 1986, respectively, to call for the overthrow of Kaddafi.

161. ‘Monitor’, BBC World Service, 10 April 1985.

162. ‘Hadashot’ (in Hebrew), 7 January 1986.

163. Israel Television, 21 March 1986.

164. Again, they are not alone in this. At the 1982 ITU Convention, such irrelevancies as the Falklands dispute (Argentina and the UK); the issue of Antarctic sovereignty (Argentina, Chile, the UK and the USSR); the recognition of the Chilean delegation's credentials (Byelorussian SSR, Ukranian SSR, the USSR and Chile); the Cyprus dispute (Cyprus and Turkey); the issue of Xisha and Nansha Islands (the People's Republic of China); and the standard Cuban-US polemics, were all the subjects of reservations to the ITU Convention. Supra n. 3.

165. See Probst, S.E., ‘The Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union, Nairobi, 1982: A Summary of Results’, 77 Proc. ASIL (1983) p. 358Google Scholar. The Resolution, No. 74 (‘Resolution Adopted by the Plenipotentiary Conference Regarding Israel and Assistance to Lebanon’) states:

‘The Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union (Nairobi, 1982),

recalling

the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

considering

that the fundamental principles of the International Telecommunication Convention are designed to strengthen peace and security in the world by developing international cooperation and better understanding among peoples;

bearing in mind

Resolution No. 48 of the International Telecommunication Convention (Malaga-Torremolinos, 1973);

noting

that Israel refused to accept and carry out numerous relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly;

alarmed by

the grave situation in the Middle East resulting from Israel's invasion of Lebanon;

concerned at

the destruction of telecommunications in Lebanon;

condemns without appeal

the continuing violation by Israel of international law;

further condemns

the massacres of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians;

directs the Secretary-General of the ITU

to study and report to the Administrative Council at its next session on measures to assist Lebanon in re-establishing those telecommunication facilities destroyed during Israel's invasion of Lebanon;

requests the Chairman of the Plenipotentiary Conference

to bring this Resolution to the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations’

1982 ITU Convention, supra n. 3.

166. The reservations state:

‘FP(6) For Malaysia:

The Delegation of Malaysia hereby:

…

2. Declares that the signature, and possible subsequent ratification by the Government of Malaysia of the said Convention, is not valid with respect to the Member appearing in Annex I under the name Israel, and in no way implies its recognition’.

‘FP(37) For Afghanistan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, the Maldives, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, North Yemen and South Yemen:

The above-mentioned Delegations to the Plenipotentiary Conference (Nairobi, 1982) declare that the signature and possible ratification by their representative Governments of the International Telecommunication Convention (Nairobi, 1982) are not valid with respect to the Zionist Entity appearing in Annex I of this Convention under the name of the so-called Israel and in no way whatsoever imply its recognition: Ibid.

167. The reservation states:

‘FP(93) For the Republic of Zimbabwe:

In signing this Convention, and the subsequent ratification thereof, the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe makes the following reservation:

1. that in no way does its signature condone the aggressive actions of Israel against its neighbours,

…’

168. The reservations state:

‘FP(28) For the State of Israel:

The Delegation of the State of Israel on behalf of its Government — reiterating No. XCIX of the Final Protocol of the ITU Convention, Malaga-Torremolinos, 1973 — declares that the parts referring to Israel in Resolution No. 74 are based on false allegations. They make factual and legal determinations which are based neither on facts nor on law. They do not serve the true goals and purposes of the ITU and are rejected by Israel’.

‘FP(97) For the State of Israel:

The declarations made by certain delegations in Nos. 6, 37, 93(1) of the Final Protocol, being in flagrant contradiction with the principles and purposes of the International Telecommunication Union and, therefore devoid of any legal validity, the Government of Israel wishes to put on record that it rejects these declarations outright and will proceed on the assumption that they can have no validity with respect to the rights and duties of any Member State of the International Telecommunication Union.

In any case, the Government of Israel will avail itself of its rights to safeguard its interests should the Governments of those delegations in any way violate any of the provisions of the Convention, or the Annexes, Protocols or Regulations attached thereto.’

Ibid. Emphasis added.

169. See Galloway, E., ‘Present Status in the United Nations of Direct Television Broadcast Satellites (06 1977)’, 2 Annals of Air and Space Law (1977) p. 284Google Scholar; Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, p. 146Google Scholar; Korovin, E., ‘International Status of Cosmos Space’, International Affairs (Moscow) (1959)Google Scholar, reproduced in the US Senate Committee's Space Law, op.cit. n. 155, p. 1067; and Murty, , loc.cit, n. 38, p. 13Google Scholar.

170. See Schick, F.B., ‘Space Law and Communication Satellites’, 16 Western Political Quarterly (1963) pp. 29–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

171. United Nations Charter, Art. 51.

172. See Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, p. 146Google Scholar; and Powell, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 33Google Scholar.

173. See Brownlie, , loc.cit. n. 49, p. 23Google Scholar; Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, pp. 147–148Google Scholar; and McMahon, J.F., ‘Legal Aspects of Outer Space”, 38 BYIL (1962) p. 379Google Scholar.

174. Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, p. 148Google Scholar.

175. See Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 623Google Scholar.

176. UN Doc. A/8771, 8 August 1972, Soviet Draft Convention on Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for Direct Television Broadcasting, Art. 9; quoted by Dalfen, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 136Google Scholar.

177. See Murty, , loc.cit. n. 38, pp. 23–24Google Scholar; and Poutantzas, N.M., ‘Direct Satellite Telecommunications: State Sovereignty v. Freedom of Information’, 20 NILR (1973) p. 167Google Scholar; and Zhukov, and Kolosov, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 136Google Scholar.

178. UN Doc. A/AC.195/PV.127, Annex 2 at 12, 2 April 1974, quoted by Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, p. 155Google Scholar, and Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, pp. 16–17Google Scholar.

179. See Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, p. 149Google Scholar.

180. 1982 ITU Convention, supra n. 3. See the reservations of: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Czechoslovakia, Chile, Colombia, the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, the Gabonese Republic, Germany (DR), Germany (FR), Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Korea (Republic of), Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Phillipines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Tbgolese Republic, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, the Ukranian SSR, Uruguay, the USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe.

181. See, for example, McGraw, , loc.cit, n 11, p. 29Google Scholar; Powell, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 3Google Scholar; and Wadegaonkar, D., The Orbit of Space Law (1984) p. 95Google Scholar.

182. See Frutkin, , loc.cit, n. 5, p. 23Google Scholar.

183. See Christol, , op.cit. n. 5, p. 637Google Scholar.

184. See Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, p. 139Google Scholar.

185. 1974 Brussels Convention, supra n. 63.

186. Christol, , loc.cit, n. 64, p. 34Google Scholar.

187. Ibid., pp. 142–143. According to Art. 19 of the 1982 ITU Convention:

‘1. Members reserve the right to stop the transmission of any private telegram which may appear dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to their laws, to public order or to decency, provided that they immediately notify the office of origin of the stoppage of any such telegram or any part thereof, except when such notification may appear dangerous to the security of the State. 2. Members also reserve the right to cut off any other private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security of the State or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency’ 1982 ITU Convention, supra n. 3.

188. See Matte, , loc.cit, n. 10, p. 130Google Scholar; and Murty, , loc.cit, n. 38, p. 24Google Scholar.

189. See Powell, , loc.cit, n. 9, p. 11Google Scholar.

190. See Gotlieb, and Dalfen, , loc.cit. n. 47, p. 59Google Scholar; and Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit, n. 42, p. 28Google Scholar.

191. 1936 Broadcasting Convention, supra n. 15. The reservations state:

‘The Delegation of Belgium declares its opinion that the right of a country to jam by its own means improper transmissions emanating from another country, in so far as such a right exists in conformity with the general provisions of international law and with the Conventions in force, is in no way affected by the Convention ‘The Delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that, pending the conclusion of the procedure, contemplated in Article 7 of the Convention, it considers that the right to apply reciprocal measures to a country carrying out improper transmissions against it, in so far as such a right exists under the general rules of international law and with the Conventions in force, is n i no way affected by the Convention’

192. 1982 ITU Convention, supra n. 3. The Cuban reservation states:

‘FP(69) For Cuba:

In signing the Final Acts of this Plenipotentiary Conference, the Administration of the Republic of Cuba wishes tq make it clear that, in the light of the statements which have been made by the United States Government, announcing its intention to direct radio broadcasts at our country for subversive and destabilizing purposes, and which contravene the provisions of the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, it reserves the right to use, whenever it considers it necessary, all means at its disposal and to take all appropriate measures to achieve the greatest degree of effectiveness for its broadcasting services’

193. The US reservation states:

‘FP(lll) For the United States of America:

The United States of America, noting the statement (No. 69) entered by the Administration of Cuba, recalls its rights to broadcast to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of jamming or other wrongful interference and reserves its rights with respect to existing interference and any future interference by Cuba with United States broadcasts’

194. ‘Voice of America’, 21 August 1986. According to the broadcast, the annual Soviet expenditure on jamming is $500,000 million!

195. Pikus, , loc.cit. n. 90, p. 43Google Scholar.

196. Hurwitz, , op.cit. n. 17, p. 146Google Scholar.

197. Ibid., p. 155.

198. Ibid., p. 156.

199. Gorove, S., ‘Direct Television Broadcasting by Satellites: Some Alternatives in Case of an Impasse’, 3 Journal of Space Law (1975) p. 57Google Scholar.

200. See Pikus, , loc.cit. n. 90, p. 42Google Scholar.

201. See Dalfen, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 193Google Scholar; Gotlieb, et al. , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 235Google Scholar; and Murty, , loc.cit. n. 38, p. 13Google Scholar.

202. See Gehring, , loc.cit. n. 79, pp. 29, 38Google Scholar; and Gorove, , in the DBS Conference, loccit. n. 35, p. 108Google Scholar. This method is used by some East European countries to eliminate the reception of Western television broadcasts. In the case of East Germany, Western feature films are broadcast during the airing of West Germany's news programme in an effort to reduce the number of ‘Eastern’ viewers.

203. See ‘Russia Faces the New Age”, loc.cit. n. 57, p. 19.

204. Quoted by Woetzel, , loc.cit. n. 1, p. 36Google Scholar.

205. See Gotlieb, et al. , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 257Google Scholar; McDougal, M.S., ‘Perspectives for a Law of Outer Space”, 52 AJIL (1958) p. 410Google Scholar; and Perrin, , loc.cit. n. 2, p. 30Google Scholar.

206. See Busak, , loc.cit. n. 40, p. 152Google Scholar; Cocca, A.A., ‘The Supreme Interests of Mankind vis-à-vis the Emergence of Direct Broadcast’, 2 Journal of Space Law (1974) p. 93Google Scholar; Dauses, , loc.cit. n. 2, p. 72Google Scholar; Finch, and Moore, , loc.cit. n. 65, pp. 763–764Google Scholar; Gehring, , loc.cit. n. 79, p. 38Google Scholar; Gotlieb, and Dalfen, , loc.cit. n. 47, pp. 42–43Google Scholar; Laskin, and Chayes, , loc.cit. n. 42, p. 33Google Scholar; Matte, , op.cit. n. 9, p. 469Google Scholar; and Powell, , loc.cit. n. 9, p. 2Google Scholar.