## 3 Legal Challenges Posed by Mega-Constellations to Existing International Space Law Regime
### Principle of Equitable Access  
#### 4.1.1 Legal Framework and Significance of Equitable Access Principle  
The principle of equitable access is predicated on the idea that all states, whether or not they are space-faring, have the ability to access space and the spectrum required for communication with satellites without interfering with or receiving harmful interference from others [9]. This idea particularly pertains to the processes used to assign orbital slots and spectra for the geosynchronous orbit belt, which has been used for broadcasting since the 1960s, upheld by the International Telecommunications Union Convention [30] and the Outer Space Treaty, among others. Although there are several significant problems, the low Earth orbit (LEO) launch of many constellations of small satellites seems promising. Even though low Earth orbit (LEO) spacecraft are only in orbit for a restricted period, what are the implications of having such an overwhelming presence in LEO, where numerous orbital planes are occupied by spacecraft with numerous satellites and other potential users of these orbits are limited in trying to share them? Currently, the appropriation of space--whether void space or celestial bodies--is forbidden by international law. However, this core principle conflictswith the broad freedom to enter, explore, and use space, especially regarding national innovations in industrial space capabilities. These rights, principles, and obligations will therefore be explored with regard to mega-constellations. The concern for non-space-faring states emerged after the ITU began allocating orbital slots and spectra based on the first-come first-served principle. The World Administrative Radio Conference Delegates stressed every nation's right to access, simply because of the limited nature of the spectrum and GSO as natural resources. This concern was addressed under Article 33 of the Union's Convention [30]. Despite the good intentions of this provision, it led to debates on the enforceability of the principle stated therein. An example is the Bogota Declaration [87], which saw eight equatorial countries declaring sovereignty over the GSO belt directly above their national territory, which is a clear violation of the Outer Space Treaty, as will be discussed in the following. A compromise was reached to redefine the allocation process for GSOs [88]. All states are free to enter, use, and explore outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, according to Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty. All other requirements and prohibitions, however, are weighed against this fundamental principle of space law. The wording in Article 1 essentially speaks for itself. States are free to access and explore space without first obtaining permission from any other state, international organization, or other body of authority, as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 1. Initially, the freedom of states to independently explore space was not a given but, rather, a privilege that was agreed upon by the member states of the United Nations. This right to unilaterally access space was implicitly accepted by the world community when the USSR launched Sputnik-1, and it was further codified in a statement of principles adopted by the UN in the early 1960s [89]. This right was finally made clear and explicit under binding international law with the Outer Space Treaty. It is also worth noting that Paragraph 1 refers to outer space as the \"province of all mankind\", rather than merely outer space. It further requires that this exploration and use be by all states, \"without discrimination of any kind on the basis of equality and in accordance with international law...\". However, when a single private company controls such a large percentage of space, their use discriminates against other potential users and impedes their ability to access, investigate, and utilize space.