## 3 Legal Challenges Posed by Mega-Constellations to Existing International Space Law Regime
### Principle of Non-Appropriation
#### 4.2.2 Application of Non-Appropriation Principle to Mega-Constellations
The argument that this occupation reaches the level of appropriation of these orbits is further supported by these extended periods of time at the specified mega-constellation heights. Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty supports this violation of the non-appropriation principle by these gigantic constellations. It is necessary for the utilization and exploration of space that states \"shall be guided by the principle of cooperation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space...with due regard to the corresponding interests of other States...\". Thus, it is difficult to see how this placement of massive constellations demonstrates any form of respect for the comparable interests of others. Their unilateral transgressions of the goals of space law standards are further supported by this disregard. In summary, these massive constellations effectively monopolize entire orbital areas, thereby preventing other actors from sharing such domains. This has been implemented without international discussion or consensus [99], which is unacceptable for a domain that is outside of state sovereignty and that no state may hold. Governments are forbidden from appropriating space, and they will eventually be in charge of this decision. Unlike GSO, they were able to occupy these areas for extraordinarily extended periods thanks to their authority to travel there, demonstrating appropriation. As shown, these constellations severely restrict other actors' ability to use certain areas, interfering with their freedom to explore and utilize space. Ultimately, as stated in Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty, this heedless desire demonstrates complete disregard for the comparable rights of others. In light of this, these massive constellations represent the illegal appropriation of specific space regions, independent of any formal or official claim to the contrary made by an accountable or approving authority. On the other hand, a counterargument claiming that the deployment and operation of these massive constellations is in complete compliance with the regulations governing space travel could legitimately lead to a different decision. These constellations do not represent any unlawful appropriation of the orbits that they utilize; rather, they simply represent the freedom to explore and use space. The right to unrestricted access to and use of space is established under Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty. Regardless of where the spacecraft is traveling or how many satellites it contains, preventing an actor from deploying one would constitute a violation of their right to explore and use outer space freely. In addition, space actors do not require authorization from any other state in order to access or explore space. Although the drafters of the outer space law did not specifically mention it, this use of space by constellations in low Earth orbits actually satisfies their goals for the use of space [101]. The preface to the Outer Space Treaty outlines the goals and subject matter of the agreement, which includes a desire to contribute to international cooperation, which will in turn culminate in mutual understanding and strengthen mutual friendships towards progress in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. These goals can be used to interpret the treaty's operative articles, which discuss how humanity has explored and used space as inspiration. It is also easy to see how these constellations currently provide the services that the treaty's drafters intended, especially since these activities are a result of international cooperation. Consequently, rather than being interpreted restrictively and concentrating primarily on the possible drawbacks of constellations, the articles of the Outer Space Treaty should be interpreted permissively, allowing constellations. It has also been argued that, since orbits and frequencies constitute res communis, they are not \"property\" in the legal sense because they are finite communal resources that are objectionable to appropriation.