The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Was the Chinese Surveillance Balloon in U.S. "Near Space"?
The nation's control over the air above our heads is less settled than some may think.
Prompted by the Biden Administration's decision to down a Chinese government spy balloon and several additional objects over the weekend, today's Wall Street Journal features an interesting article highlighting that there is no international consensus, let alone a binding international agreement, governing the use of "near space" -- the area between 60,000 and 330,000 feet above the ground. While nations are generally understood to have control over their air space up to 60,000 feet, and various treaties provide that there are no sovereign claims above 330,000 feet (where satellites orbit), "near space" is neither governed by treaty, nor is it clearly subject to control by the nation below. (So much for ad coelum.)
From the WSJ:
The U.S. says the suspected Chinese spy balloon shot down Feb. 4 violated sovereign U.S. airspace. But when it crossed the U.S. at altitudes as high as 65,000 feet, the balloon floated into the murky zone aloft where no international consensus exists about which, if any, nation wields control. . . .
Countries with advanced space programs, including the U.S. and China, have blocked efforts to extend nations' sovereignty to the edge of space, according to meeting minutes of the United Nations body examining the issue. They have opted for the freedom to operate their own craft without restriction. . . .
In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration monitors and controls airspace up to 60,000 feet for commercial and military traffic, a level recognized under international agreement and employed by other countries. The three objects downed over the weekend over the U.S. and Canada all fell within that airspace, which also extends to each nation's internationally recognized maritime boundary 12 miles offshore. . . .
International treaties hold that nations have no sovereignty in the reaches of outer space where satellites orbit, typically understood to begin about 330,000 feet. While a handful of countries have laid claim to the heights between 60,000 feet and that boundary, an expanse often cited as "near space," those claims aren't recognized by international law.
The lack of international agreements does not mean that some nations are not beginning to make claims. Further from the article:
In 2017, New Zealand became the first country to include oversight of such high altitudes in its space law, requiring users to secure licenses to operate above its territory. New Zealand didn't define high altitude. A few other countries have followed suit, including the United Arab Emirates, which set a limit of roughly 262,000 feet for its oversight of high altitudes. But in those cases, other countries haven't accepted the UAE's claim.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is funny. So where was this when China shot down several Taiwanese U-2s several years ago. They were over 60,000 feet. They have also fired on SR-71s that were over 60,000 feet and not even in their airspace.
(Deleted)
Pretty sure it's on the bottom of the ocean now
I think this is pretty simple.
If you can deploy a jet and shoot something down? Then you can control the airspace. Above that point, you can claim to control it, but your ability to will be 100% dependent on whether or not whoever is putting someting in that space is reachable via regulatory means.
The treaties will eventually sort it out, but if you can't shoot something down in your airspace, then any control is purely on paper.
IDK. We’re talking about law here, so I think the question is more whether the small countries have a legitimate claim of right e.g., something enforcable in the ICJ. Now, whether or not that requires an explicit "Treaty" is, IIRC, a bit contraversial.
We're talking about law here. Ignoring "what we can get away with" in favor of "what it should be" is a short ticket to being a legal loser.
But we're not talking about law. That's the whole point, there is no law. It's more of a practical reality than law.
An F-15 has shot down a satellite, but I think there are good reasons that everyone (including the US) has for not wanting people to be shooting down each others satellites as they fly over the head.
I would like to see countries focus their concerns about airspace more on real threats and less on potential threats. So, I would focus on weaponized platforms above 60K feet and set an outright ban on that type of systems. I would also ban anything that might jeopardize people in that space like high altitude aircraft and space tourist. I would be more tolerant of observation systems and accept them like satellites. I would put the responsibility on nations to protect their own information and not on the nation seeking the information.
Bans only work as long as nations both join the treaty and actually abide by it. We're seeing Russia start to chip away at various nuclear treaties. Outside of direct war or ceding all of Ukraine, what levers do we have to get them to resume compliance?
I think EscherEnigma has it right. You can only control what you have the actual ability to control. Everything else is just paper.
Lawyers will try to lawyer. In this case you've got an idiot journalist causing confusion.
FAA controls (as in manages) airspace up to 60,000 feet. Civilian traffic flies below 40,000 feet. Only military (at present) goes above.
Nations control airspace up to 330,000 feet from a legal standpoint. Want to argue that? Ask Gary Powers when USSR shot him down when flying at 80,000 feet.
Strictly speaking, the FAA rules provide for the existence of controlled airspace above FL600 (nominally 60,000 feet), denominated as class E. That is the least controlled of the controlled airspace classes, but still requires flights operating under instrument flight rules to receive clearances.
However, the fact that airspace at that altitude may be controlled doesn't mean that any of it is. Creating controlled airspace up there would take a separate rule declaring its boundaries, and I'm not aware of any such rule.
As many others have pointed out, military aircraft (notably the U-2) can fly at up to 70,000 feet, and have also been intercepted and shot down at that altitude. 70,000 feet easily exists within a nation's airspace.
In addition, achieving a sustainable orbit at 70,000 feet is basically impossible (due to air resistance---ironically, the same reason an aircraft can fly at that altitude.)
A sustainable orbit may be impossible below a certain altitude, but in order to reach a sustainable orbit it is usually necessary to fly over other nations while trying to reach orbital altitude. This causes all kinds of angst. For example, when North Korea tries to launch a satellite, it will usually be ascending while over Japan. Many U.S. launches from Cape Kennedy used to ascend over Cuba (and at least one failed and debris landed in Cuba), though they may have been able to alter them and no longer do. IIRC the space shuttle at least once was in 'near space' over Canada during reentry - and the U.S. pointedly did not ask for permission (not that the Canadians were bothered). Available space launch sites would be rare indeed (and only in certain nations) if ascending/descending vehicles could not overfly other nations.
And of course, a part of the problem is that constantly advancing technology makes past "de facto" limits inapplicable, leading to present "de jure" problems. Things like fractional orbit bombardment and 'hyperglide' vehicles, well, everyone wants to be able to use them, but prevent their opponents from using them. Same as it ever was...
Not sure that's necessarily true.
For example, here's the Launch Trajectory Map for the US, from Cape Canaveral or Vandenburg.
https://www.hobbyspace.com/SpacePorts/spaceports3.html
The line that is of concern is the Karman line, and that's at the 330,000 foot range (62 miles). Can a rocket get 62 miles up, before crossing over another nation's airspace? Most rockets get there in 2.5 to 3.5 minutes. That should be well before they cross into the airspace of another country.
Ummm, no -- they would never get in orbit if they went straight up -- they are always going downrange.
The USS Lake Erie shot down a satellite in low Earth orbit. Pretty much if you can hit something in your airspace, you control it.
This clown is confusing Eisenhower's "Open Skies" idea with actual international law.
The upper limit of national sovereignty over "airspace" is indeed legally undefined, as, IIRC, is the lower limit of "space" in various space treaties. Positions of various parties have shifted over the years, and naturally there have been all kinds of shenanigans with reference to this gray area.
Here is a journal article with a lot of background for anyone interested in further reading.
Dean N. Reinhardt, The Vertical Limit of State Sovereignty, 72 J. Air L. & Com. 65 (2007)
https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol72/iss1/4
Will there be a use for our Space Force soon? I'm not aware of anything that it does, at present. Remember, it's one of our five armed forces (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force).
Six. Coast Guard is a military service, even though it is not in the DoD.
Coast Guard BECOMES a military service in time of war. It isn't consistently a service. This is necessary so that it doesn't fall under Posse Comitatus.
The War Zone has a long article on western balloon spying on Russia in the 50s thru 70s and Russia’s efforts, many abortive, to shoot them down. These included their version of a U-2 with a gun turret and an airborne laser. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-soviets-built-bespoke-balloon-killer-planes-during-the-cold-war Many were apparently below 60,000 but there doesn’t seem to have been any reluctance on the part of the Russians to shoot them down at whatever altitude nor any western feeling they weren’t entitled to if they could.
Completely non-justiciable. And as to legality, anything not expressly made illegal is legal.
At least in love, war, and foreign affairs.