3 ms·

Actually, if I recall correctly, most nations consider all airspace above them to be within their national boundaries. Pretty stupid, I know, but probably one

Actually, if I recall correctly, most nations consider all airspace above them to be within their national boundaries. Pretty stupid, I know, but probably one of those things that worked "well enough" until technology made it seem absurd. I remember this came up because people were getting served process on airplanes, even if they never landed in the country/state beneath them at that moment.

baddox 15y ago
Airspace sounds like it wouldn't include space without air, so maybe it should be called spacespace. That's a pretty interesting idea: the United States would own 1.9% of the observable universe.
- sunchild 15y ago
  Good point. I'm not sure if "airspace" actually means space that contains some quantum of "air", but even that falls apart pretty quickly.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  That would have to be a timeshare then, the earth rotates.
- justincormack 15y ago
  Its been tried before: "A space ownership issue of current practical importance is the allocation of slots for satellites in geostationary orbit. This is managed by the International Telecommunication Union. The 1976 Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries, also known as the Bogotá Declaration, signed by several countries located on the Earth's equator, attempted to assert sovereignty over those portions of the geosynchronous orbit that continuously lie over the signatory nation's territory. These claims did not receive international support or recognition and were subsequently largely abandoned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate
nkoren 15y ago
Airspace, yes. Space space, no -- Jurisdiction doesn't extend above the atmosphere. Rather, objects in space are governed by and the legal responsibility of the country from which they launched, per the Outer Space Treaty. The reason for this, by the way, dates back to a bit of cold war strategising which pre-dated even Sputnik. Both the Americans and Soviets decided that it was more important to be able to know what the other was doing than to extend their territorial claims up to orbit. This helped to keep the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction in a relatively static lock; otherwise it would have been far mor dynamic and dangerous. Therefore the US did not protest when Sputnik flew overhead, and the USSR did not object to American satellites; in 1967 this was formalised by the Outer Space Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
- sunchild 15y ago
  Indeed, even the old "Heaven to Hell" rule has been tossed in the past century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_...

baddox 15y ago

Airspace sounds like it wouldn't include space without air, so maybe it should be called spacespace. That's a pretty interesting idea: the United States would own 1.9% of the observable universe.

sunchild 15y ago
Good point. I'm not sure if "airspace" actually means space that contains some quantum of "air", but even that falls apart pretty quickly.
jacquesm 15y ago
That would have to be a timeshare then, the earth rotates.
justincormack 15y ago
Its been tried before: "A space ownership issue of current practical importance is the allocation of slots for satellites in geostationary orbit. This is managed by the International Telecommunication Union. The 1976 Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries, also known as the Bogotá Declaration, signed by several countries located on the Earth's equator, attempted to assert sovereignty over those portions of the geosynchronous orbit that continuously lie over the signatory nation's territory. These claims did not receive international support or recognition and were subsequently largely abandoned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate

nkoren 15y ago

Airspace, yes. Space space, no -- Jurisdiction doesn't extend above the atmosphere. Rather, objects in space are governed by and the legal responsibility of the country from which they launched, per the Outer Space Treaty. The reason for this, by the way, dates back to a bit of cold war strategising which pre-dated even Sputnik. Both the Americans and Soviets decided that it was more important to be able to know what the other was doing than to extend their territorial claims up to orbit. This helped to keep the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction in a relatively static lock; otherwise it would have been far mor dynamic and dangerous. Therefore the US did not protest when Sputnik flew overhead, and the USSR did not object to American satellites; in 1967 this was formalised by the Outer Space Treaty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

sunchild 15y ago
Indeed, even the old "Heaven to Hell" rule has been tossed in the past century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_...