> I don't particularly like the precedent we just set especially in view of the fact that the upper limit of sovereign airspace is not defined by international

> I don't particularly like the precedent we just set especially in view of the fact that the upper limit of sovereign airspace is not defined by international law. In fact there are proposals to treat the 18-160km zone as a transitional region of reduced sovereignty akin to EEZs. https://iaass.space-safety.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2021/07/IAASS-near-space-the-quest-for-a-new-legal-frontier.pdf https://iaass.space-safety.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2... > Legally however, it is an indistinct region where it is not clear whether the operations that take place are covered by aviation or space conventions and treaties, in particular with reference to the freedom of overflight that applies to space orbital operations Also: > Although outer space is free, if states are allowed to claim vertical sovereignty up to the point where orbital dynamics are possible, other states will be precluded from having free access to space > John A. Johnson, General Counsel of [NASA] and [of USAF], said in 1964 "there should therefore be no legal basis for protesting, merely on grounds of unpermitted presence, the overflight of national territory by ascending and descending spacecraft, regardless of altitude." https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=jalc https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&con... Also see: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/43439/is-there-a-height-limit-to-national-airspace https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/43439/is-there-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_sovereignty