Petition: Amend the Outer Space Treaty to Permit Orbital Overflight Fees
To: The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and Member States Party to the Outer Space Treaty
We, the undersigned, petition for an amendment to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to allow sovereign nations to levy fees on satellites and space objects orbiting through the space above their territory.
Background
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is the foundational legal framework for activity beyond Earth's atmosphere. Under its current terms, space is designated as free for exploration and use by all countries, and no nation may claim sovereignty over any part of outer space, including the orbital paths that pass above its land and waters. This "non-appropriation" principle has governed satellite traffic for nearly six decades.
Just as nations charge for the use of territorial waters, airspace, and ground infrastructure, we believe countries should have the right to charge for the commercial use of orbital paths passing above their sovereign territory. The volume of satellite traffic has grown enormously since 1967, driven by commercial constellations, and the treaty's original framework did not anticipate this scale of use.
Why We Support This Change
- Fair compensation for use of national space. Nations already regulate and charge for the use of airspace above their territory; extending a similar principle to orbital space is a natural evolution of existing sovereignty norms.
- Revenue for developing nations. Many countries with limited space programs of their own nonetheless have satellites from other nations orbiting continuously above them. An overflight fee system could generate revenue for infrastructure, environmental monitoring, or space-debris mitigation programs in those countries.
- Incentive for responsible orbital use. A fee structure tied to orbital paths could discourage overcrowding of popular orbits and encourage more efficient satellite design and deorbiting practices.
- Modernizing outdated law. The treaty was written for a Cold War-era environment with two spacefaring nations. Today, dozens of countries and private companies operate satellites, and the legal framework should reflect this new reality.
What We Ask
We call on UNOOSA and treaty member states to open formal negotiations toward an amendment or supplementary protocol that would:
- Establish a legal mechanism allowing states to levy fees on satellites operating in orbital paths above their territory
- Define clear, internationally agreed methods for calculating "territory" in the context of orbital mechanics (given that orbital paths shift relative to the rotating Earth)
- Ensure any such fees do not obstruct scientific research, humanitarian use, or emergency communications
- Create a dispute resolution process for disagreements over fee assessments
Sign this petition if you believe space law should evolve to reflect the realities of a crowded, commercially active orbital environment.
2
people have shown support so far
Frequently Asked Questions
Doesn't this conflict with the Outer Space Treaty itself?
Yes — directly. Article II of the current treaty states that outer space, including orbits, "is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." This petition calls for changing that rule, not working around it. Any path forward requires a formal amendment or supplementary protocol agreed to by treaty member states, not a unilateral reinterpretation.
How would a country define "its" orbital territory, given that orbits move relative to a rotating Earth?
This is one of the hardest technical questions the proposal raises. A satellite in low Earth orbit passes over many countries within a single day, and its ground track shifts with each revolution. Any workable fee system would need internationally agreed rules for calculating which nation a satellite is "over" at a given moment, likely based on orbital mechanics data already submitted under the 1975 Registration Convention. This petition asks UNOOSA and member states to develop that framework — it does not propose one itself.
Wouldn't this just create a patchwork of fees that raises costs for everyone, including scientific and humanitarian missions?
That is a real risk, which is why the petition explicitly asks for safeguards: fees should not obstruct scientific research, humanitarian use, or emergency communications. Any amendment would need clear exemptions and caps to prevent the system from becoming a barrier to beneficial or non-commercial space activity.
Who would collect these fees, and where would the money go?
This petition does not prescribe a specific collection mechanism or revenue formula. It asks treaty member states to negotiate one. Models could range from direct bilateral fees between the satellite operator's home nation and the overflown nation, to a centralized UN-administered fund that distributes revenue to affected countries, particularly those without their own space programs.
Would this fee apply to all satellites, including government and military ones?
That would be a negotiating question for member states. Most proposals of this kind focus on commercial satellite operators rather than government, scientific, or defense assets, but the exact scope would need to be defined in the amendment text itself.
Why would spacefaring nations and companies agree to this if it raises their costs?
They may not agree easily. Major spacefaring nations and satellite operators have strong incentives to preserve the free-use principle that has governed orbit since 1967. This petition is a starting point for public pressure and formal negotiation, not a guarantee of adoption. Amending the treaty would require broad international consensus.
Has anything like this been proposed before?
Various experts and policymakers have discussed orbital congestion, space traffic management, and debris mitigation fees in different forums, particularly as satellite constellations have grown. However, a formal proposal to allow national governments to charge fees for orbital overflight, tied to territorial sovereignty, would be a significant departure from existing space law and has not been adopted in any binding international agreement.
What happens after I sign?
Signatures on this page demonstrate public interest in opening formal negotiations and are tallied here by VASIONA as a community-interest count. They are not automatically transmitted to UNOOSA or any government body — organizers can use the count to inform outreach to national space agencies, foreign ministries, and UNOOSA directly.