Cyberspace has drawn into question the very concept of international borders and responsibility. Traditional notions of national boundaries such as territorial waters and other means of demarcation cannot be transposed onto the recent realm of cyberspace. Therefore, approaches to cyberspace must draw from the similarly non-traditional and recent realm of airspace.

Until the invention of air travel, states were confined to policing their territorial waters and national borders both legally and physically. However, as the skies opened up, many states were confronted with the challenge of policing and enforcing an invisible all-encompassing space. Inevitably, remnants of the traditional conception of borders were incorporated into state behaviour in airspace. For example, the separation of international and territorial waters were translated to controlled and uncontrolled airspace, with a state’s sovereign airspace corresponding with the extent of its territorial waters, typically 12 nautical miles from the coastline, with anything beyond that free from individual state jurisdictions.

Consequently, the rules governing both international waters and uncontrolled airspace are not subject to any executive authority, and states can only act in an advisory capacity as to what actions can be conducted. Cyberspace not only embodies this fundamental lack of executive authority but further exacerbates it, stemming from its pervasive nature, infiltrating even sovereign jurisdictions. However, airspace regulations may provide the remedy for this seemingly lawless situation. Given that there are vast regions of uncontrolled airspace, through which planes from all nationalities and of all purposes traverse, there needs to be some semblance of authority. To that end, one state, more often than not, the United States must be, and has been accorded the responsibility of governance of this lawless space, albeit through an international treaty, preventing potential violations of airspace committed intentionally or unintentionally.

Subsequently, cyberspace must likewise be regulated; states must be willing to surrender control of cyberspace beyond their sovereign concerns and consolidate authority in one state to govern uncontrolled cyberspace. Nevertheless, control of sovereign cyberspace, like airspace must be respected, and no state, even under an international treaty can invade that sovereign space without justified cause or a country’s express permission. On the hand this should not prevent the ultimate governing state from monitoring the cyber activities of other states within the confines of uncontrolled cyberspace activities to ensure compliance and prevent potential incursions. Without a doubt, this framework relies a great deal on trust and honor among states and their behaviour towards other states; encouraging them not to invade sovereign cyberspace, without prompting a response, either from the jurisdiction being violated or the supreme governing state.

In conclusion, like airspace, uncontrolled cyberspace should be controlled by a single state under an international treaty, with individual states policing their own jurisdictions, under the assumption that neither they, nor the governing state will invade the cyberspace of other states.