The Open Skies Treaty: Background
and Issues
Updated April 7, 2021
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Treaty on Open Skies on May 22, 2020; this
withdrawal took effect on November 22, 2020. The United States no longer participates in flights or
shares data collected by others. Russia also announced its plans to withdraw, while beginning the
domestic procedures for withdrawal on January 15, 2021. It has indicated that it will soon send its official
notification to the other treaty parties.
The United States, Canada, and 22 European nations signed this treaty on March 24, 1992. It entered into
force on January 1, 2002, and had 34 members before the U.S. withdrawal. The parties permit unarmed
observation aircraft to fly over their entire territories to observe military forces and activities. The treaty is
designed to increase transparency, build confidence, and encourage cooperation among European nations.
The parties conducted 1,500 observation flights through October 2019. Some parties provide their own
aircraft, but they can also join overflights on aircraft provided by other nations. Both the observing nation
and observed nation have access to the data from each flight; other parties can purchase the data, so all
can share information collected during all flights. According to the State Department, the United States
conducted nearly three times as many flights over Russia as Russia did over the United States. Further,
the parties can invite flights over their territories in special circumstances, as Ukraine did in 2014, when
Open Skies flights helped monitor activities along the Ukraine-Russian border.
Russian officials insisted that the remaining participants not share data collected on Open Skies flights
with the United States and indicated that they expected to continue to fly over U.S. bases and facilities
located on the territories of other treaty parties. After the other parties rejected these conditions, Russia
announced its plans to withdraw from the treaty.
The Biden Administration has not yet decided whether it will seek to rejoin the treaty, but recent reports
indicate the Administration has informed U.S. allies that it is concerned that rejoining the treaty could
“send the wrong message to Russia and undermine our position on the broader arms control agenda” if
Russia continues to violate Open Skies. In addition, the Air Force has removed the U.S. Open Skies
aircraft from service and has taken steps to retire them.
Background
President Eisenhower proposed an Open Skies agreement in 1955 to reduce the risk of war. Before
satellites existed, aerial overflights provided information for both intelligence and confidence-building
purposes. The Soviet Union rejected the proposal because it considered overflights equal to espionage and
believed the United States had more to gain than it did. President George H. W. Bush revived the proposal
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
in May 1989. By this time, both the United States and Soviet Union collected intelligence with satellites
and remote sensors. As Europe emerged from the East-West divide of the Cold War, the United States
supported increased transparency to reduce the chances of military confrontation. The Open Skies Treaty
was one of three arms control arrangements—including the Vienna Document and the Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE)—which could serve, as then-Secretary of State Baker noted, as
“the most direct path to greater predictability and reduced risk of inadvertent war.”
Key Provisions
Open Skies participants make all their territory accessible to overflights by unarmed fixed-wing
observation aircraft. They can restrict flights for safety concerns, but cannot impede or prohibit flights
over areas, including military installations that would otherwise be off-limits. In most cases, the nation
conducting the observation flight provides the aircraft and sensors; officials from the host nation
participate in the flight.
The nation conducting an observation flight must provide 72 hours’ notice before arriving in the host
country. This provides the host with time to suspend sensitive military exercises or activities. The
observation team presents a mission plan, specifying details including the route and altitude for the flight.
The host nation can propose changes to the mission plan, due to weather or flight safety considerations,
but it cannot deny access to any area of its territory.
Open Skies aircraft can be equipped with four types of sensors: optical panoramic and framing cameras
(for still photography) with a ground resolution of 30 centimeters (around one foot); video cameras with a
ground resolution of 30 centimeters; infrared line-scanning devices with a ground resolution of 50
centimeters (around 20 inches); and sideways-looking synthetic aperture radars (SARs) with a ground
resolution of 3 meters (around 8 feet). This equipment can collect basic information on military forces
and activities, but would not provide detailed technical intelligence. It also allows monitoring of military
and civilian infrastructure, such as industrial plants, airports, roads, and railway lines, but would not allow
recognition of sensitive details about items such as electronic equipment.
The participants can upgrade cameras and sensors as technology advances, as long as the capabilities
remain within treaty parameters. The party using the new technology must demonstrate that technology to
the others participants and receive consensus approval before they can transition to new cameras. Russia
has recently equipped its aircraft with electro-optical cameras, replacing film with digital cameras. In
2018, the United States blocked approval of Russia’s use of new cameras, delaying flights planned for
that year; it reversed this decision in late 2018, and flights resumed in 2019.
Russian Compliance
According to the U.S. State Department, Russia restricted access for Open Skies flights over Kaliningrad,
over Moscow, and along the border between Russia and the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia. Russia reportedly also failed to provide priority flight clearance for Open Skies flights on a few
occasions. The United States raised these issues in the Open Skies Consultative Commission; some have
been resolved. Nevertheless, the United States responded to limitations imposed by Russia by limiting the
length of flights over Hawaii and removing access to two U.S. Air Force bases used during Russian
missions over the United States.
Benefits and Risks
When the United States first signed Open Skies, most analysts agreed that the treaty would provide little
information not already available from observation satellites. But supporters argued that the treaty could
still benefit the United States and its allies. For example, most treaty participants do not have observation

---

Congressional Research Service
3
satellites, so, as former Secretary of State George Schultz noted, “Open Skies is their only means of
alleviating security concerns through timely overhead imagery.” This reduces the risk of
misunderstandings or crises that could involve the United States and contributes to “a more stable and
secure European continent.”
In 1992, analysts asserted the treaty would create few risks for the United States because Russia could
collect more detailed information with observation satellites. Nevertheless, some U.S. military and
intelligence officials have since cautioned that better optical technology might allow Russia to overcome
weaknesses in its satellite surveillance capabilities. Others questioned these conclusions, noting that
Russia would operate commercially available cameras, with resolutions that are both within the bounds
established by the treaty and also less precise than those offered by commercial satellites.

Author Information

Amy F. Woolf

Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN10502 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED

---