A recently released expert assessment from the German Bundestag’s Scientific Services has cast significant doubt on the scope and legality of potential Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) involvement in countering drone threats within Germany. The report, obtained by newspapers within the “Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland” network, meticulously examines the legal framework governing the deployment of military forces to support police operations, revealing limitations that might hinder the aggressive drone defense strategy envisioned by Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU).
Despite planned amendments to the Air Security Act (Luftsicherheitsgesetz), the assessment concludes that the armed forces retain a crucial constitutional restriction: direct drone interception and destruction through force remains permissible “only” under a declared state of disaster. The report highlights that this requirement cannot be circumvented by ordinary legislation, even through revisions to the Air Security Act.
While the Bundeswehr can provide “Amtshilfe” (assistance) to the police outside of a declared state of disaster, this support is strictly limited to logistical aid and non-sovereign assistance. Actions involving the “destruction or neutralization of a drone through the application of force – particularly utilizing military equipment unavailable to the police” are deemed to exceed the boundaries of permissible assistance.
The declaration of a state of disaster, the prerequisite for utilizing military force in such scenarios, necessitates a “particularly severe misfortune”. A simple drone overflight for reconnaissance or espionage purposes does not meet this threshold. However, the assessment specifically identifies a significantly more perilous scenario-a “kamikaze” or sabotage drone repurposed as a “flying bomb” with the potential to target specific infrastructure and likely result in fatalities or widespread destruction-as the type of event that “would” justify military intervention.
The report’s findings represent a potential setback for the government’s ambitions to rapidly deploy military resources against burgeoning drone activity. Critically, they expose a legal grey area regarding responses to increasingly sophisticated drone threats that fall short of a full-blown natural disaster, prompting questions about the practicality and legal defensibility of relying heavily on the Bundeswehr for routine drone mitigation. Political analysts suggest the report will likely fuel debate within the Bundestag and could necessitate further legislative modifications to clarify the permissible scope of military assistance in a changing security landscape.
