The German government is facing a contentious debate following Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt’s declaration of intent to adopt a more assertive stance against cyberattacks targeting German infrastructure. Dobrindt’s proposal, unveiled Tuesday and suggesting a shift towards actively disrupting and even damaging foreign servers responsible for such attacks, has drawn both support from within the governing coalition and sharp criticism from the opposition, raising fundamental questions about Germany’s legal and constitutional boundaries in cyberspace.
Günter Krings, deputy parliamentary group chairman of the CDU/CSU, voiced strong support, stating the state “needs the ability to actively resist” when critical infrastructure or businesses are under attack. He emphasized, however, that any such actions must be “clearly regulated by law, parliamentarily controlled and in compliance with international law”. The sentiment echoed a growing concern that Germany is perceived as a vulnerable target for hostile actors.
Sebastian Fiedler, the SPD’s interior policy spokesman, framed Dobrindt’s announcement within the context of existing coalition agreements. He noted that the Union and SPD had previously committed to expanding cyber defense capabilities, suggesting the new strategy is a logical progression. He indicated impending legislative measures to facilitate these actions.
However, the opposition has reacted with skepticism and outright condemnation. Konstantin von Notz, the Green Party’s parliamentary group deputy chairman, accused Dobrindt of previously neglecting the issue of hybrid threats, claiming his focus had been overwhelmingly directed towards migration policy. “We are far from a coherent approach that addresses the major challenges” von Notz asserted. He dismissed Dobrindt’s pronouncements as mere announcements, calling for a concrete proposal that meets stringent constitutional requirements and demonstrably enhances danger mitigation.
Clara Bünger, interior policy spokeswoman for the Left party, highlighted the significant legal hurdles inherent in a more aggressive cyber defense posture. She described Dobrindt’s proposal as “constitutionally and internationally problematic” questioning the legality of creating new defense powers without a constitutional amendment and warning that retaliatory strikes against foreign servers could violate the sovereignty of other nations.
The core of the issue lies in the tension between Germany’s desire to protect its critical infrastructure in an increasingly volatile digital landscape and its commitment to adhering to the principles of international law and constitutional limitations. Dobrindt’s shift in rhetoric, suggesting a willingness to “disturb and destroy” foreign infrastructure, has intensified this debate and sparked a crucial discussion about the scope and limits of German power in cyberspace. The forthcoming legislative moves will be closely scrutinized for their potential impact on both domestic legal frameworks and Germany’s international relations.
