On September 26, 2025, drones once again made headlines: Denmark’s Aalborg Airport had to close its airspace for nearly an hour, and two flights were canceled. The Danish government speaks of hybrid attacks intended to spread fear. In Germany, too, Russian drones have been increasingly spotted since the Ukraine war, monitoring military transport routes and NATO bases. Both countries are stepping up their defense measures—but who is actually allowed to shoot down drones, and under what conditions?
The recent incidents demonstrate how drones have become tools of hybrid warfare. While Denmark plans to introduce new technologies for detection and neutralization, the question arises: How far can defense measures go, and who is responsible for them?
Hybrid Warfare: Drones as Tools of Destabilization
Drones are no longer just toys or tools for aerial photography. They are being deliberately deployed to disrupt critical infrastructure, spy on military secrets, or sow uncertainty. In Denmark, they fly over airports; in Germany, they monitor arms shipments and military bases. The Danish government speaks of “professional actors” deliberately seeking to instill fear. Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen emphasizes that there is no direct military threat—yet the psychological impact is palpable. France has already pledged solidarity with Denmark.
In Germany, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius confirms that Russian drones are reconnaissance routes for arms deliveries to Ukraine. NATO warns of hybrid warfare, which ranges from espionage and sabotage to targeted disruptions of civil air traffic. The challenge lies in the fact that such attacks often remain below the threshold of open hostilities, making a clear legal and military response difficult.
Who Is Authorized to Counter Drones—and How?
The legal situation is complex. In a private context, the Riesa District Court ruled in 2019 that a property owner may shoot down a drone hovering over their garden if it violates their privacy and property rights. But what applies when drones fly not over private property but over airports, military bases, or sensitive infrastructure?
In principle, countering drones that pose a threat is the responsibility of the police. In Germany, state police forces are responsible if the drones are operating outside airports. On airport grounds, the federal police take charge. Air traffic control, however, is not tasked with defense—its role is to ensure the safe flow of regular air traffic, not to combat disruptors. An exception is mutual assistance: the police can request support from air traffic control, such as in locating drones. However, the costs are borne by the police, not the aviation industry.
The situation becomes problematic when drones deliberately target military or state facilities. Here, not only police powers apply but also the Aviation Security Act. In theory, the armed forces could intervene under mutual assistance—but there is still no clear legal basis for the military to shoot down drones. The Aviation Security Act does provide for the deployment of the military to counter threats in airspace, such as in cases of aircraft hijacking. Whether this can be applied to drone attacks, however, remains disputed.
Technical Defense and Legal Hurdles
Technically, shooting down or jamming drones is possible—using signal jammers to disrupt radio connections or targeted countermeasures. But any defensive action must be proportionate. Blindly shooting down drones carries risks: crashing drones could injure people or cause property damage. Moreover, not every drone is a threat. The challenge lies in distinguishing between harmless recreational flights and deliberate attacks.
In Denmark, the government now wants to change laws to allow operators of critical infrastructure to shoot down drones. This is a risky step, as misjudgments could lead to unnecessary escalations. At the same time, the case shows how urgently clear regulations are needed: when drones deliberately paralyze air traffic, quick decisions must be possible.
Drone Defense as a Test Case for Modern Security Policy
The incidents in Denmark and Germany come as no surprise: hybrid warfare deliberately exploits gray areas between war and peace, and between espionage and sabotage. The response to this cannot consist solely of technical upgrades. Clear legal rules are needed to define who is allowed to defend against drones and under what conditions. A distinction must be made between defensive measures on private property, for example at businesses, and in public spaces. In public spaces, this currently falls under the jurisdiction of police law, but our police are not equipped to deal with such situations.
At the same time, we must prevent hasty reactions from further escalating the situation, because one thing is certain: drones are here to stay. The question is whether we can contain their dangers without abandoning the principles of the rule of law. And these are definitely affected! We must not imagine that drones can simply be “shot down.” When a drone, which can sometimes reach considerable sizes, falls from the sky, there are consequences: it can crash into public spaces, such as traffic. Or it can crash into critical areas on company premises, which can lead to consequential damage and injuries. Therefore, in-depth and calm analyses must be carried out and solutions sought. Both technically and legally, we are only at the beginning.
International Solidarity and Open Questions
The recent drone incidents are not just a Danish or German problem. France’s support for Denmark underscores that hybrid threats can only be countered collectively. But who bears the costs for defense systems? And how can we prevent drone attacks from becoming the new normal?
The EU has already taken steps, such as mandatory drone registration and the possibility of requiring remote identification systems. But as long as the legal frameworks remain patchy, attackers have an easy time. The debate over shooting down drones shows that not only technical solutions are needed but also clear responsibilities and international agreements.
Availability: By email, callback, Threema or Whatsapp. Information about our fees.
Our law firm specializes in criminal defense, cybercrime, commercial criminal law including criminal tax law as well as IT law and manager liability. We only take on criminal defense cases for consumers—we are based in the Aachen area and operate nationwide.
- When East Meets West: The Legal and Cultural Minefield for Chinese Companies Expanding into Germany - 18. January 2026
- The new EU product liability landscape for software, AI and open source - 30. December 2025
- Shutdown of Cryptomixer.io - 2. December 2025