-2

Are there countries which post-9/11 have adopted legislation allowing the shoot-down of passenger aircraft under any circumstances ?

summerrain
  • 3,364
  • 5
  • 23
  • 47
  • 5
    I doubt any legislation is needed. The military of most (perhaps all) countries can shoot down anything they like within their rules of engagement. Authority to act outside the rules of engagement needs only the say-so of a suitably senior general or politician. –  Jan 07 '19 at 02:43
  • 1
    Why do you think any legislation is needed? That is exactly what the United States was going to do to flight 93, even though the F-16 was unarmed, she was ordered not to let it hit Washington. The only reason it didn't happen is that the passengers did it before the Air Force could. – Ron Beyer Jan 07 '19 at 03:24
  • 3
    Sorry but both statements above are wrong. In countries governed by the rule of law you cannot rightfully violate the law. Nobody is above the law, not even the military, police, politicians or ministers. (Example: They murder someone on the street, they'll get prosecuted.) What the military can and cannot do is codified by law. The Constitution is part of a country's legal framework. You can't shoot down innocent passengers from the air if its against constitutional law to kill people (which is standard). Permission to kill citizens has to be granted by law. Otherwise it's not a nation of law – summerrain Jan 07 '19 at 04:04
  • To add: In many countries the military is not even allowed to operate domestically. Exceptions (if any) are very narrowly defined and mostly include disaster management only – not killing civilians at any rate. Hijacking could be added as such an exception by law, but I am unaware that such a law has actually been passed anywhere. Hence my question. – summerrain Jan 07 '19 at 04:28
  • 4
    Why are you even asking the question if you are saying that some semi-answers by others are wrong? – SMS von der Tann Jan 07 '19 at 04:33
  • 8
    You might get a better response on law.SE. The aviation aspect of this question is minor compared to the legal and political ones, in my opinion. – Pondlife Jan 07 '19 at 04:40
  • @summerrain If you drive around the Area 51 base in Nevada you'll see signs saying 'deadly force authorised', or some such wording. If you stray too far off the road you can be shot, quite dead, quite legally. The armed services have their own legal framework, specifically to allow them to do their jobs. Voting to close as this is a legal question with little to do with aviation. –  Jan 07 '19 at 04:54
  • re: "You might get a better response on law.SE" – thank you. But legal questions about aviation topics are on topic here and even have a tag, so I don't understand why this should not have a place here. Shooting down of passenger planes is a topic that could not be more squarely within the aviation world. – summerrain Jan 07 '19 at 05:05
  • @SMS: I don't see why the question if some countries adopted such a law shouldn't be asked because of outlandish claims in comments (that killing innocent civilians doesn't have to be regulated by law). @ reddHerring: Your example makes my point actually, because it IS legally codified – as you say so yourself: "quite legally". Deadly force is allowed by law in some instances, but it HAS to be allowed by law. Otherwise it is illegal. Obviously. – summerrain Jan 07 '19 at 05:07
  • 1
    @SMSvonderTann from his other related question, he just seems to want his own opinion that there is never a case for destroying an aircraft in flight during a hijacking confirmed. – jwenting Jan 07 '19 at 05:31
  • Yes, I don't see this case, but this is immaterial for the question at hand if such a law has been adopted. – summerrain Jan 07 '19 at 05:41
  • Partly related: Can a general aviation aircraft be forced to land when crossing the airspace of a country? – user Jan 07 '19 at 14:04
  • 1
    This isn't an internet forum. If you want to argue about this, take it to a forum. – KorvinStarmast Jan 07 '19 at 20:52
  • @summerrain. Your comment about their being a legal tag is very valid, but the moderators don’t care about the tags. They prefer to not have questions, and define what is “in scope” by the pathetically narrow topics in the help centre. Using that logic, all the questions on gas turbines are off topic, which shows how flawed it is. I’ve tried debating this, and it gets no where. So, we don’t bother answering questions much anymore. But the moderators often slip up. I once even answered a question about a tank engine in aviation.SE! – Penguin Jan 08 '19 at 11:50
  • There is german stage play and movie about this dilemma. Near the end there is a break, we’re the audience is asked to judge about the accused pilot of the eurofighter typhoon - the end is altered depending on majority vote. I like it because it’s interesting and the pilot itself is neither evil nor a sunny boy. Beware that german law doesn’t have a jury and doesn‘t judge about good/bad but about lawful/unlawful. It’s available on Netflix, probably without vote-feature and sadly only in german, but also no exaggerated hollywood clone: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_%E2%80%93_Ihr_Urteil – Peter Jan 08 '19 at 21:15
  • @Penguin: Put a parachute on the tank, throw it out of a plane...it‘s aviation? – Peter Jan 08 '19 at 21:20
  • @Peter. I don't think a tag exists in aviation.SE for that! {So, in that example, it's certainly out of scope!!} Cheers. – Penguin Jan 10 '19 at 09:18

1 Answers1

5

Yes it's legal in some countries/locations.

In the US after Sept-11 Operation Noble Eagle expanded the US Air Force's role to providing air defense for the entire US domestic airspace. Flying into a Special Flight Rules Area (or whatever they are calling it this week!) such as that over Washington DC and or into the even more restrictive Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (DC FRZ) without adhering to the Zone's rules and failing to respond to communications and intercept protocol can (in theory) result in being shot down. The DoD (understandably) doesn't reveal details on the exact rules of engagement or who has the authority to order such an action (believed to be POTUS, Sec. Def and Deputy Sec. Def) but it's definitely possible (and legal), and they've come close. While the near-downing in the link was for a private aircraft the same rules would allow for the shooting down of a hijacked commercial aircraft.

Internationally speaking.. well it's a grey area. As discussed in this paper there is no International Law that specifically prohibits doing so - although it's generally seen as a bad thing to do except as a last resort. So as Ron Beyer mentioned in a comment, there generally doesn't need to be any legislation enacted to do so - because there isn't any that prevents it.

motosubatsu
  • 1,057
  • 8
  • 15
  • "there is no International Law that specifically prohibits doing so", what is an "international law"? Laws are country defined (except EU "regulations"). There are treaties though. – mins Jan 08 '19 at 22:37
  • @mins Wikipedia does not agree with you. – Danila Smirnov Jan 10 '19 at 05:17
  • @DanilaSmirnov: You have a point, but "International treaty law comprises obligations states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaties" and "International law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member may choose to not abide by international law, and even to break its treaty." They apply to governments and are bilateral/multilateral. Treaties are not comparable to ordinary laws, as there is no possible prosecution: Immunity from prosecution – mins Jan 10 '19 at 08:59
  • @mins while I don't disagree that the way international "law" works isn't a direct equivalent to ordinary laws and that really it's just another name for a treaty it's still a commonly used term, there is still precedent for prosecutions and it felt relevant to the question IMHO – motosubatsu Jan 10 '19 at 09:13