Editing Aircraft hijacking (section)

==Legislation for downing hijacked aircraft==
[[File:Canadian CF18 Hornet aircraft and Russian Su-27 aircraft are practicing procedures to transfer a simulated hijacked airplane during the NORAD Exercise VIGILANT EAGLE 13 130828-F-XX999-007.jpg|thumb|[[Royal Canadian Air Force]] and [[Russian Air Force]] [[fighter aircraft]] during a [[training exercise]] for intercepting and transferring a hijacked airliner between Russian and American airspace in 2013]]

===Germany===
In January 2005, a federal law came into force in [[Germany]], called the {{Lang|de|[[Luftsicherheitsgesetz]]}}, which allows "direct action by armed force" against a hijacked aircraft to prevent a September 11–style attack. However, in February 2006 the [[Federal Constitutional Court]] struck down these provisions of the law, stating such preventive measures were unconstitutional and would essentially be state-sponsored murder, even if such an act would save many more lives on the ground. The main reason behind this decision was that the state would effectively be killing innocent hostages in order to avoid a terrorist attack.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2006/02/rs20060215_1bvr035705en.html|title=Bundesverfassungsgericht - Decisions - Authorisation to shoot down aircraft in the Aviation Security Act void|last=First Senate|date=2006-02-15|website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de|language=en|access-date=2019-07-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190706145039/https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2006/02/rs20060215_1bvr035705en.html|archive-date=2019-07-06|url-status=live}}</ref> The Court also ruled that the [[Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany)|Minister of Defense]] is constitutionally not entitled to act in terrorism matters, as this is the duty of the state and federal police forces.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2006-02-15 |title=German court rejects hijack law |website=[[BBC News]] |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4715878.stm |url-status=live |access-date=2006-06-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060629200323/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4715878.stm |archive-date=2006-06-29}}</ref> [[President of Germany]] [[Horst Köhler]] urged judicial review of the constitutionality of the ''Luftsicherheitsgesetz'' after he signed it into law in 2005.

===India===
India published its anti-hijacking policy in August 2005.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4150640.stm "India adopts tough hijack policy"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110314140955/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4150640.stm |date=2011-03-14 }}. [[BBC News]], 14 August 2005</ref> The policy came into force after approval from the [[Cabinet Committee on Security]] (CCS). The main points of the policy are:
* Any attempt to hijack will be considered an act of aggression against the country and will prompt a response fit for an aggressor.
* Hijackers, if captured alive, will be put on trial, convicted, and sentenced to death.
* Hijackers will be engaged in negotiations only to bring the incident to an end, to comfort passengers and to prevent loss of lives.
* The hijacked plane will be shot down if it is deemed to become a missile heading for strategic targets.
* The hijacked plane will be escorted by armed fighter aircraft and will be forced to land.
* A hijacked grounded plane will not be allowed to take off under any circumstance.

===United States===
Prior to the [[September 11 attacks]], countermeasures were focused on "traditional" hijackings. As such, there were no specific rules for handling suicide hijackings, where aircraft would be used as a weapon.<ref name="comish"/> Moreover, military response at the time consisted of multiple uncoordinated units, each with its own set of rules of engagement with no unified command structure.<ref name="sum"/> Soon after the attacks, however, new rules of engagement were introduced, authorizing the [[North American Aerospace Defense Command]] (NORAD), the [[United States Air Force|U.S. Air Force]] command tasked with protecting U.S. airspace, to shoot down hijacked commercial airliners if the plane is deemed a threat to strategic targets.<ref>{{cite news|title=US pilots train shooting civilian planes|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3161354.stm|work=BBC News|access-date=24 November 2012|date=3 October 2003|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120911150226/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3161354.stm|archive-date=11 September 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2003, the military stated that fighter pilots [[Military exercise|exercise]] this scenario several times a week.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/us/us-practices-how-to-down-hijacked-jets.html|title=U.S. Practices How to Down Hijacked Jets|last=Schmitt|first=Eric|date=2003-10-03|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-07-06|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190706145039/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/us/us-practices-how-to-down-hijacked-jets.html|archive-date=2019-07-06|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Other countries===

Poland and Russia are among other countries that have had laws or directives for shooting down hijacked planes.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4172487.stm|work=BBC News|title=Poland to down hijacked aircraft|date=13 January 2005|access-date=30 March 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110826081347/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4172487.stm|archive-date=26 August 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> However, in September 2008 the Polish Constitutional Court ruled that the Polish rules were unconstitutional, and voided them.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_44_07_GB.pdf |title=Trybunał Konstytucyjny |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101201044248/http://trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_44_07_GB.pdf |archive-date=2010-12-01 }}</ref>