Term and General Definition of ‘Attack’ in Law
In a legal context, the term ‘attack’ refers to conduct or action aimed at directly affecting or endangering the legal interests or rights of a person. The precise interpretation of the term varies depending on the field of law and its respective area of application. The concept of ‘attack’ plays an especially significant role in criminal law, police and regulatory law, as well as in civil law. In these areas, the definition and legal assessment of attacks are often central to determining legal consequences and justification, particularly in connection with self-defense or necessity.
Attack in Criminal Law
Fundamental Meaning
In criminal law, the term ‘attack’ is closely linked to the protection of individual legal interests, especially in the context of self-defense (§ 32 StGB) and emergency assistance. An attack is any human conduct that threatens to infringe upon legally protected interests such as life, bodily integrity, property, honor, or freedom.
Prerequisites and Characteristics
An attack in the criminal law sense requires:
- Illegality: The attack must objectively violate the legal order.
- Immediacy: There must be a danger to the attacked legal interest that has either already occurred or is imminent.
- Human Action: The attack results from deliberate human conduct; natural forces, animal attacks, or accidents do not fall under this.
Examples in Criminal Law
- Physical assault (e.g., hitting)
- Property damage (e.g., destruction of another’s property)
- Threat (e.g., by words or gestures)
- Robbery and aggravated theft
Attack in the Context of Self-Defense (§ 32 StGB)
In order to trigger a lawful act of self-defense, there must be a present, unlawful attack. The defense may be directed exclusively against the attacker and must be carried out as a necessary act of defense.
Distinction from Other Legal Terms
Not every rule violation or impairment of a legal interest constitutes an ‘attack’ in the criminal law sense. For example, actions taken by authorities in accordance with the law are not considered attacks.
Attack in Police and Regulatory Law
Police Law Definition
In police and regulatory law, the term ‘attack’ has central significance, particularly as a precondition for police intervention on behalf of third parties. Here, an attack refers to a threatened or already existing danger to public safety and order arising from human conduct. The defense against an attack forms the basis for measures under the police laws of the federal states.
Key Characteristics
- Danger to Legal Interests or Public Safety: The attack must be aimed at violating public safety or the rights and interests of third parties.
- Action of a Person: A deliberate and controllable act or omission is required, whereby omission can also be evaluated as an attack if a guarantor position exists.
Difference from Other Sources of Danger
An attack in the sense of police law differs from other sources of danger, such as natural events or technical defects, which do not have a human origin. Only attacks initiated by humans justify police enforcement measures in the sense of defense.
Intervention in the Event of an Attack: Emergency Assistance
Police law allows, in the presence of an ‘attack,’ both within the framework of justifying necessity (§ 34 StGB, § 227 BGB) and for necessary hazard prevention measures, police interventions.
Attack in Civil Law
In civil law, the term ‘attack’ is of rather subordinate importance. However, it can arise especially in connection with self-help (§ 229 BGB) and in certain constellations of liability issues.
Self-Help and Impairment of Legal Interests
A violation of rights protected under private law by an attack legitimizes—under strict conditions—the exercise of self-help measures. The precondition is an imminent danger to one’s own right by an unlawful human attack and the absence of timely assistance by the authorities.
Attack in Connection with Other Legal Bases
Attack within the Meaning of International Law
The term ‘attack’ also appears in international law, particularly in connection with the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Here, an attack describes an armed action by one state against another state, which triggers a right to individual or collective self-defense.
Attack as an Element of Criminal Offence
Certain criminal offenses, such as the attack on law enforcement officers (§ 114 StGB) or the attack on road traffic (§ 315b StGB), use the term ‘attack’ as a legal element, each with different meanings. While in cases of bodily harm or coercion, an attack means direct force or threat against a person’s legal interests, in offenses against officials, it describes a violent assault.
Distinctions and Variations
Attack, Offence, and Danger
Not every criminal act is necessarily an attack, and not every danger constitutes justification for acts of self-defense or emergency measures. The precise distinction often determines the legality of defense or protective actions.
Legality of the Attack
An attack is not unlawful if it is based on a legal or official authorization (e.g., arrest by the police). In such cases, there is generally no right to self-defense.
Summary
The term ‘attack’ holds central and nuanced significance in law, particularly in criminal law, police and regulatory law, civil law, and international law. For the legal assessment of defensive actions, especially regarding self-defense and necessity, a precise definition and distinction of the attack is essential. Key features of an attack are typically a present, unlawful, and immediate threat to legal interests through human conduct. The differentiated interpretation of the term in the relevant field of law largely determines the legality of defensive measures and the scope of state action.
Frequently Asked Questions
When is an attack relevant under legal understanding?
An attack is relevant in a legal context whenever an act impairs the legally protected position of another person. This is particularly relevant to criminal law, civil law, and public law. The relevance of an attack depends on whether, for example, life, bodily integrity, liberty, property, or other protected interests of a natural or legal person are endangered or violated by the action. For legal evaluation, it is also crucial whether the attack was unlawful, i.e., whether there were no grounds of justification such as self-defense or consent. Law frequently deals with distinguishing between permissible and impermissible conduct in connection with acts of attack.
What typical constellations of attacks are distinguished in criminal law?
Criminal law distinguishes between various forms of attack depending on the protected legal interest. Typical constellations include attacks on bodily integrity (e.g., bodily harm under § 223 StGB), attacks against life (e.g., murder or manslaughter, §§ 211, 212 StGB), attacks against personal liberty (e.g., deprivation of liberty under § 239 StGB), as well as attacks on assets (e.g., theft under § 242 StGB or robbery under § 249 StGB). Additionally, there are attacks on honor, data protection, and intellectual property, which can also be relevant under criminal law.
What prerequisites must be met for an attack to be considered unlawful?
An attack is considered unlawful if the act is not justified by a ground of justification. Important grounds of justification include self-defense (§ 32 StGB), necessity (§ 34 StGB), the victim’s consent, or actions carried out under official authority. If no such justification exists and the act injures or endangers another’s legal interests, the attack is considered unlawful. The assessment of unlawfulness always takes into account all circumstances of the individual case, including motives and the level of danger.
What rights does a person under attack have in the event of an unlawful attack?
If a person is unlawfully attacked, they have various defense rights. Foremost among these is the right to self-defense, which permits one to defend against the attack using suitable and necessary means (§ 32 StGB). Furthermore, the person attacked may assert civil claims for damages or compensation for pain and suffering (§§ 823 ff. BGB) against the attacker. In serious cases, there is also the option of filing a criminal complaint, so that the matter can be investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted by law enforcement authorities.
Can a verbal attack also be legally relevant?
Yes, verbal attacks can also be legally relevant. This includes, in particular, insults (§ 185 StGB), defamation (§ 186 StGB), or slander (§ 187 StGB). Such attacks are subject to criminal sanctions and can give rise to civil claims for injunction or damages. However, the boundary with criminal relevance is often fluid and strongly context-dependent, as well as dependent on the intensity of the statement. Freedom of expression and satire also play a role in the legal assessment of verbal attacks.
How is an attack assessed in the context of self-defense?
In the context of self-defense, an attack is seen as the prerequisite for entitlement to act in defense. The attack must be directed against a legally protected interest and be present. A self-defense action is only permitted as long as the attack continues and is imminent. After the attack has ended, further defensive action is no longer legally permissible. It is also important that the defense is appropriate and necessary to repel the attack.
What role does the danger level of the attack play in legal evaluation?
The danger posed by the attack affects both the severity of the offense and the admissibility of defensive measures. The more serious the attack on bodily integrity, life, or property, the more extensive the defensive measures allowed within the framework of self-defense. For minor attacks, it may be necessary—in terms of the appropriateness of the defense—to choose milder means. For the legal classification, for example between grievous bodily harm and simple bodily harm, the degree of danger is also a decisive distinguishing criterion.
What evidentiary requirements exist for the determination of a legally relevant attack?
In order to establish a legally relevant attack, all objective and subjective elements of the offense must be substantiated by evidence or credible statements in criminal proceedings. This includes the scene, the course of events, the involvement of the parties, the type and scope of the attack, and its consequences. In civil law, medical reports, expert opinions, and witness statements may also be considered. The burden of presentation and proof generally lies with the party invoking the attack. In cases of doubt, the principle ‘in dubio pro reo’, that is, in favor of the accused, applies in criminal law.
