A Durham Law School scholar has called for a presumption of restraint when governments confront unidentified anomalous phenomena. Writing in Global Policy Journal on September 30, Michael Bohlander argued that uncertainty over an object's identity should not by itself justify destroying it. His essay considers existing aviation and conflict rules rather than announcing a policy change.
Bohlander distinguishes civilian from military objects, crewed from uncrewed vehicles, and uncertain identity from demonstrable hostility. He discusses the February 2023 shootdowns as background and asks how decision-makers could classify an object without knowing its occupants, purpose or origin. The essay's hypothetical non-human scenarios are not findings that such vehicles exist.
His proposed default is protection unless hostile intent can be established. He also points to a lack of public transparency around engagement rules. That position remains the author's interpretation: the article is neither a court judgment nor an official operational directive, and it does not settle disputed claims about UAP capabilities.