Federal Constitutional Court: Ramstein drone attacks right?

Federal Constitutional Court: Ramstein drone attacks right?

On Tuesday, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe published a decision that once again fueled the debate about the role of the role of Germany in the controversial US drone operations in Yemen. In the judgment, which was negotiated under file number 2 BvR 508/21, the court came to the conclusion that Germany is not obliged to control or prevent the US drone operations that are controlled via the Ramstein air force base. This decision is a blow for the two plaintiffs, two citizens living in Yemen who wanted to urge the federal government to comply with compliance with international law by the United States.

The plaintiffs were the relatives of two men who died in 2012 by a US drone attack. A clergyman and a police officer who were targeted during the operation against al-Qaida are at the center of this legal dispute. Its relatives argue that the United States disregarded human rights when using drones by not using clear criteria to differentiate between military goals and civilians, such as Welt reported.

responsibility and international law

The case has been concerned with the German judiciary for more than a decade. As early as 2010, the US Disputing forces informed the Federal Department of Defense about a satellite relay station in Ramstein, which is used to control weapon-capable drones. The court also pointed out that the federal government does not have the obligation to control the operations of its military partners worldwide. A fact that the Federal Government emphasized during the hearing when it assured that the right to international law was paid.

Court Vice President Doris König commented on Germany's human rights, which could generally also affect foreigners abroad, but does not apply in this special case. In addition, the court made it clear that there was no clear evidence of systematic violations of international law by the US drone missions in Yemen. The Federal Government must check US attacks on its legal conformity, but have a certain scope, such as the Frankfurter" Rundschau documented.

The existence in the gray area

The decision raises basic questions: Do German fundamental rights also apply to people living abroad? And does Germany have to intervene in US drone operations? The case illustrates the gray area in which Germany is located with its strategic partnership with the United States. Experts report that the US armed forces continue to control combat drones via Ramstein, which is concerned with the debate about the shared responsibility of Germany. The air force base is only a few kilometers away from Kaiserslautern and is considered indispensable for defense and deterrence in Europe, so Tagesschau .

The plaintiffs' constitutional complaints were concluded, but the court emphasized that Germany has a duty to maintain basic human rights if there is a serious danger to them. But in this case, the court saw these requirements as not given. The question remains exciting: How will the federal government deal with the sensitive topic in the future?