The Federal Constitutional Court examined whether Article 2 of Germany's Basic Law applies to individuals killed abroad by state actors with indirect German support. The case involved relatives of victims from a 2012 US drone strike in Yemen, using infrastructure from a German air base. The court found the lawsuit unfounded but emphasized Germany's obligation to uphold human rights and international humanitarian law. It allowed the government discretion in foreign policy while noting that civilian protection must be ensured in military operations, which was not violated in this instance according to the court.
According to the Constitutional Court, this was not the case with the drone strikes in Yemen. The court ruled that the US took sufficient account of the protection of civilians in its fight against international terrorism, and referred to 'legitimate military targets.'
In this specific case, the lawsuit was dismissed as unfounded. German foreign and security policy also at stake. However, the ruling is not a complete carte blanche for potentially lethal drone missions in the future.
According to the court's official reasoning, Germany must also protect fundamental human rights and the core norms of international humanitarian law abroad.
However, innocent people were killed alongside the suspected terrorists in the attack controlled from Ramstein, which brought criticism from legal scholar Paulina Starski of the University of Freiburg on the TV channel Phoenix.
Collection
[
|
...
]