American court dismisses Yemenis' lawsuit challenging U.S. airstrikes
The German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has recently ruled that the German government is not legally required to prevent the United States from using its Ramstein Air Base to conduct drone strikes in Yemen. This dismisses a long-standing lawsuit brought by Yemeni plaintiffs who alleged that Germany shared responsibility for harm caused by these strikes, given the base's critical role in relaying data for US drone operations.
The court's ruling, issued on July 15, 2025, presents several key points. Firstly, it was determined that Germany does not have a legal obligation to intervene or prevent these US military activities. Secondly, while acknowledging the potential for a concrete duty to protect foreign citizens abroad, the court concluded that this case did not meet the necessary thresholds, as there was no sufficient connection to German authority and no serious danger of systematic violation of international law. Lastly, the court found insufficient evidence that the criteria used by the US to select military targets in Yemen violated international law, thereby not compelling the German government to act against the use of Ramstein for these operations.
Previous lower court rulings that Germany had some responsibility to ensure US drone strikes via Ramstein complied with international law were overturned by higher courts, which found that Germany's diplomatic efforts were sufficient to discharge any such duty.
The ruling has sparked criticism from human rights organizations, including the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, who argue that it fails to provide meaningful legal protection to victims of drone strikes and does not send a strong enough signal regarding adherence to international law. The US has been conducting drone strikes in Yemen for several years, targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in the impoverished and war-torn country.
The German government has welcomed the ruling, stating that it shows Berlin has a "wide margin of discretion" in assessing whether the actions of third states comply with international law. The two Yemeni men who brought the case have described the ruling as "dangerous and disturbing," suggesting that countries providing assistance to the US assassination program bear no responsibility when civilians are killed.
The ECCHR argues that the ruling leaves the door open for future cases concerning violations of international law. The case in question was first brought to court in 2014 by Ahmed and Khalid bin Ali Jaber, who lost family members in a strike on the Yemeni village of Khashamir. According to the ECCHR, "without the data that flows through Ramstein, the US cannot fly its combat drones in Yemen." The ECCHR's Andreas Schueller argues that the German government must stop the use of the Ramstein base to avoid complicity in the deaths of innocent civilians.
In summary, as of July 2025, the German Constitutional Court has clarified that Germany’s hosting of the Ramstein Air Base does not, under current law, create a legal duty to prevent or restrict US drone strikes in Yemen, absent clear evidence that the strikes systematically violate international law. This ruling establishes a high bar for holding Germany legally accountable for foreign military actions facilitated from its territory.
- The ruling by the German Federal Constitutional Court has sparked debates in the realm of politics and policy-and-legislation, particularly among human rights organizations, who argue that the decision leaves a loophole for countries facilitating actions that might violate international human rights.
- The case, which revolves around Yemeni plaintiffs seeking accountability for civilian harm caused by US drone strikes in Yemen, also raises concerns within the general-news and crime-and-justice sectors, as it challenges existing notions of international cooperation and accountability in war-and-conflicts.
- In the wake of the court's decision, the policy implications extend beyond Europe, as other countries hosting military bases or providing assistance could potentially use the German ruling as a precedent to avoid accountability for crimes committed overseas.
