U.S. Drones in Ramstein and Lack of Protection Responsibility, as per the Court's Decision - U.S. and Ramstein drone operations face no court-ordered safeguards
In a landmark decision, the German Federal Constitutional Court has reaffirmed that there is no concrete obligation for the German government to protect against systematic violations of international law rules protecting life, in the context of US drone attacks controlled via the Ramstein Air Base in the Palatinate.
The Court sets two conditions for a protection obligation to become a concrete duty to protect: a sufficient connection to the state power of the Federal Republic and a serious risk of systematic violation of applicable international law. In the case in question, involving the constitutional complaint of two Yemeni nationals due to US drone strikes in 2012, where two men were killed during a meeting with three suspected members of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, the Court left open whether the reference to German state power due to the technology used in Ramstein is sufficient for a concrete protection obligation.
The plaintiffs, represented by Andreas Schüller from the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), consider this insufficient, stating that without Ramstein, these drone flights would not be possible in such numbers. They argue that the German government's role in allowing the use of the air base makes it responsible for the consequences of US drone operations, particularly the deaths of civilians.
However, the Federal Government maintains a wide scope for assessment when it comes to the compliance with international law of the actions of third states. The Ministry of Defense and the Federal Foreign Office have stated that they are engaged in a "continuous and trusting dialogue" with the USA regarding the use of the air base, and have repeatedly assured that drone operations are not started, controlled, or commanded from Germany.
The plaintiffs, Ahmed and Khaled bin Ali Jaber, consider the judgment as dangerous and shocking, stating that it sends the message that states supporting the US drone program bear no responsibility when civilians are killed. The deceased were a policeman and a cleric who had preached against Al-Qaeda in the region, according to the complainants.
The case has a complex history. In 2019, the Higher Administrative Court of Münster convicted the Federal Republic of Germany to investigate whether drone operations by the USA in Yemen, using the military base in Ramstein, violated international law. However, the Federal Administrative Court overturned this decision in 2020, arguing that for Germany's constitutional protection obligations to apply to foreigners abroad, concrete decisions must be made on German soil.
This decision is significant as it highlights the delicate balance between domestic law, international obligations, and the protection of individuals from violations of international law. As the use of drones in military operations continues to evolve, it is likely that similar cases will arise in the future, testing the boundaries of a state's responsibility to protect individuals from harm.
The court's decision indicates that financial aid or community aid might be necessary to advocate for clearer policy-and-legislation on the moral and legal responsibility of nations in war-and-conflicts, such as providing circumstances that trigger a concrete protection obligation for states, given the ongoing use of US drone operations and the debate surrounding the role of states like Germany.
The plaintiffs' ongoing pursuit of justice underscores the significant impact of politics in such cases, as the outcomes have far-reaching implications for general-news regarding human rights, international law, and the responsibility of nations in times of conflict.
