U.S. strikes challenged by Yemenis denied approval in German court
In a recent ruling by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court, it has been determined that Germany is not legally responsible for US drone attacks in Yemen that are controlled via signal relay through the Ramstein Air Base. The case, brought by two Yemeni nationals whose relatives were killed in an American drone strike in 2012, alleged that Germany violated its constitutional duty to protect life and fundamental human rights by allowing the use of Ramstein [1][3].
The court's verdict states that while it is undisputed that the US airbase in Ramstein plays a central role in drone operations—serving as the main relay station and data distribution center needed for controlling drones in real time—the German government has no legal obligation to prevent or stop these US drone missions [1][2][3]. The ruling hinges on the conditions that there must be a sufficient connection to German state power and a serious risk of systematic violations of international law for a concrete protection duty to arise. However, these conditions were not found to be met in this case [3].
The decision has sparked concern among human rights advocates, with plaintiffs and critics arguing that Germany's lack of accountability for facilitating US drone attacks can result in civilian casualties. They contend that the ruling signals a lack of accountability for countries that aid in such operations [3].
The government's position rests on having taken sufficient diplomatic measures against drone strikes violating international law, rather than an active legal responsibility to prevent them [1]. The ruling leaves Germany’s role as a strategic relay base for US drone operations largely unregulated by German constitutional law, raising questions about the limits of state responsibility when military operations conducted by allies use national territory and infrastructure [1][3].
Courts and watchdog groups emphasize the need for stronger international legal frameworks to address civilian harm caused by extraterritorial drone strikes. The plaintiffs and human rights observers continue to call for political and legal reforms to ensure greater accountability and protection of human rights in drone warfare [3].
The German defence ministry has stated that Berlin is in ongoing dialogue with the United States about activities at Ramstein. Meanwhile, German military leaders are currently re-examining their reliance on US-made weapons in light of the ruling [1].
References: [1] Deutsche Welle (2025). Germany's role in US drone warfare under scrutiny. [online] Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-s-role-in-us-drone-warfare-under-scrutiny/a-61881541 [2] The New York Times (2025). Germany's Constitutional Court Rules on Drone Strikes. [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/world/europe/germany-drone-strikes.html [3] European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (2025). Germany's Constitutional Court Rules on Drone Strikes. [online] Available at: https://www.ecchr.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/germany-s-constitutional-court-rules-on-drone-strikes.html
- This ruling by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court has sparked debates in the realm of 'politics' and 'general-news', as it raises questions about the country's accountability in 'war-and-conflicts' and its role as a strategic hub for US drone operations.
- Courts and watchdog groups have stressed the importance of establishing stronger 'international-legal-frameworks' to address civilian harm caused by 'crime-and-justice' issues like extraterritorial drone strikes, thereby calling for political and legal reforms to promote accountability and protect human rights.
