Latest news with #PaulinaStarski
DW
15-07-2025
- Politics
- DW
US drone war: Berlin not absolved of all responsibility – DW – 07/15/2025
Germany's top court has decided that the US air base in Ramstein may be used for lethal drone strikes, but Germany also has a duty to protect. Does the "right to life and physical integrity" guaranteed in Article 2 of Germany's Basic Law also apply when people are killed far away from Germany by another state with at least indirect German assistance? The Federal Constitutional Court, the equivalent to the US Supreme Court, was tasked with answering this tricky question on Tuesday. The case was brought by two men whose relatives were killed in a targeted US drone strike in Yemen in 2012. The technical infrastructure of the US air base in Ramstein was also used in the strike. In this specific case, the lawsuit was dismissed as unfounded. 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, the court also granted the federal government considerable leeway to determine its foreign and security policy. The mandate now announced is subject to two conditions: A sufficient connection to German state authority and the serious risk that international law could be systematically violated. 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." 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 : "If they don't know exactly who they are attacking, they have to assume that it is a civilian." That is why targeted killings carried out by state actors are often highly problematic from a humanitarian and international law perspective. If the US Air Force could guide its missiles remotely from US territory straight to their targets, it would not need logistical support from its Ramstein airbase. But direct radio links between the US and Yemen are not possible, due to the curvature of the Earth. This is why signals are redirected via Ramstein, which makes the base indispensable for attacks in the Middle East. And they are very simple: A drone pilot sits in Florida, connected to the Ramstein hub via fiberoptic cables, guiding the deadly weapon to its target. The lawyer representing the unsuccessful plaintiffs from Yemen, Andreas Schüller, called the Constitutional Court's decision painful and disappointing. But he added that the duty to protect now formulated also provides guidelines for future conflicts: "Following today's ruling, there may be situations in which violations of human rights and international law abroad are brought before German courts." The federal government reacted with relief. State Secretary Nils Schmid of the Ministry of Defense emphasized that compliance with international law was always a priority. At the same time, he said, the ruling gave German security policy "the necessary leeway" to be a reliable you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
DW
15-07-2025
- Politics
- DW
US drone war: Constitutional Court exonerates Germany – DW – 07/15/2025
Germany's top court has decided that the US air base in Ramstein may be used for lethal drone strikes, but Germany also has a duty to protect. Does the "right to life and physical integrity" guaranteed in Article 2 of Germany's Basic Law also apply when people are killed far away from Germany by another state with at least indirect German assistance? The Federal Constitutional Court, the equivalent to the US Supreme Court, was tasked with answering this tricky question on Tuesday. The case was brought by two men whose relatives were killed in a targeted US drone strike in Yemen in 2012. The technical infrastructure of the US air base in Ramstein was also used in the strike. In this specific case, the lawsuit was dismissed as unfounded. 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, the court also granted the federal government considerable leeway to determine its foreign and security policy. The mandate now announced is subject to two conditions: A sufficient connection to German state authority and the serious risk that international law could be systematically violated. 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." 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 : "If they don't know exactly who they are attacking, they have to assume that it is a civilian." That is why targeted killings carried out by state actors are often highly problematic from a humanitarian and international law perspective. If the US Air Force could guide its missiles remotely from US territory straight to their targets, it would not need logistical support from its Ramstein airbase. But direct radio links between the US and Yemen are not possible, due to the curvature of the Earth. This is why signals are redirected via Ramstein, which makes the base indispensable for attacks in the Middle East. And they are very simple: A drone pilot sits in Florida, connected to the Ramstein hub via fiberoptic cables, guiding the deadly weapon to its target. The lawyer representing the unsuccessful plaintiffs from Yemen, Andreas Schüller, called the Constitutional Court's decision painful and disappointing. But he added that the duty to protect now formulated also provides guidelines for future conflicts: "Following today's ruling, there may be situations in which violations of human rights and international law abroad are brought before German courts." The federal government reacted with relief. State Secretary Nils Schmid of the Ministry of Defense emphasized that compliance with international law was always a priority. At the same time, he said, the ruling gave German security policy "the necessary leeway" to be a reliable you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
