Second Senate: Constitutional Court judges drone use via Ramstein

The Federal Constitutional Court has dealt with the responsibility of Germany if the United States uses technical facilities on German soil for drone attacks on people abroad. The second Senate wants to announce its judgment on Tuesday (10 a.m.) in Karlsruhe (Az. 2 BvR 508/21). Specifically, it is about the US-air base Ramstein in the Palatinate. The case has been employing the German judiciary for more than ten years.

The American armed forces had informed the Federal Ministry of Defense in 2010 that a satellite relay station for controlling even weapon-capable drones would be built abroad on the site in Ramstein. According to court, the ministry saw no concerns.

In August 2012, two men died in Yemen through a US drone attack. They were killed at a meeting with three alleged members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda.

Two relatives, Yemeni nationals, have sued in Germany by the instances and finally submitted constitutional complaints in Karlsruhe. Because of the role of the Ramstein military base, they also see the federal government in responsibility. Since 2014, the plaintiffs have legally advanced against the United States drone operations.

The Higher Administrative Court of Münster sentenced the Federal Republic of 2019 to actively investigate whether the United States drone operations in Yemen, using the military base in Rhineland-Palatinate, violated international law. However, the Federal Administrative Court received this decision the following year.

The court argued that Ramstein is technically important for the US drone program. There would have to be concrete decisions on German soil so that Germany’s fundamental rights also applies to foreigners abroad.

Central questions for the constitutional court

At the Federal Constitutional Court, the complainants refer to the right to life and physical integrity that are committed in the Basic Law. A central question is therefore whether and under what circumstances the German state is obliged to protect life from people living abroad without German citizenship.

With regard to the drone missions, the case also raises questions about humanitarian international law and human rights: When does a person lose their protection as a civilian? And when and where can it be attacked? According to the complainants, those killed were a police officer and a clergyman who had preached against Al Qaeda in the region.

The plaintiffs continue to see “threat to their life”

The Federal Government denies an obligation to protect in the present case. Among other things, there is no qualified connection to the domestic. To use the Air Base Ramstein, the United States is in a “ongoing and trusting dialogue”, the Ministry of Defense declared to negotiate in December. “The Federal Government has repeatedly obtained the insurance company that operations from unmanned aircraft from Germany do not start, controlled or commanded, and that the US forces comply with their activities.”

That is not enough for the plaintiffs. “Without Ramstein, the number of drones could not take place in the number,” said lawyer Andreas Schüller from the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), which supports the complainants. The US armed forces used the base as a hub in the global drone program. “All the data on the drones and runs back from the drones via Ramstein. In order to be able to control this in real time, the USA is required,” said Schüller.

The complainants continued to live in Yemen. Since the attack on their relatives, there have been continuous drone overfources and also always attacks in the region, said Schüller. “This is not a condition for the complainants in which they can and want to live. It is a permanent psychological threat, a threat to their lives.”