Should Germany intervene if deadly drone strikes abroad are carried out via the US air base in Ramstein? The highest court has examined questions of human rights and global responsibility.

The Federal Constitutional Court has addressed Germany's responsibility when the United States uses technical facilities on German soil to conduct drone attacks on people abroad. The Second Senate plans to announce its ruling on Tuesday (10:00 a.m.) in Karlsruhe (case no. 2 BvR 508/21). Specifically, the case concerns the US Ramstein Air Base in the Palatinate region. The case has occupied the German judiciary for more than ten years.

In 2010, the American armed forces informed the German Ministry of Defense that a satellite relay station for controlling weapon-capable drones abroad was being built on the Ramstein site. According to the court, the ministry saw no concerns.

In August 2012, two men were killed in a US drone strike in Yemen during a meeting with three suspected members of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda.

Two relatives, Yemeni nationals, have filed their case through the courts in Germany and most recently filed a constitutional complaint in Karlsruhe. Because of the significant role played by the Ramstein military base in these operations, they also hold the German government responsible. Since 2014, the plaintiffs have been pursuing legal action in Germany against the US drone operations.

In 2019, the Münster Higher Administrative Court ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to actively investigate whether US drone operations in Yemen using the military base in Rhineland-Palatinate violated international law. However, the Federal Administrative Court overturned this decision the following year.

The court argued that it is not enough that Ramstein is technically important for the US drone program. Concrete decisions must be made on German soil so that Germany's fundamental duty to protect foreigners abroad also applies.

Before the Federal Constitutional Court, the complainants invoke precisely the right to life and physical integrity enshrined in the Basic Law. A key question is therefore whether and under what circumstances the German state is obligated to protect the lives of people living abroad without German citizenship.

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

The German government denies a duty of protection in this case. Among other things, there is no qualified domestic connection. The Ministry of Defense stated at the hearing in December that it is engaged in an "ongoing and trusting dialogue" with the United States regarding the use of Ramstein Air Base. "The German government has repeatedly obtained assurances that operations involving unmanned aircraft will not be launched, controlled, or commanded from Germany in any way, and that the US armed forces will comply with applicable law in their activities."

That's not enough for the plaintiffs. "Without Ramstein, the drone overflights wouldn't be possible in such numbers," explained attorney Andreas Schüller of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), which is supporting the complainants. The US military uses the base as a hub in the global drone program. "All the data to and from the drones flows through Ramstein. Ramstein is necessary to be able to control this in real time from the US," Schüller said.

The complainants reportedly continue to live in Yemen. Since the attack on their relatives, there have been continuous drone overflights and repeated attacks in the region, Schüller said. "This is not a situation the complainants can or want to live in. It is a constant psychological threat, a threat to their lives."