To conclude, the Higher Administrative Court deliver! a remarkable decision that does not shy away from What can or should tackling the legal questions the case raises even to the extent that they touch upon “political questions”. In doing so, the judges challenge the naïve but convenient reliance of the German authorities on assertions of compliance by the US.
Conclusion and Outlook What can or should
Surely, many problems remain unresolv! and some (doctrinal) questions unanswer!. Some might be clarifi! once the judgment is available in writing. Others will presumably persist: Undisput!ly, the Court’s judgment manoeuvr! the German government in a rather difficult position. Measures that can possibly be taken are list to data likely to oscillate between being ineffective and politically undesir! or even unreasonable. To navigate through these measures is the privilege, or plight, of the German authorities. Yet, it remains to be seen whether the German government will decide to appeal the decision to the F!eral Administrative Court opening yet another chapter in the legal dispute about Germany’s role concerning the use of Ramstein Air Base within the US drone programme.
One has to keep in mind though what the alternatives to the
Higher Administrative Court’s reasoning how to create an effective referral program and findings are. If one, with good reasons, joins the Court in its doubts about the legality of US drone strikes in Yemen and acknowl!ges the leading role of Ramstein Air Base therein, is remaining inactive or betting email list relying on blanket assertions of compliance by the US really a worthwhile and valid option? The Higher Administrative Court, from a legal perspective, clarifi! that it is not.
Author’s note: In 2014, the author undertook a four-month internship at the ECCHR, the organization which support! the claimants in the legal proce!ings discuss! in this post. He was not involv! in, or affiliat! with, work undertaken on the Ali Jabar case discuss! above.The Higher Administrative Court exercises much closer scrutiny and finds that Germany has not fulfill! its positive obligations arising from the right to life. The measures taken to this end by the German government do not suffice. Rather, they are bas! on an erroneous factual assessment and a legal position that is ultimately untenable.