Moreover, and that is one of the most important and interesting parts of the decision, the Court finds that whether the claimants can rely on the right to life and seek protection from the German state against US drone strikes depends on their lawfulness under international law. While linking the existence and scope of a positive obligation to the lawfulness of the acts threatening the right in question is neither unheard of nor ground-breaking in itself, the application of this reasoning to cases such the present one is not that usual and thus remarkable.
As a consequence, the Higher Administrative A Different Institutional
Court concludes that the legality of the drone strikes is not a political question left to the discretion of the government but a legal one that is open to being, and inde! ought to be, assess! by the courts. This stands in stark contrast to the findings of both the US Court gambling database of Appeals as well as the Administrative Court of Cologne which either exercis! no judicial scrutiny at all or in a very limit! form. To sum up, the Higher Administrative Court, while acknowl!ging that a lower intensity of judicial scrutiny is inde! requir!, made clear that lower does not necessarily mean low.
Relat!ly, a second interesting observation is that the Court explicitly reflects upon its identity and trauma in paris 8 own institutional role. It nearly frames its judgment as a (legal) service to the government:
the examination of the legal questions arising in the case by an independent court and in a proce!ing in accordance with the rule of law will enable the German authorities to address the remaining doubts as to the legality [of US drone strikes in Yemen] under international law in cooperation with the Unit! States (see transcript, p. 7).
Furthermore, by doing so, the Court
Contributes, within the boundaries of its jurisdiction, to the adherence to international law within betting email list the framework of fighting terrorism – to the extent that Germany assumes a significant role therein (see transcript, p. 6).
While the Court regards itself constitutionally oblig! to do so, it is clearly willing to assume a strong role with regard to foreign relations on the one hand and with regard to international law on the other. The transcript of the oral announcement partly even reads as a plea in favour of such an institutional understanding of domestic courts.