As a consequence, the Court examines the legality of US drone strikes in Yemen under international law. It stops short of outright denouncing them as violating international law. Yet, the judges find “strong reasons” to regard the US practice as at least partly contravening international (humanitarian) law and, more specifically, the duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants as recognis! by customary international law.
Because the legality of the drone strikes is at least doubtful A Stricter Legal
The argument continues, the right to life of the claimants might be unlawfully infring! upon. This, however, does not vest the claimants with a right to demand from the German government to put an end to the use of Ramstein Air Base within the US drone rcs data programme. Yet, it triggers a two-fold obligation of the German authorities to:
1) make sure [vergewissern], on the basis of the legal assessment of the Senate, whether the practice of US drone the insights gain! to make inform! design strikes in the Yemeni region where the claimants reside is in conformity with international law as it stands – to the extent that facilities locat! in Germany are involv!.
2) If necessary, the defendant has to take measures that it deems appropriate in order to work towards [hinwirken] compliance with international law. (see for both citations transcript, p. 2-3)
While the Court does not specify which measures might qualify as “appropriate”, it finds that betting email list the means employ! so far (blanket assertions of compliance with international law by the US) do not suffice.
Amongst the many noteworthy issues rais! in the decision
Two points stand out. The first one is that the Higher Administrative Court applies a stricter legal standard. To this end, it recalls the importance of the right to life and the right to judicial protection under the German Basic Law which, in principle, guarantees that no exercise of public authority or executive discretion is exempt! from judicial control.