German Court Dismisses Complaint on Drone Strikes Managed from Ramstein

In a significant ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has determined that the country is not in violation of international law regarding drone strikes executed by the United States that are coordinated through the Ramstein Air Base in Rhineland-Palatinate. The decision, announced on July 15, 2025, came as the court rejected a constitutional complaint filed by two citizens of Yemen.

The court acknowledged Germany's duty to uphold fundamental human rights and adhere to humanitarian international law even in relation to foreigners abroad. However, for the protection mandate to apply, there must be a substantial connection to German state authority and a serious risk of systematic violations of applicable international law. In this specific case, the court found that the conditions for such a protective mandate were not met.

According to the court's reasoning, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the United States employed unacceptable criteria for distinguishing between military objectives and civilians during its operations.

In 2010, the U.S. military informed the German Ministry of Defense about establishing a satellite relay station at Ramstein to control armed drones conducting operations abroad. The Ministry reportedly saw no concerns regarding this development.

The case arose following a drone strike in August 2012 that resulted in the deaths of two men in Yemen, who were killed during a meeting with suspected members of Al-Qaeda. The victims' relatives, seeking justice, demanded that Germany take action to prevent such attacks in Yemen. They argued that the German government has a responsibility to protect lives, including those of foreigners abroad, if it holds any influence over such military actions.

The plaintiffs, who are the nephews of a cleric killed in the airstrike, initially took their case to the Administrative Court in Cologne, which dismissed their claim. The court ruled that the judiciary could not interfere in foreign policy matters. However, the Higher Administrative Court in Münster later took a different stance, obligating the German government in March 2019 to ensure that drone operations complied with international law, citing significant indications of past legal violations.

In contrast, the Federal Administrative Court subsequently overturned that decision, highlighting the extensive discretion afforded to the government. It stated that protective obligations are only violated when the government is entirely inactive or when its measures are evidently inadequate or unsuitable, which was not deemed to be the case here.

During the December hearing at the Federal Constitutional Court, both parties presented their arguments primarily from a political perspective. The complainants emphasized the need for the German government to take a firmer stance in support of international law, especially in light of increasing pressures on such legal frameworks. Conversely, the Ministry of Defense underscored the importance of maintaining alliances, asserting that Germany's security is significantly dependent on these partnerships.

This ruling illustrates the complex interplay between national security, international law, and humanitarian obligations as Germany navigates its role in global military operations.