Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T06:14:34.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Aerial Security Law.” Case No. 1 BvR 357/05. 115 BVerfGE 118

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Daniel Bodansky ,
Nina Naske  and
Georg Nolte
Nina Naske
Affiliation:
Institute of International Law, University of Munich
Georg Nolte
Affiliation:
Institute of International Law, University of Munich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Aerial Security Law.” Case No. 1 BvR 357/05. 115 BVerfGE 118. Available at <http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de>.

Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany), February 15, 2006.

On February 15,2006, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) held the Aerial Security Act to be unconstitutional. This act authorized the use of military force against any aircraft intended to be used for the killing of human beings, if the use of such force was the only means to avert an immediate danger. The Court based its ruling on two grounds: first, that the federal level of government had no legislative power to enact such a law, and second, that the act's authorization of military force infringed upon the guarantee of human dignity as embodied in Article 1(1) of the German Constitution, or Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

On January 5, 2003, a small airplane circled over the Frankfurt banking district. For a few moments people saw themselves confronted with a terror attack, recalling 9/11 and the pictures of the burning World Trade Center. The police evacuated several buildings and two Air Force fighter jets arrived before it was established that the pilot was not a terrorist but merely a mentally confused person. A year later, in January 2004, the federal government proposed a draft federal Aerial Security Act. The government argued that the attacks of 9/11, along with the Frankfurt incident, made clear that in order to protect against such attacks, it was necessary to clarify the roles of the federal and state (Länder) governments. “This draft is meant to achieve that aim … and to establish quick and efficient mechanisms for information gathering and decision.”

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 466 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Feb. 15, 2006, 115 BVerfGE 118, available at <http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de=.

2 BTDrucks 15/2361, at 14 (Jan. 14, 2004), at <http://dip.bundestag.de/parfors/parfors.htm=. All translations are by the authors.

3 See BT Plenarprotokoll 15/89, at 7881-7901 (Jan. 30, 2004), at <http://dip.bundestag.de/parfors/parfors.htm= (minutes of Bundestag debates).

4 Office of the Bundespräsident, Press Release (Jan. 12, 2005), at <http://www.bundespraesident.de/Journalistenservice/-,1107/Pressemitteilungen.htm=.

5 Interview with Wolfgang Schäuble, “Ich kann die neuen Gefahren nicht ausblenden,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, Apr. 7, 2006, available at <http://www.sueddeutsche.de/deutschland/artikel/569/73496/=.

6 HCJ 769/02 Pub. Comm. Against Torture in Israel v. Gov’t of Israel [2006]; see Eyal, Benvenisti, Human Dignity in Combat: The Duty to Spare Enemy Civilians, 39 Israel L. Rev. 81 (2006).Google Scholar A case report by Orna Ben-Naftali and Keren Michaeli appears in this issue of the Journal.

7 “Collateral damage” is not prohibited under the law of war. See Article 51 (4) and (7) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 3.

8 See, for example, the Court’s June 3,1987, decision in Case No. 1 BvR 313/85,75 BVerfGE 369,380, in which it held that publishing a caricature that violates the human dignity of the person depicted cannot be justified under freedom of speech because human dignity is not subject to balancing.

9 Matthias, Herdegen, [Commentary on Art. 1(1)], in 1 Grundgesetz: Kommentar 28–30 (Roman, Herzog & Rupert, Scholz eds., February 2006)Google Scholar; Christian, Starck, [Commentary on Art. 1 (1)], paras. 17, 34-35, 78, in 1 Kommentar Zum Grundgesetz (Hermann von, Mangoldt, Friedrich, Klein, & Christian, Starck eds., 2005)Google Scholar; Christian, Starck, Anmerkung, 61 Juristenzeitung 417, 418 (2006)Google Scholar (commentary on the Aerial Security Law Case).

10 Eyal, Benvenisti, United We Stand: National Courts Reviewing Counterterrorism Measures, in Democracy, Separations of Powers and the Fight Against Terrorism (Andrea, Bianchi & Alexis, Keller eds., forthcoming 2007).Google Scholar

11 A (FC) v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2004] UKHL 56, available at <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/1djudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-1.htm=.

12 Rasulv.Bush,542US466(2004);Hamdiv.Rumsfeld,542U.S. 507(2004);Hamdan v.Rumsfeld, 126S.Q. 2749 (2006).

13 CC Decision No. 96-377DC, July 16, 1996, Rec. 87, at <http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/langues/anglais/a96377dc.pdf= (English translation).

14 Charkaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [2007] SCC 9; Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3.

15 Benvenisti, supra note 10.

16 HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. Gov’t of Israel, 43 ILM 1099 (2004); see HCJ 769/02 Pub. Comm. Against Torture in Israel v. Gov’t of Israel.