Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-h5th4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-10T03:17:29.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liberty Dies by Inches: German Counter-Terrorism Measures and Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Verena Zöller

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

“I believe there is no trade-off to be made between human rights and terrorism. Upholding human rights is not at odds with battling terrorism: on the contrary, the moral vision of human rights – the deep respect for the dignity of each person – is among our most powerful weapons against it.”

References

1 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Statement to conference “Fighting Terrorism for Humanity: A Conference on the Roots of Evil,” 22 Sept. 2003.Google Scholar

2 German court clears student of plotting with 9/11 terrorists, The Guardian, 6 Feb. 2004.Google Scholar

3 First and only 9/11 conviction overturned by German court, The Guardian, 5 Mar. 2004;: Retrial ordered in terror case, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Weekly, 5 Mar. 2004.Google Scholar

4 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Statement to the 20 January Security Council ministerial meeting on terrorism.Google Scholar

5 Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, Verfassungsschutz gegen Ausländerextremismus 7 (Dec. 2003).Google Scholar

6 Rau, Markus, Country Report Germany, Max Planck Society, Conference on Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law, 24 Jan. 2003, available at http://edoc.mpil.de/conference-on-terrorism/imdex.cfm, p. 7f.Google Scholar

7 Eur. Ct. HR art. 5; Int'l Covenant on Civ Pol. Rts. art. 9.Google Scholar

8 Denninger, Erhard, Zur rechtsstaatlichen Problematik des Terrorismusbekämpfungsgesetzes, Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, at www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/seiten/doku8.htm.Google Scholar

9 Donald P. Kommers, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany 38 (Durham and London 1989).Google Scholar

10 Meyer, Berthold, Im Spannungsfeld von Sicherheit und Freiheit. Staatliche Reaktionen auf den Terrorismus, 1 HSKF Standpunkte, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, No. 1/2002 at 2.Google Scholar

11 Gesetz zur Ergänzung des Ersten Gesetzes zur Reform des Strafrechts, 20 Dec. 1974; Gesetz zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuches der Strafprozessordnung, des Gerichtsverfassungsgesetzes, der Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung und des Strafvollzugsgesetzes, 18 Aug. 1976; Gesetz zur Änderung der Strafprozessordnung, 14. Mar. 1978.Google Scholar

12 Gesetz zur Änderung des Einführungsgesetzes zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, 30. Sep. 1977. This law until today is controversial but was upheld by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. John E. Finn, Constitutions in Crisis: Political Violence and the Rule of Law, 215 (Oxford 1991).Google Scholar

13 Lepsius, Oliver, Freiheit, Sicherheit und Terror. Die Rechtslage in Deutschland, Leviathan, Mar. 2004, 1/2004, at 64-88.Google Scholar

14 Lepsius, , Court overturns much of eavesdropping law, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Weekly, 5. Mar. 2004.Google Scholar

15 BverfGE, 1 BvR 2378/98, 03 Mar. 2004.Google Scholar

16 Terrorismusbekämpfungsgesetz, Begründung, Erster Teil.Google Scholar

17 Lepsius, , supra note 14, 66ff.Google Scholar

18 Id. at 65.Google Scholar

19 Id. at 86ff.Google Scholar

20 Koch, Cordelia, Freiheitsbeschränkung in Raten? Biometrische Merkmale und das Terrorismusbekämpfungsgesetz, HSFK-Report, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, 5/2002 at 2; Meyer supra note 10, 8.Google Scholar

21 A full list of relevant bilateral and multilateral treaties is contained in Germany's first report to the Counter Terrorism Commission (CTC) of 02 Jan. 2002, S/2002/11, Appendix.Google Scholar

22 Delgado v Paez, Report of the Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 195/1985, U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., Supp. No. 40, Vol. II, at 43, U.N. Doc. A/45/40 (1990).; Kiliç v. Turkey, 33 Eur. H.R. Rep. 58, ¶ 62 (2000).Google Scholar

23 For a comprehensive compilation of case law on Human Rights and terrorism see UN High Comm. H.R.: Digest of the UN and of Regional Organizations on the Protection of Human Rights While Countering Terrorism, July 2003.Google Scholar

24 First, Second and Third German Reports to the Counter Terrorism Commission (CTC), S/2002/11, S/2002/1193, and S/2003/671.Google Scholar

25 Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Terrorism and Human Rights, Progress Report, prepared by Kalliopi K. Koufa, Special Rapporteur, 27 Jun. 2001, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/31, ¶ 25.Google Scholar

26 Id. at ¶ 25ff.; International Council on Human Rights Policy, Human Rights after September 11, Versoix 2002, 11ff.Google Scholar

27 Id, at 3. The same concern was raised by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Statement of the Secretary-General to the 58th Commission on Human Rights, 12 Mar. 2002.Google Scholar

28 Christian Walter, Defining Terrorism in National and International Law, Max Planck Society, Conference on Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law, 24 Jan. 2003 at http://edoc.mpil.de/conference-on-terrorism/imdex.cfm, p. 2.Google Scholar

29 Supra note 5, at 12.Google Scholar

30 Id.Google Scholar

31 Supra note 24, at 5. Nevertheless, some recent concepts are similarly broad, such as the United Kingdom Terrorism Act and the Canadian Bill.Google Scholar

32 BGH 1992, 518.Google Scholar

33 Marx, Reinhard, Terrorismusbekämpfungsgesetz, UN High Comm. on Refugees, Berliner Symposium 21f (2002).Google Scholar

34 Heinz-Jürgen Schneider, Der neue Paragraf 129b, 30 Nov. 2001, at http://www.cilip.de/terror/schneider.htm.Google Scholar

35 Supra note 24, at 6f. With respect to the latter, the Eur. Ct. H.R. case Jersild v Denmark, 19 Eur. Ct. H.R. 1 (1995), is relevant.Google Scholar

36 Art.129 Criminal Code.Google Scholar

37 Criminal Procedure Code art.100a, 100c, 103, 111, 112; Contact Ban Law art.31.Google Scholar

38 Supra note 5, at 12f.Google Scholar

39 Sunday Times v United Kingdom, 2 Eur. Ct. H.R. 245 (1979).Google Scholar

40 Clare Ovey & Robin C.A. White, Jakobs & White: The European Convention on Human Rights, 191f (Oxford 2002).Google Scholar

41 Kokkinakis v Greece, 260 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) at ¶ 52 (1993).Google Scholar

42 CR v United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) at ¶ 34 (2 Nov. 1995).Google Scholar

43 U.N. HRC, General Comment 16 ¶ 8 (1988).Google Scholar

44 Joseph, Sarah et al., The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary 353 (New York 2000).Google Scholar

45 S/RES/1373 ¶ 6 (2001).Google Scholar

46 Supra note 20.Google Scholar

47 Klass and others v Germany, 06 Sep 1978.Google Scholar

48 Id.Google Scholar

49 Krieger, Heike, Limitations on Privacy, Freedom of Press, Opinion and Assembly as a Means of Fighting Terrorism, Max Planck Society, Conference on Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law, 24 Jan. 2003, at http://edoc.mpil.de/conference-on-terrorism/imdex.cfm, p. 3; Leander v Sweden, 116 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) at ¶ 48 (1987); Romania, Rotaru v, Eur. Ct. H.R. at ¶ 43, (4 May 2000).Google Scholar

50 Niemitz v Germany, 251-B Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) at ¶ 29 (1992).Google Scholar

51 Halford v United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. at ¶¶ 42-46 (25 Jun. 1997).Google Scholar

52 Supra note 43, at ¶ 48.Google Scholar

53 Supra note 40, at 370.Google Scholar

54 Coeriel and Aurik v Netherlands, ¶ 10 Feb. 1994.Google Scholar

55 Supra note 40, at 263f; Concluding Comments on Poland, UN doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 110 (1999); Concluding Comments on Zimbabwe, UN doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 89 (1998); Concluding Comments on Lesotho, UN doc. CCPR/C/79/Add. 106, ¶ 24 (1999).Google Scholar

56 Supra note 39, at ¶ 10.Google Scholar

57 Id. at ¶ 7.Google Scholar

58 Bygrave, Lee, Data Protection Pursuant to the Right to Privacy in Human Rights Treaties, 6 Int'l J.L. & Info. Tech. 247, 247 (1998).Google Scholar

59 Konferenz der Datenschutzbeauftragten September 2003, Konsequenzen aus der Untersuchung des MPI über Überwachung der Telekommunikation, at http//www.datenschutz-berlin.de.Google Scholar

60 Zypries, , Telefonüberwachung wirksam und maßvoll, at www.beck.de.Google Scholar

61 Max-Planck-Institute, Rechtswirklichkeit und Effizienz der Überwachung der Telekommunikation nach den §§ 100a, 100b StPO und anderer verdeckter Ermittlungsmaßnahmen 54 (2003).Google Scholar

62 Supra note 43, at ¶¶ 50-60.Google Scholar

63 Id, ¶ 17.Google Scholar

64 Id, ¶¶ 18-25.Google Scholar

65 Supra note 57.Google Scholar

66 Supra note 55.Google Scholar

67 Supra note 57, at 310.Google Scholar

68 Gesetz zur Änderung des Grundgesetzes, 26 Mar. 1998; Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Bekämpfung der organisierten Kriminalität, 4 May 1998.Google Scholar

69 BverfG, 1BvR 2378/98, 3 Mar. 2004. Also, Court overturns much of eavesdropping law, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Weekly, 5 Mar. 2004.Google Scholar

70 Art.13(3)-(6) Grundgesetz and art.100-101 Criminal Procedure Act (Annex).Google Scholar

71 BverfG, 1BvR 2378/98, ¶¶ 103-124.Google Scholar

72 Id. ¶¶ 167-197.Google Scholar

73 Id. ¶¶ 227-241.Google Scholar

74 Id. ¶¶ 228-307.Google Scholar

75 Federal Constitution Protection Act ¶ 3.Google Scholar

76 Counter-Terrorism Act art.1(1).Google Scholar

77 Counter-Terrorism Act, articles 1(3) and 3.Google Scholar

78 Malone v UK, 02 Aug. 1984, ¶ 79.Google Scholar

79 Müller-Heidelberg, Till, Das Terrorismusbekämpfungsgesetz. Ein Erfolg der Terroristen, Zeitschrift für Bürgerrechte und Gesellschaftspolitik, No. 21 (2002).Google Scholar

80 International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Anti-terrorism Measures, Security and Human Rights. Developments in Europe, Central Asia and North America in the Aftermath of September 11 196 (April 2003).Google Scholar

81 Id. at 117f.Google Scholar

82 Supra note 76, at 118.Google Scholar

83 Kleine Anfrage der PDS zur Rasterfahndung, 18 Feb. 2002 Bundestagsdrucksache 14/8257.Google Scholar

84 Supra note 5, at 33.Google Scholar

85 Id. at 35.Google Scholar

86 Chassangnou and others v France, Eur. Ct. H.R. at ¶ 89 (29 Mar. 1999).Google Scholar

87 Supra note 40, at 523.Google Scholar

88 Supra note 5, at. 18f.Google Scholar

89 Supra note 76, at 74.Google Scholar

90 As for example reiterated by the European Court, see United Communist Party v Turkey, 62 Eur. Ct. H.R. 1 at ¶ 44 (1998).Google Scholar

91 Supra note 36, at 216.Google Scholar

92 E.g., U.N. GAOR, Declaration of Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live, A/RES/40/144 (1985); IHF 2003, at 74f.Google Scholar

93 U.N. HRC, General Comment 15.Google Scholar

94 Supra note 5, at 19.Google Scholar

95 Annual Report of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution 2002, at 148, 165, 168f.Google Scholar

96 Aliens Act art.47(2); Counter-terrorism Law art.11(8).Google Scholar

97 U.N. HCR, Stellungnahme zur Anhörung des Terrorismusbekämpfungsgesetzes, 30 Nov. 2001.Google Scholar

98 Supra note 29, at 19-23.Google Scholar

99 International Helsinki Federation, Statements at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, 9, at 44, 19 Sep. 2002.Google Scholar

100 Soering v UK, 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. 439 (1989).Google Scholar

101 Chahal v UK, 23 Eur. Ct. H.R. 412 (1996); Ahmed v Austria, 24 Eur. Ct. H.R. 278 (1996), Jabari v Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R. (11 July 2000).Google Scholar

102 Erika Feller, et al. ed., Refugee Protection in International Law: U.N. HCR Global Consultations on International Protection, Summary Conclusions: The Principle of non-refoulement 178 (Cambridge 2003).Google Scholar

103 Supra note 76, at 170f.Google Scholar

104 Supra note 93.Google Scholar