German court dismisses case on U.S. drone strikes in Yemen

In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court issued a significant ruling on July 15, 2025, rejecting a lengthy case initiated by Yemeni plaintiffs who argued that the German government failed to protect their relatives alleged to be killed in a 2012 drone strike in Yemen. The drone strikes were reportedly orchestrated with assistance from the U.S. military's Ramstein Air Base, which plays a pivotal role in facilitating armed drone operations. The plaintiffs contended that the German government bore partial responsibility due to its knowledge and involvement in the operations conducted from Ramstein, asserting that the state had a duty to ensure compliance with international law. The case had been processed through the German legal system for over ten years, highlighting complex issues surrounding international military actions and the responsibilities of individual nations, especially those like Germany that allow foreign military bases on their soil. A lower court had previously established that the German government should ensure that U.S. drone strikes initiated from Ramstein conformed to international law standards. However, this ruling was overturned by a federal court, which asserted that evidence failed to show the U.S. armed forces acted outside acceptable legal criteria when targeting individuals in Yemen. In their recent decision, the Federal Constitutional Court emphasized that while the German government can, in certain circumstances, have obligations to protect foreign citizens abroad, this only applies when there is a significant connection to its authority and evidence of a major risk of violating international law. The court found that the connection in this case did not meet the necessary threshold, thus ruling against the Yemeni plaintiffs' claims. This judgment has drawn criticism from human rights advocates and organizations such as the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, which represented the Yemeni plaintiffs. They expressed disappointment with the outcome, stating that the court's decision did not send a strong message regarding adherence to international law and left the potential for individual legal protection largely theoretical, lacking practical impact. The dissenting voices have called for more stringent measures to oversee military operations that may violate the rights of individuals, particularly in conflict zones like Yemen.