No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Identifying German Legal Approaches to Terror—How the Constitution Shapes Legislation Allowing the Shooting Down of a Hijacked Plane
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Abstract
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.
In the face of a recent increase in the number of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the globe—particularly in Europe—counterterrorism has become a main field of political and legal activity once again. In this turbulent context, this Article will look back on how German legislation has reacted to the first significant occurrences of Islamic terrorism in Europe and the United States in the 2000s and how the Constitution has been put in place in the conflict between individual and collective interests by the Federal Constitutional Court in this context. From the wide range of counterterrorism measures that were significantly shaped along the principles of the Constitution since then, this Article takes a detailed look at the legal issues relating to a very specific measure—legislation allowing the shooting down of a hijacked plane. This issue has been vigorously debated among politicians, scholars, and courts in Germany since 2004. It constitutes a vital element of the fundamental legal structures that governs state action that violates certain legal interests in order to protect conflicting ones—a key question for other recent strategies of terrorism as well.
- Type
- German Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2018 by German Law Journal, Inc.
References
1 E.g., Gesetz zum besseren Informationsaustausch bei der Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus [Legislation facilitating the exchange of information to fight international terrorism], July 26, 2016, BGBl. I at 1818 (Ger.).Google Scholar
2 See Kirchner, Stephanie, Germany Calls for New Security Measures After String of Terrorist Attacks, Wash. Post (Aug. 11, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/germany-calls-for-new-security-measures-after-string-of-attacks/2016/08/11/f5982b49-45e3-4978-92a1-dd6f6a13b04a_story.html.Google Scholar
3 See Kean, Thomas & Hamilton, Lee, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 40–41 (2004); Dan Balz & Bob Woodward, Americas Chaotic Road to War; Bush's Global Strategy Began to Shape in First Frantic Hours after Attack, Wash. Post (Jan. 27, 2002), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002_Jan26.html.Google Scholar
4 See Schrader, Esther, Chutney Gave Order to Shoot Down Jets, L.A. Times (June 18, 2004), http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/18/nation/na-cheney18.Google Scholar
5 See Kean & Hamilton, supra note 3, at 17, 34; Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan, Bush's Unanswered 9/11 Questions, The Daily Beast (Aug. 28, 2011), http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/president-bush-national-geographic-interview-s-unanswered-questions.html.Google Scholar
6 See Lepsius, Oliver, Human Dignity and the Downing of Aircraft: The German Federal Constitutional Court Strikes Down a Prominent Anti-terrorism Provision in the New Air-Transport Security Act, 7 German L.J. 761, 761–62 (2006).Google Scholar
7 Mark Landler, German Threatens to Crash Glider into Frankfurt Bank, N.Y. Times (Jan. 6, 2003), http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/world/german-threatens-to-crash-glider-into-frankfurt-bank.html.Google Scholar
8 Luftsicherheitsgesetz [LuftSiG] [Aviation Security Act], Jan. 11, 2005, BGBl. I at 78, § 14.Google Scholar
9 See German Leader Doubts Hijack Law, BBC News (Jan. 12, 2005), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4169445.stm.Google Scholar
10 See de Felipe, Miguel Beltrán & de Santiago, José María Rodríguez, Shooting Down Hijacked Aeroplanes? Sorry, We're Humanists (2008) 14 Euro. Pub. L. 565–84.Google Scholar
11 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], “Aviation Security Case”, Feb. 15, 2006, Amtliche Entscheidungssammlung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfGE), paras. 155–218.Google Scholar
12 Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law], Art. 18.Google Scholar
13 See, e.g., Bohlander, Michael, In Extremis—Hijacked Airplanes, “Collateral Damage” and the Limits of Criminal Law, 579 Crim. L. Rev. 579, 584 (2006); Par Roy Stephen Brown, Shooting Down Civilian Aircraft: Illegal, Immoral and Just Plane Stupid, 20 Revue Québécoise de Droit International [R.Q.D.I] 57, 100–01 (2007).Google Scholar
14 See Brandt, Richard B., Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights 111–12 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1992); Paul Butler, Foreword: Terrorism and Utilitarianism: Lessons from, and for, Criminal Law, 93 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1, 15–16 (2003); Elmar Giemulla, Zum Abschuss von Zivilluftfahrzeugen als Maßnahme der Terrorbekämpfung [The Shooting Down of Civil Aircrafts as a Means of Counterterrorism], 32 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 2005 32, 47 (2005); Jonathan Glover, It Makes No Difference Whether or Not I Do It, 49 Proc. Aristotelian Soc'y 171, 172–73 (1975).Google Scholar
15 See Hörnle, Symposium on Criminal Law, Terrorism and the Ctate of Emergency: Hijacked Airplanes: May They Be Shot Down?, 10 New Crim. L. Rev. 582, 600 (2007); Kai Möller, On Treating Persons as Ends: the German Aviation Security Act, Human Dignity, and the German Federal Constitutional Court, Pub. L. 464 (2006).Google Scholar
16 See Kamm, Frances Myrna, 2 Morality, Mortality: Rights, Duties, and Status 272 (Oxford Univ. Press 1996).Google Scholar
17 See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, §§ 117–23.Google Scholar
18 Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law], Art. 1.Google Scholar
19 See id.; Hörnle, Tatjana, Shooting Down a Hijacked Plane–The German Discussion and Beyond, 3 Crim Law and Philos. 111, 116 (2009). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1805023 Google Scholar
20 See Benda, Ernst, The Protection of Human Dignity (Article 1 of the Basic Law), 53 S.M.U. L. Rev. 443, 445 (2000).Google Scholar
21 See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 119; Günter Dürig, Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde [The Fundamental-Rights-Principle Created by Human Dignity], 81 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 117, 119–21 (1956); Hörnle, supra note 19, at 116–17; Möller, supra note 15, at 458–59.Google Scholar
22 Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 120.Google Scholar
23 See 9 BVerfGE 89, 95 (1959) (developing the formula); 28 BVerfGE 386, 391 (1970); 45 BVerfGE 187, 228 (1977); 87 BVerfGE 209, 228 (1992); Immanuel Kant, Groundings for the Metaphysics of Morals 61 (7th ed. 1785) (“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”); Günter Dürig, Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde [The Fundamental Principle of Human Dignity], 81 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 117, 127 (1956).Google Scholar
24 See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 121.Google Scholar
25 See id. Google Scholar
26 See id. § 123.Google Scholar
27 Id. Google Scholar
28 See id. §§ 84, 120.Google Scholar
29 See id. §§ 121–23.Google Scholar
30 Id. § 134.Google Scholar
31 See id. §§ 139–42.Google Scholar
32 Saskia Hufnagel, German Perspective on the Right to Life and Human Dignity in The “War On Terror”, 32 Crim. L. Rev. 100, 108–09 (2008).Google Scholar
33 See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 142; Walter Frenz, Menschenwürde und Persönlichkeitsrecht versus Opferschutz und Fahndungserfolg [Human Dignity and Personality Rights Versus Victim Protection and Successful Manhunt], Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 631 (2007).Google Scholar
34 See Hufnagel, supra note 32, at 108.Google Scholar
35 Andreas Zimmermann & Robin Geiß, Die Tötung unbeteiligter Zivilisten: Menschenunwürdig im Friedenmenschenwürdig im Krieg? [The Killing of Civilians—Violation of Human Dignity During Peacetime—Legal During Wartime?], 46 Der Staat 377, 387–88 (2007).Google Scholar
36 See id. Google Scholar
37 See id. (arguing primarily with the fact that the German Constitution does not provide a clause which invalidates certain provisions during wartime); Kay Waechter, Polizeirecht und Kriegsrecht [Police Law and the Law of War], 61 JZ 61, 67–68 (2007).Google Scholar
38 See Hofmann, Rainer, Grundrechte und grenzüberschreitende Sachverhalte [Fundamental Rights and Transnational Cases] 13–23 (1994).Google Scholar
39 For the definition of “war crimes,” see, e.g., Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 8(2)(b)(iv), Jul. 17, 1998, A/CONF.183/9Google Scholar
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.Google Scholar
See also Art. 52(3) of the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (“In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”).Google Scholar
40 Art. 15(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights explicitly acknowledges the possibility to deviate from the right to life (Art. 2) in case of “deaths resulting from lawful acts of war.”Google Scholar
41 See 77 BVerfGE 170, 221 (1987).Google Scholar
42 See Frenz, supra note 33, at 2, 7; Kai Möller, The Right to Life Between Absolute and Proportional Protection, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Paper 13/2010, at 10 (2010).Google Scholar
43 See Quinn, Warren, Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, 98 Phil. Rev. 287, 304 (1989); Judith Jarvis Thomson, The Trolley Problem, 94 Yale L.J. 1395 (1985); Hans Welzel, Zum Notstandsproblem [The Problem of Necessity], 63 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 47, 51 (1951).Google Scholar
44 See Möller, supra note 42, at 13; Marc Hauser et al., A Dissociation between Moral Judgments and Justifications, 22 Mind & Language 1, 6 (2007).Google Scholar
45 See Möller, supra note 42, at 14.Google Scholar
46 This is also explicitly acknowledged by the Constitutional Court. See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 139.Google Scholar
47 See Möller, supra note 42, at 14.Google Scholar
48 See id. Google Scholar
49 See Lepsius, supra note 6, at 769–71.Google Scholar
50 See id. Google Scholar
51 See Hörnle, supra note 19, at 118–20; Zimmermann & Geiß, supra note 35, at 391; Nils Teifke, Das Prinzip der Menschenwürde [The Principle of Human Dignity] 142–49 (2011).Google Scholar
52 See 30 BVerfGE 1, 26 (1970).Google Scholar
53 See Brown, supra note 153, at 101; Hörnle, supra note 15, at 595.Google Scholar
54 See id. Google Scholar
55 See Hörnle, supra note 19, at 124.Google Scholar
56 Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 120.Google Scholar
57 See Hörnle, supra note 15, at 595.Google Scholar
58 See id. at 608; Möller, supra note 42, at 10.Google Scholar
59 See Möller, supra note 42, at 11.Google Scholar
60 See id. Google Scholar
61 Winfried Brugger, May Government Ever Use Torture? Two Responses from German Law, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 671, 672–73 (2000).Google Scholar
62 For the first development by the Constitutional Court with regard to protective rights of fetuses, see 39 BVerfGE 1, 42 (1975); see also Brugger, supra note 61, at 672; Hufnagel, supra note 32, at 105–06; Hörnle, supra note 15, at 601–03.Google Scholar
63 See, e.g., Calliess, Christian, Die grundrechtliche Schutzpflicht im mehrpoligen Verfassungs rechtsverhältnis [The Protective Right Within the Heteropolar Relations of Constitutional Rights], 61 JuristenZeitung 321 (2006).Google Scholar
64 See id. Google Scholar
65 See Frenz, supra note 33, at 8; Josef Isensee, Das Grundrecht auf Sicherheit [The Fundamental Right to Safety] 3–19 (1983); Gerhard Robbers, Sicherheit als Menschenrecht [Safety as a Human Right] 40–119 (1987).Google Scholar
66 Consider, for example, the idea of German Criminal Law that a victim cannot make use of the right to self-defense as long as an attack could be averted by calling for the help of the state. If the state does not fulfill its duty of protection and the citizen is still not allowed to defend itself in this situation, a dramatic loophole arises—preventing the citizen from receiving protection.Google Scholar
67 See Hörnle, supra note 15, at 601–02, 609.Google Scholar
68 See id. Google Scholar
69 See Brown, supra note 13, at 99.Google Scholar
70 See 39 BVerfGE 1, 41 (1975); Walter Frenz, das Verursacherprinzip im öffentlichen Recht [The “Costs-by-Cause” principle in the Public Law] 103–07 (1997); Hans Jarass, Grundrechte als Wertentscheidungen [Fundamental Rights as Determination of Values], 110 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 363, 384 (1985).Google Scholar
71 See Frenz, supra note 33, at 2, 7.Google Scholar
72 Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
73 See DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189 (1989); Gezim Bajrami, Negative Constitutional Rights in America Versus Positive Constitutional Rights in Other Democratic Nations and Why Our System Should Not Change, Law School Student Scholarship Paper 180, at 9–11 (2003), http://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/180; Jenna MacNaughton, Positive Rights in Constitutional Law: No Need to Graft, Best Not to Prune, 3 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 750, 772–75 (2001).Google Scholar
74 See Hörnle, supra note 15, at 603–04.Google Scholar
75 See id. Google Scholar
76 See Höfling, Wolfram & Augsberg, Steffen, Luftsicherheit, Grundrechtsregime und Ausnahmezustand [Air Traffic-Security, Fundamental-Rights-Principles and the State of Emergency], 60 JuristenZeitung 1080, 1084 (2005); Reinhard Merkel, § 14 Abs. 3 Luftsicherheitsgesetz: Wann und warum darf der Staat töten? [§14(3) Aviation Security Act: When and Why Is the State Allowed to Kill?], 62 JuristenZeitung 373, 381–82 (2007).Google Scholar
77 See Hans Martin Schleyer Case, 46 BVerfGE 160, 164 (1977); Aviation Security Case, supra note 11.Google Scholar
78 Generally speaking, the scope of a protective right is determined along the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeit/Übermaßverbot) and the so-called prohibition of insufficient state action (Untermaßverbot) that depend on the degree of danger that a violation of the right may occur if no preventive action is taken. See Lang, Beck-Online-Kommentar Grundgesetz, Art. 2, at 77.Google Scholar
79 See Daschner-Case, Landgericht [District Court] of Frankfurt am Main, Dec. 20, 2004, Neue Juristische Wochenschau 692 (NJW) (2005); Hufnagel, supra note 32, at 105–06, 108.Google Scholar
80 See Daschner-Case, supra note 79, at 693.Google Scholar
81 See id. at 695.Google Scholar
82 Hörnle, supra note 15, at 609–10.Google Scholar
83 Hörnle, supra note 15, at 610; Hörnle, supra note 19, at 128; Möller, supra note 42, at 18.Google Scholar
84 See Kaufmann, Arthur, Rechtsfreier Raum und eigenverantwortliche Entscheidungen [Area Beyond the Law and Self-dependent Decisions], Festschrift für Reinhard Maurach 327 (1972); Oliver Lepsius, Das Luftsicherheitsgesetz und das Grundgesetz [The Aviation Security Act and the Basic Law], Festgabe für Burkhard Hirsch 47 (2006).Google Scholar
85 See Brown, supra note 13, at 100.Google Scholar
86 See id. Google Scholar
87 See also Hörnle, supra note 15, at 610.Google Scholar
88 See Hörnle, supra note 19, at 125–26.Google Scholar
89 See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 124; Beltrán de Felipe & Rodríguez de Santiago, supra note 10, at 9–11; Lepsius, supra note 6, at 774–75.Google Scholar
90 Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 124.Google Scholar
91 Beltrán de Felipe & Rodríguez de Santiago, supra note 10, at 20.Google Scholar
92 See id. Google Scholar
93 See Lepsius, supra note 6, at 775.Google Scholar
94 See id.; Möller, supra note 42, at 5.Google Scholar
95 See Brown, supra note 13, at 97.Google Scholar
96 See id. Google Scholar
97 See id. at 59.Google Scholar
98 See id. Google Scholar
99 See Defense Minister: Germany Would Shoot Down Hijacked Plane, Deutsche Welle (Sep. 17, 2007), http://www.dw.de/defense-minister-germany-would-shoot-down-hijacked-plane/a-2784956.Google Scholar
100 See Medick, Veit & Wittrock, Philipp, Grundgesetzänderung: Regierung will Abschuss von Terrorflugzeugen erleichtern [Constitutional Amendment: Government Plans to Ease Requirement for Shooting Down Hijacked Planes], SPIEGEL Online, Apr. 7, 2014, http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/terror-flugzeuge-koalition-will-grundgesetz-aendern-a-963044.html.Google Scholar
101 See id. Google Scholar
102 Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic law], Art. 79.Google Scholar
103 See de Felipe, Beltrán & de Santiago, Rodríguez, supra note 10, at 17.Google Scholar
You have
Access