Menu Expand

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style

Beinlich, L (2019). Drones, Discretion, and the Duty to Protect the Right to Life: Germany and its Role in the United States' Drone Programme Before the Higher Administrative Court of Münster. German Yearbook of International Law, 62(1), 557-580. https://doi.org/10.3790/gyil.62.1.557
Beinlich, Leander (2019). "Drones, Discretion, and the Duty to Protect the Right to Life: Germany and its Role in the United States' Drone Programme Before the Higher Administrative Court of Münster" German Yearbook of International Law, vol. 62no. 1, 2019 pp. 557-580. https://doi.org/10.3790/gyil.62.1.557
Beinlich, L (2019). Drones, Discretion, and the Duty to Protect the Right to Life: Germany and its Role in the United States' Drone Programme Before the Higher Administrative Court of Münster. German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 62 (Issue 1), pp 557-580. https://doi.org/10.3790/gyil.62.1.557

Format

Drones, Discretion, and the Duty to Protect the Right to Life: Germany and its Role in the United States' Drone Programme Before the Higher Administrative Court of Münster

Beinlich, Leander

German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 62 (2019), Iss. 1 : pp. 557–580

Additional Information

Article Details

Pricing

Author Details

Leander Beinlich, Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, and PhD candidate at Freie Universität Berlin.

Preview

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Leander Beinlich\nDrones, Discretion, and the Duty to Protect the Right to Life: Germany and its Role in the United States’ Drone Programme Before the Higher Administrative Court of Münster 557
I. Introduction 557
II. The Facts of the Case and the Role of Germany in the US Drone Programme 558
III. Legal Proceedings in the US and in Germany 559
IV. The Judgment of the OVG Münster 561
A. Linking German Fundamental Rights with International Law 562
B. The Legality of the US Drone Programme (in Yemen) 564
C. Has the German Government Fulfilled the Duty to Protect the Lives of the Claimants? 557
D. The Way Forward 557
V. Torn Between Overly Restricting and Overly Deferring to the Executive? 557
A. The Judgment’s Doctrinal Framework and the Court’s Institutional Self-Understanding 557
B. Operationalising and Applying the Court’s Doctrinal Framework 557
C. Doctrinally Conclusive but Detached from Reality? 558
D. Pursuing a Middle Way 558
VI. Conclusion and Outlook 558