Unser Politikblog | 21.10.2016
(press declaration with the request for publication)
|Volker Reusing and Wolfgang Effenberger |
(file number 2 BvR 2174/16)
At the 18.10.2016, Volker Reusing and Wolfgang Effenberger have filed, within the deadline of one year, a Constitutional complaint (file number 2 BvR 2174/16) against the resolution of the Bundestags of the 03.12.2015 (file number 18/6866) on the Syria deployment of the Bundeswehr.
The deployment violates objectively the prohibitions of aggressive war and disturbs the peaceful coexistence of the peoples (art. 26 Basic Law, art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter). In June 2016, the protest by the Syrian government has proven, that it rejects the deployment which has neither been requested by it nor been coordinated with it. Also the parliamentary reservation (art. 115a Basic Law) is violated, because the consent of the Bundestag had also to be requested before the EU resolution of the 16./17.11.2015 (file number 1420/15) on the case of mutual defence. Furthermore, the EU clause on mutual defence (art. 42 par. 7 TEU) has not been valid yet, because, as already the Lisbon Judgement of the 30.06.2009 has established, before that the EU would have to conclude, that it wants a common defence policy, which then would need the consent by the national parliaments of all EU member states (art. 42 par. 2 subpar. 1 TEU). At least the latter has never happened. In addition to that, without a valid clause on mutual defence, the EU is no system of mutual collective security; the Bundeswehr may be deployed in combat only for the defence of the own country and within the scope of systems of mutual collective security (art. 24 par. 2 Basic Law). And the international alliance in the fight against Isis is an ad hoc – alliance without any ratified treaty and so obiously without any clause on mutual defence. Also the Syria resolutions of the UN Securtiy Council do not legalize the deployment, because they do just not state according to art. 42 UN Charter, that peaceful means had remained unsuccessful or hopeless, because they particularly for that reason do not give any authorization for military means, but in the contrary, set on negotiations and on ever harder sanctions against Isis, against Al Qaida, and against ever more groups of their supporters.
The terrorist attacks in Paris of the 13.11.2015 have been below the treshold of a militarily armed attack. The resolution on the case of mutual defence has de facto only disattracted a significant part of the public and of the politicians from the fact, that the Syria deployment is a military intervention
for values and interests (art. 42 par. 5 TEU) and for crisis intervention (art. 43 par. 1 TEU) – corresponding with the ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“. That ideology has developed from the study „Self Determination in the New World Order“ of the year 1992 by the think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and it aims provenly on making outflankable the prohibition of aggressive war (art. 2 Abs. 4 UN Charter) and the responsibilities of the UN Security Council. The ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“ has been, in the last 24 years, responsible for „colour revolutions“ and for wars including for the nearly escalation of the Syria conflict into a world war, which has been very narrowly averted at the 31.08.2013.