New Hope for Peace – Rule of the Law instead of Global Escalation for the Syria Conflict

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.

The Constitutional complaint applies for the prohibition of the Syria deployment also because of the world war risks of the Syria conflict, to which Germany may not contribute in view of its peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law). Isis and Al Qaida provenly want to bring about the final battle described in the Islamic Revelation, by provoking a world war starting in Syria. Both, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, strive for a global caliphate, and it is obscure, in how far the jihadists are steered by whom. A world war today would be thermonuclear, and noone would survive it. It is threatening in view the largely uncoordinated deployment of airforces and partly ground forces in Syria with differing interests. Also the CNAS paper „Defeating the Islamic State – A Bottom-Up Approach“, considerations within the National Security Council of the USA regarding a possible direct attack on the Syrian army, the imposition of a no-fly zone for Syrian and Russian planes being discussed in the USA, and the threat by russia to shoot down planes endangering the Russian troops, would, if implemented, lead into the world war. At the 31.08.2013, the global escalation has been avoided very narrowly, because in connection with the chemical weapon incident at Ghouta of the 21.08.2013, the USA have been informed just in time regarding the Russian warning, in case of US airstrikes against Syria, Russia would retaliate against Saudi-Arabia. Also the downing of a Russian plane over Syria by Turkey and the bombardement of Syrian troops in Deir Azzur could easily have escalated into world war.

The resolution by the Bundestag of the 03.12.2015 and the resolution on the case of mutual defence by the Defence Ministers of the EU member states of the 16./17.11. 2015 have disregarded the provisions of the Lisbon Judgement how to interpret the prescriptions of the TEU on the Common Foreign and Safety Policy (CFSP) in conformity with the UN Charter. So the Constitutional complaints claims, in order to achieve legal safety for the peace order of the United Nations as well as for the existence of the European Union, to oblige the Federal Government, to apply in the UN General Assembly for an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the following question:

„How exactly has the interpretation of the norms of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) on military interventions for values and interests (art. 42 par. 5 TEU), on military interventions for interference into crises (art. 43 par. 1 TEU), and the EU clause on mutual assistance (art. 42 par. 7 TEU), which is still not ratified according to art. 42 par. 2 subpar. 1 TEU, each to be limited into conformity with the UN Charter and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), in order to completely exclude any possibility to violate art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter, art. 103 UN Charter, or art. 29 no. 3 UDHR, by means of these norms, and in order to, at the same time, exclude the risk of voidness of the TEU according to art. 53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties because incompability with the UN Charter and with the UDHR, which belong to the „ius cogens“?“

The Constitutional complaint, in addition to that, applies to state the voidness of the TEU according to art. 53 VCLT for incompability of the TEU with the UN Charter, which belongs to the „ius cogens“, in view of the application of the CFSP in the resolution of the 16./17.11.2015, which is incompatible with the UN Charter. The establishment of the voidness of an international treaty, however, can always only be the last resort, if an interpretation in conformity with the „ius cogens“ is not possible.

The Constitutional complaint applies, because of the undemocratically strong influence of the think tank SWP and, besides that, of the Bilderberg conference, on the German position on Syria, to exclude think tanks from international conferences with German participation on foreign and safety policy, and to admit for the counselling of German institutions regarding foreign and safety policy only those think tanks, whose recommendations do neither violate the Basic Law nor the UN Charter, with a special attention to the prohibitions of aggressive war and its preparation (art. 26 Basic Law, art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter) and on the inviolable peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law), and which do not counsel other countries at the same time.

In view of hundredthousands of people, who have immigrated into Germany since 2015 without registration, among them an at least four digit number of jihadists, in view of the jihadist „Blitzkrieg“ in Germany and Europe, prognosticated for 2016 by a former member of Isis, and meanwhile begun, and because Germany has got, with its direct military involvement in Syria, even more into the focus of Isis, the Constitutional complaint demands, that all people, who have immigrated into Germany since 2015, have to be biometrically registered, and that their data have to be compared with the list, which Great Britain has, with the already detected stolen and falsified passport identities along the refugee routes (among them in Macedonia), and with terrorists wanted under criminal law by the Syria, by the claimed home country, or wanted internationally. That protects the German population, but also the refugees, the majority of whom including women and children are peaceful, it provides clarity regarding the extent of the jihadist threat in Germany, and it contributes to the humanitarian supply of all refugees during their stay in Germany, also in order to reduce, as much as possible, the number of those, who, because of material emergency, see no other way than to join Isis.

Because of the missing legal bases for the Syria deployment and of the world war risks connected to the Syria conflict, and also because of the lacking ability, regarding soldiers and equipment, to defend the territory of the own country against a jihadist attack, the complaint appeals, by means of interim injunction, to immediately get back the German troops already sent to Syria, and to prohibit the deployment of any further troops there. In addition to that, the Constitutional complaint appeals to restore the ability of Germany to defend its own territory (art. 87a par. 1 Basic Law) related to a realistic threat analysis.

The complaint refers to the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law) in connection to the peace principle (art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law), and to the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law), to the basic rights to life, to physical integrity, and to freedom (art. 2 Basic Law), to the function reservation (art. 33 par. 4 Basic Law), as well as to the universal human rights to security (art. 9 ICCPR), to health (art. 12 CESCR), and to the prohibition of war propaganda (art. 20 par. 1 ICCPR).

The Constitutional complaint also directs itself against art. 93d par. 1 s. 3 BVerfGG, according to which the Constitutional Court can make non-admittances of Constitutional complaints also without any explanation. This prescription makes feasible to completely obscure, if the court has orderly applied the admittance criteria of art. 93a BVerfGG. So art. 93d par. 1 s. 3 BVerfGG is incompatible with the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law), with equlity (art. 3 Basic Law), with the guaran-tee of the course of law (art. 19 par. 4 Basic Law), with the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law), with the equality before the courts (art. 14 ICCPR), and with the equality before the law (art. 26 ICCPR).

The plaintiffs and the representative applied for by them (art. 22 par. 1 s. 4 BVerfGG) are available for an interview at any time.

picture: Volker Reusing and Wolfgang Effenberger after filing the complaint, in the background the building of the Constitutional Court

(V.i.S.d.P.: Volker Reusing, Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal)


Verfassungsbeschwerde (2 BvR 2174 16) gegen Syrien-Einsatz der Bundeswehr