Preventing
the Escalation of the Syria Conflict – Constitutional Complaint
Filed
(with the request for publication)
18.06.2017 | Unser Politikblog
 |
| (Volker Reusing,, Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing (plaintiff) and Wolfgang Effenberger (plaintiff) at the 17.03.2016 in front of the Constitutional Court) |
The
complaint wants to prevent the escalation of the Syria conflict to
thermonuclear war and to reach the prohibition of the circumvention,
by means of „humanitarian interventions“, of the prohibition of
aggressive war. In addition to that, it wants to put through, that
two biased judges move aside to achieve an orderly procedure.
The
escalation to thermonuclear war is currently impending particularly
by the one-sided illegal
no-fly zones / safety zone, which the USA are trying to establish
starting from the Syrian-Jordanian border town Al-Tanf. For that
purpose, the international alliance in the fight against Isis has, in
May and in June 2017, already made two airstrikes against the Syrian
army and its Shiite allies, which are progressing towards Al-Tanf.
The ad hoc alliance international alliance in the fight against Isis
has been created for the fight against Isis, not to attack the Syrian
army. And now the Bundeswehr even shall be relocated from the Turkish
Incirlik to Jordan. So the direct involvement of the Bundeswehr with
ground forces, with reconnaissance for airstrikes of the
international alliance in the fight against Isis, and by means of
joint staffs, into the escalation at Al-Tanf is impending.
Particularly, as the Iranian news agency Farsnews is worrying, if it
comes to a bigger invasion by USA, Great Britain, and Jordan at
Al-Tanf. The current American behaviour gives the impression not to
have been discussed with His Excellency, US President Donald Trump –
similarly to the attempt by general John Allen (CNAS and then
coordinator of the international alliance in the fight against Isis)
in July 2015 for a no-fly zone in the North of Syria.
The
papers by the think tanks CNAS („Defeating
the Islamic State – A Bottom-Up Approach“)
and Brookings Institution („Deconstructing
Syria – Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country“)
and the article „The Right Way to Create Safe Zones in Syria“ of
the 11.05.2017 in Foreign Affairs (the magazine of the think tank
CFR) are advertising (whilst downplaying the escalations risks) for
no-fly zones / safety zones directed to escalation. Also the
deescalation zones settled by Russia, Iran, and Turkey mean an
escalation risk, because it is unclear, in how far the other
countries involved in the Syria conflict will respect them.
 |
| (Volker Reusing and Gabriela Schimmer-Göresz (plaintiff)) |
Isis
and Al Qaida, which have received their Armageddon ideology from the
Muslim Brotherhood, are striving for the escalation of the Syria
conflict to world war, because they regard themselves as chosen to
provoke the final battle described in the Islamic Revelation, in
order to bring about this way until 2020 the global caliphate, which
also the Muslim Brotherhood is striving for. And it is completely
obscure, which State and / or private actors really command Isis and
Al Qaida. In addition to that, there are
significant publicly visible pieces of evidence signalling, that the
extortion networks (organized via human trafficking) of the
international „deep state“, with its branches into secret
services, into organized crime, into jihadism, into banks, and into
armageddon-believing and occult groups, are able, to pressure also
Western security policy deciders into the escalation of this
conflict. Furthermore, the escalation of the Syria conflict is
impending by attempts to split the country, and by the lacking
coordination of the countries, which are militarily involved in
Syria, with each other and particularly with the Syrian government.
The nuclear powers USA,
Russia, Great Britain, France, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, and China, are
involved in the conflict, with different interests and to different
extents. Also the joining of NATO
into the international alliance in the fight against Isis has
increased the escalation risks. Escalations risks originating from
Germany, are also deployment of German soldiers in the Kurdish areas
of Syria (which has been prohibited by the Syrian government) and the
two biased constitutional judges.
 |
| (Volker Reusing and Wolfgang Effenberger (plaintiff)) |
The constitutional complaint shows these escalation risks for the German Syria deployment.
The
Syria conflict has, already several times, nearly escalated, among
them the prevention just in time at the 31.08.2013
and the proposal by Saudi-Arabia in February 2016 (rejected by NATO)
to invade into Syria and Iraq with an international Sunni ad hoc
alliance.
And
the repeated airstrikes by the international alliance in the fight
against Isis against Syrian troops and Shiite troops allied with
them, which are progressing towards Al-Tanf, seem to be short before
escalation.
The
deployment violates objectively the prohibitions of aggressive war
and disturbs the peaceful coexistance of the peoples (art. 26 Basic
Law, art. 2 par. 4 UN Charter). See also the definition of
„aggression“ in the resolution by the UN General Assembly of the
14.12.1974. In June 2016, the protest by the Syrian government has
proven, that it rejects also the German deployment, which has neither
been requested by it nor been coordinated with it. The parliamentary
reservation (art. 115a Basic Law) is violated, because the consent of
the Bundestag also had to be requested for before the case of mutual
defence resolution at the EU level of the 16./17. 11.2015 (file
number 14120/15). The EU clause on mutual defence (art. 42 par. 7
TEU) is still invalid, because, as the Lisbon Judgement of the
30.06.2009 has decided, the EU would have to decide before, that it
wants a common defence policy, which then would have needed the
consent by all national parliaments of the EU member states (art. 42
par. 2 subpar. 1 TEU); at least the latter has never taken place. In
addition to that, the EU is, without a valid clause on mutual
defence, (in contrast to NATO) no system of mutual collective
security; the Bundeswehr may be used for combat deployments only for
the defence of the own country and within system 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 obviously without any clause on mutual defence. Also
the Syria resolutions by the UN Security Council do not legalize the
deployment, since they just do NOT state according to art. 42 UN
Charer, that peaceful means were unsuccessful or without any chance,
and so they do NOT authorize military means, since they 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 at Paris of the 13.11.2015 have remained below the
treshold of a militarily armed attack. The resolution on the case of
mutual defence has only disattracted the attention 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) – according to 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 provenly aims
at making circumventable the prohibition of aggressive war (art. 2
par. 4 UN Charter) and the responsibilities of the UN Security
Council. It abuses the human rights against peace and so violates
art. 29 no. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The
ideology of the „humanitarian intervention“ has been, in the
latest 24 years, responsible for regime changes“ called „colour
revolutions“ and for wars (with the Kosovo war as the first bigger
experiment) including the nearly escalation of the Syria conflict to
themonuclear war, which has been narrowly prevented at the
31.08.2013. And the escalation attempts are still going on, as the
current aggravating situation at Al-Tanf shows.
The
resolution by the Bundestag of the 09.11.2016 and the resolution by
Their Excellencies, the Defence Ministers of the EU member states, of
the 16./17.11.2015, have disregarded the provisions of the Lisbon
Judgement for the interpretation of the Common Foreign and Safety
Policy (CFSP) of the EU into conformity with the UN Charter. Thus the
constitutional complaint applies, in order to reach legal safety for
the peace order of the United Nations and for the existence of the
European Union, to oblige the Federal Government to apply in the UN
General Assembly for an advisory opinion of 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 of incompability
with the UN Charter and with the UDHR, which belong to the 'ius
cogens' ?“
The
constitutional complaint applies to prohibit the Syria deployment of
the Bundeswehr, because it violates the human dignity in connection
with the peace principle (art. 1 par. 1+2 Basic Law) and the basic
right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law) (because of the missing legal bases
for large parts of the deployment). The peace principle (art. 1 par.
2 Basic Law), which is formulated as a confession of the German
people, is entrenched in the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1 Basic Law)
and has been included into the Basic Law inspired by the famous
„speech of hope“ of His Excellency, the then US Foreign Minister
James F. Byrnes. In order to ensure, that there will be never again
world war, and that Germany never again contributed to the increase
of world war risks, all Germans have been, by means of the confession
in art. 1 par. 2 Basic Law, obliged and entitled to peace by the
Parlamentarian Council, which has concluded the Basic Law. The
existence of the peace principle has been confirmed by the Lisbon
Judgement of the 30.06.2009 of the Constitutional Court.
The
constitutional complaint applies, in view of the undemocratically big
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 allow the counselling to German
institutions regarding foreign and safety policy only to those think
tanks, whose recommendations do neither violate the Basic Law nor the
UN Charter, with particular attention to the prohibitions of
aggressive war and its preparation (art. 26 Basic Law, art. 2 par. 4
UN Charter) and to the inviolable peace principle (art. 1 par. 2
Basic Law), and which do not at the same time counsel other
countries.
The
constitutional complaint applies, that the Constitutional Court has
to make provisions, as far as foreign and safety policy are
concerned, for the application of the conscience of the members of
the parliament, which is included in the basic right to vote (art. 38
par. 1 s. 2 Basic Law). Also before the resolution of the 09.11.2016
(file number 18/9960), the legal bases and the world war risks of the
Syria conflict have still not been carefully investigated by the
members of the parliament.
The
constitutional complaint explains legal question furthering the
constitutional jurisdiction, showing that the hitherto interpretation
by the Constitutional Court of the norms on bias (art. 18 and 19 of
the law on the Constitutional Court) is intenable and is an open door
for lobbyists even up to possible endangering of the Basic Law,
because it, in contrast to the wording of the law, defines bias much
narrower, and it allows, in contrast to the wording of the law,
judges to participate in decisions on rejections directed against
themselves.
The
complaint invokes the violation of the human dignity (art. 1 par. 1
Basic Law) in connection with the peace principle (art. 1 par. 2
Basic Law), of the basic right to vote (art. 38 Basic Law), of the
basic rights to life, to physical integrity, and to freedom (art. 2
Basic Law), and of the basic right to function reservation (art. 33
par. 4 Basic Law), as well as the violation of the universal human
rights to security (art. 9 ICCPR), to health (art. 12 CESCR), and to
prohibition of war propaganda (art. 20 ICCPR).
The
constitutional plaintiffs and their represantative applied for in the
constitutional complaint according to art. 22 par. 1 s. 4 BVerfGG,
are available for interviews to domestic and foreign, conventional
and alternative, media.
V.
i. S. d. P.:
Sarah
Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7
42283 Wuppertal
Germany
landline:
+49/202/2502621
email: chatling@gmx.de
human rights defender
(according to UN resolution 53/144)
https://sites.google.com/site/buergerrechtemenschenrechte/verlaengerung-syrien-einsatz
VB vom 17062017 - Aktenzeichen
VB vom 17062017 - Aktenzeichen
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.