色色啦

But it said that only could apply when there is a 鈥渟ufficient connection鈥� to the German state’s authority and 鈥渁 serious danger of systematic violation鈥� of international law. It found the case at hand didn’t fulfill the requirements.

The plaintiffs argued the U.S. military’s Ramstein Air Base in southwestern Germany plays a key role in relaying flight control data used for armed drone strikes in Yemen via a satellite relay station set up with the knowledge and approval of the German government.

A lower court that the German government had partial responsibility to ensure U.S. drone strikes controlled with help from Ramstein are in line with international law, but judges stopped short of ordering the ban human rights activists had called for. The following year, a federal court overturned the ruling.

The supreme court said the evidence submitted didn’t lead to the conclusion the U.S. applied criteria that were unacceptable under international law in determining legitimate military targets in Yemen.

The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, which argued the case for the Yemeni plaintiffs, said 鈥渁t a time when the adherence of state action to international law is increasingly being called into question, the court has failed to send a strong signal,鈥� adding that 鈥渋ndividual legal protection remains a theoretical possibility without practical consequences.鈥�