The Development of German Jurisprudence on Individual Compensation for Victims of Armed Conflicts

The Kunduz Case

Bibliographic Data

ID12735161
AuthorsElisabeth Veronika Henn (0000-0001-6007-8107, corresponding author)
Year2014
Volume12
Issue3
Pages615-637
Publication date2014-06-12
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of International Criminal Justice (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1478-1395 • E-ISSN: 1478-1387
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/jicj/mqu035
OpenAlexW2335000610
LanguageEN
Citations received3

In December 2013, the Court at first instance in Bonn ruled on whether Germany is required to pay compensation to victims of the International Security Assistance Force airstrike ordered by a German colonel in 2009 in Kunduz. Whereas the traditional approach rejects liability of the government for sovereign acts in armed conflicts, the Court held that the rules of German governmental liability (Amtshaftung) do-in principle-apply to illegal sovereign acts in contemporary armed conflicts. However, the Court did not admit the claim on its merits. This judgment can, nonetheless, be placed within the line of questions regarding international relations to be resolved by law and not politics. This article examines the history of German jurisprudence regarding victims' compensation for harm suffered resulting from violations of international humanitarian law. It summarizes and assesses the Kunduz judgment and explains why applying legal liability to the government for sovereign acts in bello is a logical step in the development of the rule of law

Compensation (psychology · German · Government (linguistics · Harm · International law · Jurisprudence · Liability · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · European and International Law Studies · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Human Rights · Psychology · Law

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub