¹ E.g., Gesetz zum besseren Informationsaustausch bei der Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus [Legislation facilitating the exchange of information to fight international terrorism], July 26, 2016, BGBl. I at 1818 (Ger.).Google Scholar

² See Kirchner, Stephanie, Germany Calls for New Security Measures After String of Terrorist Attacks, Wash. Post (Aug. 11, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/germany-calls-for-new-security-measures-after-string-of-attacks/2016/08/11/f5982b49-45e3-4978-92a1-dd6f6a13b04a_story.html.Google Scholar

³ See Kean, Thomas & Hamilton, Lee, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 40–41 (2004); Dan Balz & Bob Woodward, Americas Chaotic Road to War; Bush's Global Strategy Began to Shape in First Frantic Hours after Attack, Wash. Post (Jan. 27, 2002), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002_Jan26.html.Google Scholar

⁴ See Schrader, Esther, Chutney Gave Order to Shoot Down Jets, L.A. Times (June 18, 2004), http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/18/nation/na-cheney18.Google Scholar

⁵ See Kean & Hamilton, supra note 3, at 17, 34; Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan, Bush's Unanswered 9/11 Questions, The Daily Beast (Aug. 28, 2011), http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/president-bush-national-geographic-interview-s-unanswered-questions.html.Google Scholar

⁶ See Lepsius, Oliver, Human Dignity and the Downing of Aircraft: The German Federal Constitutional Court Strikes Down a Prominent Anti-terrorism Provision in the New Air-Transport Security Act, 7 German L.J. 761, 761–62 (2006).Google Scholar

⁷ Mark Landler, German Threatens to Crash Glider into Frankfurt Bank, N.Y. Times (Jan. 6, 2003), http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/world/german-threatens-to-crash-glider-into-frankfurt-bank.html.Google Scholar

⁸ Luftsicherheitsgesetz [LuftSiG] [Aviation Security Act], Jan. 11, 2005, BGBl. I at 78, § 14.Google Scholar

⁹ See German Leader Doubts Hijack Law, BBC News (Jan. 12, 2005), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4169445.stm.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See de Felipe, Miguel Beltrán & de Santiago, José María Rodríguez, Shooting Down Hijacked Aeroplanes? Sorry, We're Humanists (2008) 14 Euro. Pub. L. 565–84.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], “Aviation Security Case”, Feb. 15, 2006, Amtliche Entscheidungssammlung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfGE), paras. 155–218.Google Scholar

¹² Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law], Art. 18.Google Scholar

¹³ See, e.g., Bohlander, Michael, In Extremis—Hijacked Airplanes, “Collateral Damage” and the Limits of Criminal Law, 579 Crim. L. Rev. 579, 584 (2006); Par Roy Stephen Brown, Shooting Down Civilian Aircraft: Illegal, Immoral and Just Plane Stupid, 20 Revue Québécoise de Droit International [R.Q.D.I] 57, 100–01 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Brandt, Richard B., Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights 111–12 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1992); Paul Butler, Foreword: Terrorism and Utilitarianism: Lessons from, and for, Criminal Law, 93 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1, 15–16 (2003); Elmar Giemulla, Zum Abschuss von Zivilluftfahrzeugen als Maßnahme der Terrorbekämpfung [The Shooting Down of Civil Aircrafts as a Means of Counterterrorism], 32 Zeitschrift für Luft- und Weltraumrecht 2005 32, 47 (2005); Jonathan Glover, It Makes No Difference Whether or Not I Do It, 49 Proc. Aristotelian Soc'y 171, 172–73 (1975).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Hörnle, Symposium on Criminal Law, Terrorism and the Ctate of Emergency: Hijacked Airplanes: May They Be Shot Down?, 10 New Crim. L. Rev. 582, 600 (2007); Kai Möller, On Treating Persons as Ends: the German Aviation Security Act, Human Dignity, and the German Federal Constitutional Court, Pub. L. 464 (2006).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Kamm, Frances Myrna, 2 Morality, Mortality: Rights, Duties, and Status 272 (Oxford Univ. Press 1996).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, §§ 117–23.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law], Art. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See id.; Hörnle, Tatjana, Shooting Down a Hijacked Plane–The German Discussion and Beyond, 3 Crim Law and Philos. 111, 116 (2009). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1805023 Google Scholar

²⁰ See Benda, Ernst, The Protection of Human Dignity (Article 1 of the Basic Law), 53 S.M.U. L. Rev. 443, 445 (2000).Google Scholar

²¹ See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 119; Günter Dürig, Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde [The Fundamental-Rights-Principle Created by Human Dignity], 81 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 117, 119–21 (1956); Hörnle, supra note 19, at 116–17; Möller, supra note 15, at 458–59.Google Scholar

²² Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 120.Google Scholar

²³ See 9 BVerfGE 89, 95 (1959) (developing the formula); 28 BVerfGE 386, 391 (1970); 45 BVerfGE 187, 228 (1977); 87 BVerfGE 209, 228 (1992); Immanuel Kant, Groundings for the Metaphysics of Morals 61 (7th ed. 1785) (“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”); Günter Dürig, Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde [The Fundamental Principle of Human Dignity], 81 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 117, 127 (1956).Google Scholar

²⁴ See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 121.Google Scholar

²⁵ See id. Google Scholar

²⁶ See id. § 123.Google Scholar

²⁷ Id. Google Scholar

²⁸ See id. §§ 84, 120.Google Scholar

²⁹ See id. §§ 121–23.Google Scholar

³⁰ Id. § 134.Google Scholar

³¹ See id. §§ 139–42.Google Scholar

³² Saskia Hufnagel, German Perspective on the Right to Life and Human Dignity in The “War On Terror”, 32 Crim. L. Rev. 100, 108–09 (2008).Google Scholar

³³ See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 142; Walter Frenz, Menschenwürde und Persönlichkeitsrecht versus Opferschutz und Fahndungserfolg [Human Dignity and Personality Rights Versus Victim Protection and Successful Manhunt], Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 631 (2007).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Hufnagel, supra note 32, at 108.Google Scholar

³⁵ Andreas Zimmermann & Robin Geiß, Die Tötung unbeteiligter Zivilisten: Menschenunwürdig im Friedenmenschenwürdig im Krieg? [The Killing of Civilians—Violation of Human Dignity During Peacetime—Legal During Wartime?], 46 Der Staat 377, 387–88 (2007).Google Scholar

³⁶ See id. Google Scholar

³⁷ See id. (arguing primarily with the fact that the German Constitution does not provide a clause which invalidates certain provisions during wartime); Kay Waechter, Polizeirecht und Kriegsrecht [Police Law and the Law of War], 61 JZ 61, 67–68 (2007).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Hofmann, Rainer, Grundrechte und grenzüberschreitende Sachverhalte [Fundamental Rights and Transnational Cases] 13–23 (1994).Google Scholar

³⁹ For the definition of “war crimes,” see, e.g., Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 8(2)(b)(iv), Jul. 17, 1998, A/CONF.183/9Google Scholar

See also Art. 52(3) of the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (“In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Art. 15(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights explicitly acknowledges the possibility to deviate from the right to life (Art. 2) in case of “deaths resulting from lawful acts of war.”Google Scholar

⁴¹ See 77 BVerfGE 170, 221 (1987).Google Scholar

⁴² See Frenz, supra note 33, at 2, 7; Kai Möller, The Right to Life Between Absolute and Proportional Protection, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Paper 13/2010, at 10 (2010).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Quinn, Warren, Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, 98 Phil. Rev. 287, 304 (1989); Judith Jarvis Thomson, The Trolley Problem, 94 Yale L.J. 1395 (1985); Hans Welzel, Zum Notstandsproblem [The Problem of Necessity], 63 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 47, 51 (1951).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Möller, supra note 42, at 13; Marc Hauser et al., A Dissociation between Moral Judgments and Justifications, 22 Mind & Language 1, 6 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Möller, supra note 42, at 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This is also explicitly acknowledged by the Constitutional Court. See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 139.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Möller, supra note 42, at 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See id. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Lepsius, supra note 6, at 769–71.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See id. Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Hörnle, supra note 19, at 118–20; Zimmermann & Geiß, supra note 35, at 391; Nils Teifke, Das Prinzip der Menschenwürde [The Principle of Human Dignity] 142–49 (2011).Google Scholar

⁵² See 30 BVerfGE 1, 26 (1970).Google Scholar

⁵³ See Brown, supra note 153, at 101; Hörnle, supra note 15, at 595.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See id. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Hörnle, supra note 19, at 124.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Hörnle, supra note 15, at 595.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See id. at 608; Möller, supra note 42, at 10.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Möller, supra note 42, at 11.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See id. Google Scholar

⁶¹ Winfried Brugger, May Government Ever Use Torture? Two Responses from German Law, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 671, 672–73 (2000).Google Scholar

⁶² For the first development by the Constitutional Court with regard to protective rights of fetuses, see 39 BVerfGE 1, 42 (1975); see also Brugger, supra note 61, at 672; Hufnagel, supra note 32, at 105–06; Hörnle, supra note 15, at 601–03.Google Scholar

⁶³ See, e.g., Calliess, Christian, Die grundrechtliche Schutzpflicht im mehrpoligen Verfassungs rechtsverhältnis [The Protective Right Within the Heteropolar Relations of Constitutional Rights], 61 JuristenZeitung 321 (2006).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See id. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Frenz, supra note 33, at 8; Josef Isensee, Das Grundrecht auf Sicherheit [The Fundamental Right to Safety] 3–19 (1983); Gerhard Robbers, Sicherheit als Menschenrecht [Safety as a Human Right] 40–119 (1987).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Consider, for example, the idea of German Criminal Law that a victim cannot make use of the right to self-defense as long as an attack could be averted by calling for the help of the state. If the state does not fulfill its duty of protection and the citizen is still not allowed to defend itself in this situation, a dramatic loophole arises—preventing the citizen from receiving protection.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Hörnle, supra note 15, at 601–02, 609.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See id. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Brown, supra note 13, at 99.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See 39 BVerfGE 1, 41 (1975); Walter Frenz, das Verursacherprinzip im öffentlichen Recht [The “Costs-by-Cause” principle in the Public Law] 103–07 (1997); Hans Jarass, Grundrechte als Wertentscheidungen [Fundamental Rights as Determination of Values], 110 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 363, 384 (1985).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Frenz, supra note 33, at 2, 7.Google Scholar

⁷² Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir. 1989).Google Scholar

⁷³ See DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189 (1989); Gezim Bajrami, Negative Constitutional Rights in America Versus Positive Constitutional Rights in Other Democratic Nations and Why Our System Should Not Change, Law School Student Scholarship Paper 180, at 9–11 (2003), http://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/180; Jenna MacNaughton, Positive Rights in Constitutional Law: No Need to Graft, Best Not to Prune, 3 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 750, 772–75 (2001).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Hörnle, supra note 15, at 603–04.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See id. Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Höfling, Wolfram & Augsberg, Steffen, Luftsicherheit, Grundrechtsregime und Ausnahmezustand [Air Traffic-Security, Fundamental-Rights-Principles and the State of Emergency], 60 JuristenZeitung 1080, 1084 (2005); Reinhard Merkel, § 14 Abs. 3 Luftsicherheitsgesetz: Wann und warum darf der Staat töten? [§14(3) Aviation Security Act: When and Why Is the State Allowed to Kill?], 62 JuristenZeitung 373, 381–82 (2007).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Hans Martin Schleyer Case, 46 BVerfGE 160, 164 (1977); Aviation Security Case, supra note 11.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Generally speaking, the scope of a protective right is determined along the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeit/Übermaßverbot) and the so-called prohibition of insufficient state action (Untermaßverbot) that depend on the degree of danger that a violation of the right may occur if no preventive action is taken. See Lang, Beck-Online-Kommentar Grundgesetz, Art. 2, at 77.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See Daschner-Case, Landgericht [District Court] of Frankfurt am Main, Dec. 20, 2004, Neue Juristische Wochenschau 692 (NJW) (2005); Hufnagel, supra note 32, at 105–06, 108.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Daschner-Case, supra note 79, at 693.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See id. at 695.Google Scholar

⁸² Hörnle, supra note 15, at 609–10.Google Scholar

⁸³ Hörnle, supra note 15, at 610; Hörnle, supra note 19, at 128; Möller, supra note 42, at 18.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See Kaufmann, Arthur, Rechtsfreier Raum und eigenverantwortliche Entscheidungen [Area Beyond the Law and Self-dependent Decisions], Festschrift für Reinhard Maurach 327 (1972); Oliver Lepsius, Das Luftsicherheitsgesetz und das Grundgesetz [The Aviation Security Act and the Basic Law], Festgabe für Burkhard Hirsch 47 (2006).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Brown, supra note 13, at 100.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See id. Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See also Hörnle, supra note 15, at 610.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See Hörnle, supra note 19, at 125–26.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 124; Beltrán de Felipe & Rodríguez de Santiago, supra note 10, at 9–11; Lepsius, supra note 6, at 774–75.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Aviation Security Case, supra note 11, § 124.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Beltrán de Felipe & Rodríguez de Santiago, supra note 10, at 20.Google Scholar

⁹² See id. Google Scholar

⁹³ See Lepsius, supra note 6, at 775.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See id.; Möller, supra note 42, at 5.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See Brown, supra note 13, at 97.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See id. Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See id. at 59.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See id. Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See Defense Minister: Germany Would Shoot Down Hijacked Plane, Deutsche Welle (Sep. 17, 2007), http://www.dw.de/defense-minister-germany-would-shoot-down-hijacked-plane/a-2784956.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Medick, Veit & Wittrock, Philipp, Grundgesetzänderung: Regierung will Abschuss von Terrorflugzeugen erleichtern [Constitutional Amendment: Government Plans to Ease Requirement for Shooting Down Hijacked Planes], SPIEGEL Online, Apr. 7, 2014, http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/terror-flugzeuge-koalition-will-grundgesetz-aendern-a-963044.html.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See id. Google Scholar

¹⁰² Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic law], Art. 79.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See de Felipe, Beltrán & de Santiago, Rodríguez, supra note 10, at 17.Google Scholar