Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T04:18:20.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Did East German Border Guards Along the Berlin Wall Act Illegally?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Walter Ott
Get access

Extract

The German Democratic Republic's practice of firing upon ist own citizens is well-known. The question arises whether acts which were exempt from punishment in the GDR can be punished today in reunified Germany? The West German Constitution expresses the notion that retroactive effect of penal laws is prohibited. However, the German Courts, above the Federal Constitutional Court (decision of 24/10/1996) have affirmed the criminal liability of East German border guards based on G. Radbruch's “natural law doctrine.”

As a conclusion, it becomes clear that the illegality of acts of Berlin Wall guards can only be derived by following either the Federal Constitutional Court's natural law strategy or the strategy of a strict Statutory Positivism (Gesetzespositivismus); since it can be shown that official instructions and orders to shoot were not permissible beneath the level of constitutional provisions, normal statutes or regulations justifiy restrictions on the human dignity and integrity (in particular the right to life and liberty) of GDR citizens.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , Summer 2000 , pp. 352 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

** List of abbreviations at end.

1 BGHSt 39, at 1 ff.; BGHSt 39, at 168 ff.; DtZ 1993, at 255 ff.; BGHSt 39, at 353 ff.; BGHSt 40, at 241 ff.

2 Cf., e.g., LG Berlin, NJ 1992, at 269 ff.; LG Berlin, NJ 1992, at 418 ff.

3 BVerfGE 95, at 96-143 = JZ 1997, at 142 ff. A comprehensive overview of the literature prior to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 24 October 1996 (BVerfGE 95, pp. 96-143) can be found in Buchner, S.Die Rechtswidrigkeit der Taten von “Mauerschützen” im Lichte von Art. 103 Abs. 2 GG unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Völkerrechts (Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/New York/Paris/Vienna, Peter Lang, 1996), at 305–36Google Scholar.

4 BVerfG 36, at 1 ff.

5 Cf. BGHSt 39, at 7 f.; BGHSt 39, at 180; BGHSt 38, 1 ff. and at 20.

6 Cf., e.g., Roggemann, H., “Zur Strafbarkeit der Mauerschützen” (1993) 4 Deutsch-Deutsche Rechtszeitschrift 10–19, 4 ff.Google Scholar; Grünwald, G., “Die strafrechtliche Bewertung in der DDR begangener Handlungen” (1991) 11 Strafverteidiger 31–37, at 33Google Scholar; Kuhlen, L. and Gramminger, T., “Der Mauerschütze und der Denunziant” (1993) 33 Juristische Schulung 32–39, at 33Google Scholar; Buchner, supra n. 3, at 65, further substantiated at 63 n.80.

7 GBl. DDR 1968 I, at 232.

8 Cited according to BVerfG 95, at 100/101.

9 Quoted from BVerfGE 95, at 101/102.

10 Emphasis added.

11 GBl. DDR II. at 255.

12 GBl. DDR II, at 483.

13 From Buchner, supra n. 3, at 71.

14 Cf. references in Dreier, H., “Gustav Radbruch und die Mauerschützen” (1997) 52 Juristenzeitung 421-34, at 431 n. 131Google Scholar.

15 BVerfGE 95, at 132.

16 Emphasis added.

17 Cf. on this Ott, W., Der Rechtspositivismus, Kritische Würdigung auf der Grundlage eines juristischen Pragmatismus, 2d ed (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1992) at 39 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar and numerous references cited in n. 1. The main representative of German legal positivism was Karl Bergbohm (1892).

18 By “statute” we understand here constitutional law, common statutes and regulations.

19 See supra, following the quotation from §17, Para. 2, VoPoG.

20 Emphasis added.

21 Buchner, supra n. 3, at 166.

22 Ibid., and reference in n. 187.

23 Ibid., at 167.

24 Cf. MacCormick, N. and Weinberger, O., An Institutional Theory of Law. New Approaches to Legal Positivism (Dortrecht/Boston/Lancaster/Tokyo, Reidel, 1986)Google Scholar; and Ott, supra n. 17, at 97 ff., 260 ff.

25 Telos (Greek) means object, aim, purpose. The teleological background of the legal order contains the unwritten principles expressing its objects, aims, purposes. Example: Article 26 of the new Swiss Constituiton guarantees the freedom of private property. Article 19 of the Swiss Code of Obligations guarantees the freedom of contract. By abstraction from these two provisions one can find the unwritten principle of private autonomy, which means that the individual is more important than the community (with some exceptions of course, such as liability for fulfilling military service). In the view of the ILP, private autonomy is not a part of natural law, it is part of the positive Swiss law.

26 Buchner, supra n. 3, at 85.

27 Buchner, supra n. 3, at 87.

28 Kuhlen & Gramminger, supra n. 6, at 37.

29 Authors' group directed by Buchholz, E., Dähn, U., Weber, H., Strafrecht BT – Lehrbuch (Berlin (East), Staatsverlag der DDR, 1981), at 36Google Scholar; Authors' group, Duft, H., Heilborn, H. et al. , ed., Kommentar zum StGB-DDR. (Berlin (East), Staatsverlag der DDR, 1987), at 246 ff.Google Scholar

30 Authors' group (1981), supra n. 29, at 33.

31 Buchner, supra n. 3, at 188.

32 Ibid., at 196.

33 Thus, Meron, T., “On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights” (1986) 80 Amer. J. Int'l L. 1–23, 20 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Verdross, A. and Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht, Theorie und Praxis, 3d ed. (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot 1984), at 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Dahm, G., Delbrück, J. and Wolfrum, R., Völkerrecht, Bd. I/1, Die Grundlagen, die Völkerrechtssubjekte, 2d ed (Berlin, etc., de Gruyter, 1989) at 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Cf. Buchner, supra n. 3, at 197.

37 Ibid., at 302.

38 Cf. concerning this the references cited in ibid., at 237 n. 490.

39 Reference to war crimes had already been dropped in the Control Board Statute No. 10 of December 1954, as well as in the Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind of 1954.

40 Buchner, supra n. 3, at 251, with references cited in n. 558.

41 Emphasis added.

42 Cf. Gloria, C., in Völkerrecht, Ein Studienbuch, Ipsen, K., ed., 3d ed. (Munich, Beck, 1990) at 1093Google Scholar; Jarass, H. D., Commentary on Art. 25 GG, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Kommentar, Jarass, and Pieroth, B., eds., 3d ed. (Munich, Beck, 1995)Google Scholar.

43 Buchner, supra n. 3, at 268, is of a different opinion, taking the view that the international law ius cogens does receive constitutional status.

44 Intended is Art. 7, Para. 1, ECHM, where the principle of nulla poena sine lege is set down.

45 Emphasis added.

46 Hart, H. L. A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals” (1957/1958) 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593–629, at 619 (emphasis added)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Ibid. (emphasis added).

48 See above D, Holding 3 at the end.