Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Human Dignity and the Right to Life in German Law

Kai Moller has posted a fascinating new paper, The Right to Life Between Absolute and Proportional Protection.  Of particular interest (to me, anyway) was the discussion of Germany's post-9/11 law authorizing the government to shoot down an airplane likely to be used as a terrorist weapon.  The law was struck down in court as a violation of human dignity as guaranteed by Article 1(1) of the Basic Law.  Moller explains:

In German legal terminology, there is a distinction between 'inviolable' and 'untouchable,' the former meaning that the state may sometimes interfere with the object of the right, provided that it comes up with a legitimate justification, and the latter meaning that any interference will automatically amount to a violation of the right.  Human dignity, as the 'superior' value of the Basic law, is 'untouchable' . . . . The Court held that [the Aviation Security Act] violated both human dignity and the right to life in so far as it permitted the shooting down of aircrafts in situations where there were innocent persons on board.

The trick, of course, is defining "human dignity," and not surprisingly, given the implications, it has been defined narrowly (though still vaguely) in roughly Kantian terms.  An interesting read.

https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/06/human-dignity-and-the-right-to-life-in-german-law.html

Vischer, Rob | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e20133f174ab94970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Human Dignity and the Right to Life in German Law :

Comments


                                                        Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'll read the German opinion when I have time, because I want to know this: does the same ban apply if an enemy does not hijack a plane of innocents, but simply brings its "own" local innocent kids along for an aerial attack, and publicly announces the human shields? Then you can't shoot down the plane?

I like the idea of inviolable rights, and wish we had that here for some issues. But I don't how the airplane approach is anything less than an invitation to bad guys to use human shields.