-4

Does this decision/ruling mean that an American soldier can not safely cross German soil due to universal jurisdiction? Practically speaking given the international political dynamics I don't suppose they will realistically ever be so prosecuted or otherwise made so unwelcome but is there anything legally preventing it from happening?

How unfathomable would it be for a radical/renegade anti imperialist law student to rise through the ranks of the German prosecutorial or judiciary services and make a big wave by prosecuting American troops for their army's criminal adventures around the world along the lines of Baltasar Garzon in Spain?

Reference: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386260/John-Demjanjuk-convicted-Nazi-death-camp-crimes.html

Update - This was the answer by user PMF that inspired my question:

"The court however ruled that being part of a "mass murder machine" is enough to be held responsible."

https://law.stackexchange.com/a/82676/32669

1 Answers1

4

US troops deployed to Germany would be covered by the Status of Forces Agreement, which governs jurisdiction.

Your question also ignores the nature of the prosecution services in Germany, which do not allow a rogue junior official to file charges at a whim. You would have to assume that at least a state government, if not the federal government, actively pushes the case. (And the federal government could probably take the case away from any state which had such ideas.)

If you look for precedents of legal jeopardy, look at the case of Anwar Raslan, a Syrian official convicted of torture in Germany. It is also a closer parallel to the Pinochet case.

Finally, the principles underlying such prosecutions were established in Germany but not by Germany. I'm talking of the Nuremberg trials. If German courts were to find the US Army to be a criminal organization, then individual members would be at risk. But as a political scenario, that is absurd.

o.m.
  • 22,932
  • 3
  • 45
  • 80