Germany is one of the most important arms producers in the world. Weapons made in Germany are used in battles around the world. If there were a rule under international law according to which the supplier of arms would always automatically become a party in the conflict to which he supplies his goods, then Germany would have been a party to the conflict for years.
But it is not like that. There is no such rule in international law. Experts are largely in agreement on this, as is also stated in a report by the Bundestag’s scientific service, which was prepared on March 16th. The report deals with “legal issues of military support for Ukraine by NATO states”.
In the report, which is published on the Internet, there is an interesting sentence. “Only if, in addition to the supply of weapons, the conflict party would also be instructed or trained in such weapons would one leave the secure area of non-warfare.”
This sentence alarmed some. Because it raises the question: Will Germany slip into the role of a party to the conflict if it goes one step further – and also teaches the buyers of German weapons in Ukraine how to use these weapons? That’s the plan at the moment. Last Thursday, the Bundestag, with the votes of the coalition and the Union, voted in favor of training Ukrainian soldiers.
To be clear: the report does not answer this question. Instead, there is only a reference to an interview that the Bochum international law expert Pierre Thielbörger gave on February 13th New Zurich newspaper has given and in which the professor remains with the very cautious statement: He does not want to formulate a general statement. It remains “the consideration of the individual case is decisive”.
It is important where the training takes place
That didn’t stop a member of the Bundestag from the Left Party, Żaklin Nastić, from spreading a sensational report on Monday: The Bundestag decision had made Germany “a war party,” and the scientific service “confirms this without a doubt.” That Editorial network Germany quoted Nastić with it.
That’s not what the report says. Because that would be simply wrong. Another international law expert cited in the report is Markus Krajewski, Secretary General of the German section of the International Law Association. This report is not a “highlight,” he says. It was kept very short. One could certainly have said something about the question of when training foreign soldiers means entering the conflict. It depends on the geography.
All reports and background information on the war in Ukraine – in the SZ in the morning and in the SZ in the evening. Our news–Newsletter brings you up to date twice a day. Free registration at sz.de/morgenabend. In our news app (download here) you can also subscribe to the news newsletter or our breaking news as a push message.
“If German soldiers would travel to Ukraine and help the soldiers there to fire on their targets, then they would take part in combat operations,” says Krajewski. But: According to the Bundestag decision, the federal government’s intention to only train Ukrainian soldiers “in Germany or on NATO territory,” “quasi in dry runs”, is not yet a problem. It is impossible to misinterpret this as “deploying” one’s own fighting units.
Under the heading “Legal gray areas”, the report by the scientific service then goes into some interesting constellations. For example, it is of course allowed under international law to sell fighter jets to Ukraine. However, a “logistical problem” arises when a jet is delivered from NATO territory. On the radar, it looks to Russia as if a fighter jet from NATO territory were joining the war. This harbors the potential for dangerous misunderstandings. “That may have been one of the reasons why the Pentagon rejected the Polish proposal to deliver MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine via the US military base in Ramstein.”