Antimilitarism | Peace commandment and prohibition of violence

That's what you call a perfect landing. On that day at the end of August, when the Federal Cabinet approved the establishment of a National Security Council and set the course for a "new military service," the commentary was already in bookstores. In an essay, two lawyers polemicize against the current war rhetoric, against the militarization of language and thought. In keeping with their profession, they plead for peace and international law. One worked as a researcher until his retirement at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg im Breisgau, where he also lives. The other author was a lawyer his entire life – apart from a foray into politics – and continues to practice as such in Zislow, Mecklenburg. His name is well known. Some love him, others fear and hate him because he doesn't mince his East German words. Just recently, he read the riot act to the Federal President in a letter because East Germans continue to be discriminated against 35 years after national reunification. A "false view of history" would be used to justify the continued violation of the principle of equality. Of course, we're talking about Robin Hood, aka Peter-Michael Diestel.

Arnold and Diestel, one in the West and the other in the East, have joined forces and applied the legal yardstick to current politics. The key words in their book are the principle of peace and the prohibition of violence. As lawyers, they objectively criticize violations of applicable national and international law and the deliberate omission or consistent application of such law. For example, on July 15, 2025, the Federal Constitutional Court clearly undermined the peace principle of the Basic Law when it took a lean approach in the Ramstein case. "Although it is undisputed that the US Ramstein Air Base plays a central role in controlling" drone operations abroad, "the court saw no legal obligation for Germany to take action against the US use of the base for drone strikes." The court failed to "send a strong signal," ruled not only the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights Berlin (ECCHR). Not contradicting, however, is agreeing.

Or: International law is increasingly being replaced by a "rules-based order," that is, by "legally non-binding norms, standards, rules of conduct, and morality." Their formulation and unilateral application provide politicians with "a maximum degree of flexibility" so that they no longer feel bound by treaties and the binding nature of international law. In the context of the peace mandate, the authors refer to the 2+4 Treaty of September 1990. "Article 2 contained the strict commandment that only peace will emanate from German soil. The governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic declared that a united Germany would never use any of its weapons—except in accordance with its constitution and the UN Charter." Diestel, as is well known, was a member of the government of the signatory state, the German Democratic Republic, at the time; he was its deputy prime minister, and is therefore more qualified than anyone else today to refer to that very document and insist on its compliance. "Germany is pursuing an armament and militarization that are contrary to the 2+4 Treaty," he states in his book, which he wrote together with Arnold.

It continues: Weapons for Israel used in the war in the Middle East "are to be considered support and aid in a war of annihilation." Based on the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of peace, Germany would be obligated to "immediately cease this support and aid. To the extent that the Federal Government invokes German reasons of state to justify its actions, this must not violate international law."

Thus, the two address current hot topics, bringing them from the political sphere into the realm of justice. This is not unimportant, although it is not easy reading for the average reader. Author Eugen Ruge is also aware of this, and in his foreword, he calls for understanding of the pair's text. Arnold and Diestel "expertly demonstrated the deterioration of the powerful's understanding of the law." And he links this with the expectation "that the words of the two lawyers will resonate in the ears of those in power or, as this hope is perhaps too bold, will become a beneficial contribution to a coming peace movement." The fact that the Bundestag has an above-average number of lawyers could be quite useful in this case.

Jürgen Arnold/Peter-Michael Diestel: Ready for War. No Thanks. A Plea for Peace and International Law. With a prologue by Eugen Ruge. Das Neue Berlin, 112 pp., paperback, €12.