The children (and wives) of foreign ISIS fighters 87 Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, the ‘irrationality of the government's decision’91 or its ‘total incomprehensiveness’.92 So far the decision not to repatriate FTFs’ family members taken by the Governments of several States, also European, has been challenged on those grounds only before French national courts. More in detail, France’s top administrative court, ie the Conseil d’Etat, on 23 April 2019 rejected the demands for repatriation made by two French nationals for their daughter and her children, currently held in Syria.93 The claimants asked the court to, inter alia, reverse the decision of the lower court, which applied the theory of the acte de gouvernement to justify its lack of jurisdiction,94 and recognize instead France’s obligation to repatriate its nationals who are exposed to severe human rights violations and could not access local remedies whilst in the SDF camp.95 The Conseil d’Etat found that it lacks jurisdiction, as proactively seeking the return of French nationals would require the State’s engagement in negotiations with foreign authorities or even its intervention on a foreign territory. These conducts, according to the Court, fall under the remit of France’s international relations,96 and − contrary to the domestic developments referred to above − are, thus, exempted from judicial scrutiny. As anticipated above, the expression ‘diplomatic protection’ is also used informally to mean the assistance given by diplomatic missions and consular posts to their nationals. In furtherance of this objective, missions and consular posts operate facing a number of legal, practical and financial hurdles, and perform a wide range of protective functions. Those functions range from the sensitive political assistance − which may be required by a person unjustly imprisoned or charged − through administrative functions such as renewal of a passport or registration of a birth 91 Constitutional Court of South Africa, Kaunda v President of the Republic of South Africa (2005) 4 South African L Reports 235 (CC), 44 I.L.M. 173, 35. 92 Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) 2 BvR419/80 (16 December 1980) 395-398. 93 Conseil d’Etat Décision No 429668, Ordonnance du 23 avril 2019. 94 ibid 2. 95 On the exception to the exhaustion of local remedies rule see ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection’ (n 84) art 15. See also C F Amerasinghe, Diplomatic Protection (OUP 2008) chapter 11. 96 Conseil d’Etat Décision No 429668 (n 93) 5.