Nicaragua v. Germany

Background of the case

This case was filed on March 1, 2024 at the International Court of Justice by the republic of Nigargua which is a nation located in the Central American region.

Some speculations on the filing of this case by Nigargua is-

Nicaragua’s current political crisis which stems from a series of events that began in April 2018, when proposed social security reforms sparked widespread protests. The government’s violent crackdown on these demonstrations led to hundreds of deaths and intensified public dissent. Since then, President Daniel Ortega’s administration has been accused of increasing authoritarianism, including the suppression of political opposition, the closure of non-governmental organizations, and the persecution of religious and civil society leaders.

In March 2024, Nicaragua filed a case against Germany at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Germany’s political, financial, and military support of Israel contributed to acts of genocide in Gaza.

This action suggest that this legal action may serve multiple purposes for the Nicaraguan government. Domestically, it could be an attempt to divert attention from internal issues by focusing on international matters. Internationally, the case aligns Nicaragua with countries critical of Western policies, potentially strengthening its geopolitical alliances. Reports indicate that Russia pressured Nicaragua to file this case, suggesting that external influences may also play a role in Nicaragua’s decision to pursue this legal action[1].

Key Legal Frameworks Include[2]

1. Genocide Convention (1948): Defines genocide and obligates states to prevent and punish it; Nicaragua alleges Germany violated this through support to Israel.
2. Provisional Measures: Nicaragua requested the ICJ to order Germany to suspend military aid to Israel and restore funding to UNRWA, which was declined.
3. Monetary Gold Principle: The ICJ cannot rule on a case involving the interests of a third state (e.g., Israel) not party to the proceedings, posing a jurisdictional challenge.

The primary reliefs requested by Nicaragua in this case include[3]

1. Cessation of Military Aid: Nicaragua seeks an order for Germany to immediately suspend all military aid and assistance to Israel that could be used in the Gaza Strip in violation of the Genocide Convention.
2. Prevention of Weapon Misuse: Nicaragua requests that Germany ensures weapons already delivered to Israel are not utilized to commit acts of genocide.
3. Resumption of UNRWA Funding: Nicaragua urges Germany to reverse its decision to suspend funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and to continue supporting its operations in Gaza.

Germany, in response, has requested the ICJ to dismiss Nicaragua’s application, arguing that the case is inadmissible. Germany contends that the ICJ lacks jurisdiction, citing the Monetary Gold principle, which posits that the Court cannot adjudicate a dispute if it would require assessing the legal interests of a state that is not a party to the proceedings—in this instance, Israel.

Additionally, Germany has provided assurances that its actions are in compliance with international law and that its military aid to Israel is not intended for use in the Gaza Strip in violation of the Genocide Convention. Germany has also highlighted its continued support for

Palestinian civilians through alternative channels, such as contributions to UNICEF, the World Food Programme, and the International Red Cross, despite the suspension of funding to

UNRWA.

Germany Position and Defense

Germany has presented a multifaceted defense addressing both jurisdictional and substantive aspects[4]:

1. Jurisdictional Challenge: Germany contended that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction over the case, invoking the Monetary Gold principle. This principle asserts that the Court cannot adjudicate disputes that would require it to rule on the legal interests of a state not party to the proceedings—in this instance, Israel. Germany argued that assessing its actions would inherently involve evaluating Israel’s conduct, thereby rendering the case inadmissible.

2. Nature of Military Exports: Addressing Nicaragua’s allegations regarding military aid, Germany clarified that a significant portion of its arms exports to Israel consisted of non-lethal equipment, such as test weapons and helmets. Germany emphasized that only a small fraction of the €326 million worth of military equipment delivered in 2023 qualified as war weapons (Kriegswaffen). Furthermore, it noted that 80% of these exports since October 2023 occurred in that month alone, suggesting a concentration of deliveries within a specific timeframe.

3. Continued Humanitarian Support: In response to criticisms about suspending funding to the United Nations Relief and Works. Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), Germany highlighted its ongoing commitment to Palestinian welfare. Despite halting direct payments to UNRWA since January 2024, Germany continued to support Palestinians through contributions to organizations such as UNICEF, the World Food Programme, and the International Red Cross. This approach underscored Germany’s dedication to humanitarian assistance while addressing concerns about specific channels of aid. 

 A time line of the case in the ICJ and its progress

1. March 1, 2024

    Nicaragua initiates legal proceedings: 

• Nicaragua formally files a case against Germany at the ICJ, alleging violations of international law.
• The nature of these allegations seems to involve military assistance provided to Israel, which Nicaragua contests as a breach of international legal norms.

2. April 8–9, 2024

   ICJ releases its ruling on provisional measures

• The ICJ issues a decision clarifying why it denied Nicaragua’s request for provisional measures. Provisional measures are temporary rulings aimed at preventing potential harm while the case is ongoing.
• The ICJ likely found that Nicaragua failed to demonstrate a sufficient risk of irreparable harm or urgency, which are essential criteria for granting such measures.

3. April 30, 2024

   Public hearings on provisional measures

• The ICJ holds public hearings specifically focused on Nicaragua’s request for provisional measures regarding Germany’s alleged military assistance to Israel. This indicates that Nicaragua sought immediate judicial action, likely requesting the ICJ to prevent further military support from Germany during the legal proceedings.

4. May 1, 2024

   ICJ rules against provisional measures

• Following the hearings, the ICJ rules against Nicaragua’s request for provisional measures. The court finds that the evidence presented does not justify immediate action, as it fails to meet the required threshold for urgency and irreparable harm.

5. September 2024

   Legal preparations continue 

• Both parties (Nicaragua and Germany) engage in preparations for the next phases of the case. This involves exchanging written submissions, presenting legal arguments, and gathering expert testimonies to support their respective positions in the dispute.

6. January 23, 2025

   Ongoing proceedings 

• By this date, the case is still active at the ICJ. The focus of the proceedings now shifts to the substantive legal arguments surrounding Nicaragua’s allegations against Germany. This likely includes discussions on the legality of Germany’s actions under international law and whether Nicaragua’s claims are valid.

The arguments presented by both the parties

Nigargua alleged that germany aid to Israel has helped isaale in the acts of genocide which are been done on the people of gaza and that germany has violated it’s obligations under the international treties

Germany has defended by stating that its military aid to Israel is non lethal and is in compliance with international laws and is provided for assisting in Israel’s right to self defence.

There were no major witnesses presented by either of Nigargua or Germany till now but only oral arguments have been done

The court denied Nigarguas application for implementation of provisional measures because[5]

1. Lack of Urgency: Judge Iwasawa noted that the requirement of urgency was not met, as Germany’s statements during the proceedings indicated that there was no imminent risk of irreparable harm.
2. Prima Facie Jurisdiction and Plausibility: Judge Sebutinde observed that Nicaragua failed to establish the necessary criteria for provisional measures, including prima facie jurisdiction and the plausibility of the rights it sought to protect. She also highlighted that the dispute had not crystallized between the parties at the time of the request.
3. Monetary Gold Principle: Judge Sebutinde further pointed out that the Court’s jurisdiction was barred by the Monetary Gold principle, as determining Germany’s responsibility would require assessing the conduct of Israel, a non-party to the proceedings

This case’s Significance on International laws are

1. State Responsibility and Genocide: This case highlights the application of the Genocide Convention and the responsibility of states for preventing genocide, even indirectly through military support.

2. Jurisdictional Challenges and the Monetary Gold Principle: It emphasizes the Monetary Gold principle, limiting the ICJ’s jurisdiction when a third state’s interests are involved, particularly when assessing actions of non-party states like Israel[6].

3. Provisional Measures and International Obligations: case underscores the stringent criteria required for granting provisional measures, stressing the importance of demonstrating urgency and irreparable harm.

Future predictions of the case

If In Favor of Nicaragua:

If the ICJ rules in favor of Nicaragua, it could set a precedent for states being held accountable for contributing to genocide indirectly through military aid, influencing how international law views state responsibilities in conflicts involving human rights violations.

It could also lead to stronger obligations for states to ensure that their actions, such as arms exports, do not contribute to violations of the Genocide Convention or international humanitarian law.

If In Favor of Germany

A ruling in favor of Germany would reinforce the Monetary Gold principle, affirming that the ICJ has limited jurisdiction over cases that require assessing the actions of third-party states not involved in the proceedings.

Germany’s defense could also lead to clarification on the limitations of international obligations in cases where support to a state (like military aid) does not directly violate international law, potentially narrowing the scope of liability for states providing indirect support.

 

References

[1] ‘The Republic of Nicaragua Institutes Proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany and Requests the Court to Indicate Provisional Measures | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE’ <https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203822> accessed 26 January 2025.

[2] ‘The Republic of Nicaragua Institutes Proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany and Requests the Court to Indicate Provisional Measures | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE’ (n 1).

[3] Ibid.

[4] ‘Germany Presents Defense at ICJ over Gaza “genocide” Claim – DW – 04/09/2024’ (dw.com) <https://www.dw.com/en/germany-presents-defense-at-icj-over-gaza-genocide-claim/a-68773398> accessed 26 January 2025.

[5] ‘Provisional Measures | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE’ <https://www.icj-cij.org/taxonomy/term/409> accessed 26 January 2025.

[6] ‘Interventions and Inadmissibility: Nicaragua v Germany, the Monetary Gold Principle and the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice | ANU Law School’ <https://law.anu.edu.au/interventions-and-inadmissibility-nicaragua-v-germany-monetary-gold-principle-and-genocide> accessed 26 January 2025.