Nicaragua v. Germany | |
---|---|
Court | International Court of Justice |
Full case name | Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in Respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany) |
Started | 1 March 2024 |
Claim | "Germany is facilitating the commission of genocide and, in any case has failed in its obligation to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide." [1] : ¶ 16 |
Keywords | |
On 1 March 2024, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Germany at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under, inter alia, the Genocide Convention, concerning Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in Respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory arising from Germany's support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war. [2] [1] [3] It sought the indication of provisional measures of protection including the resumption of suspended German funding of the UNRWA and the cessation of military supplies to Israel. [3]
On 7 October, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups attacked Israel. Israel then invaded Gaza.
In earlier proceedings before the Court, South Africa alleged that Israel has committed, and is committing, genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in violation of the Genocide Convention, and places the charges in what it describes as the broader context of Israel's conduct towards Palestinians, including what South Africa described as a 75-year apartheid, 56-year occupation, and 16-year blockade of the Strip. [4] [5] South Africa requested that the ICJ render immediate provisional measures of protection by issuing an order to Israel to immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza. [6] [7]
Israel's Foreign Ministry characterized South Africa's charges as "baseless" [8] and further described South Africa as "functioning as the legal arm" of Hamas. [9] Israel argues that it is conducting a war of self-defence in accordance with international law following the Hamas-led attacks on its territory on 7 October 2023. Approximately 1,200 people, most of them civilians, were killed in these attacks. [10] Israel points to ongoing firing of missiles at civilian population centres, the kidnapping and holding of Israeli hostages in Gaza, [11] [12] and contends that its war cabinet and military authorities directives show no genocidal intent. While acknowledging the high incidence of civilian casualties, Israel attributes them to Hamas and other militant groups using civilian infrastructure as cover for their military assets and operations. [12] Israel asserts compliance with international law and claims to facilitate humanitarian aid into the territory. [10] [13]
The court issued an Order in relation to the provisional measures request on 26 January 2024, in which it ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal according to the 1948 Genocide Convention. [14] [15] [16] The court said "at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the [Genocide] Convention". [17] The court did not order Israel to suspend its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, which South Africa had requested. [18] [19] Both South African and Israeli officials welcomed the decision, with each considering it a victory. [20] The court also expressed "grave concern" about the fate of the hostages held in the Gaza Strip [14] and recognized the catastrophic situation in Gaza "at serious risk of deteriorating further" prior to a final verdict. [21]
Nicaragua submitted that both it and Germany have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court in the matter, since the reservations of neither party at the time of their acceptance of that jurisdiction include the present case. [1] : ¶¶ 20–3 Article IX of the Genocide Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the Court in disputes as to the "interpretation, application or fulfilment" of its provisions, and neither Nicaragua nor Germany have stated any reservations under which Article IX falls. [1] : ¶¶ 24–5 Nicaragua further submitted that such a dispute exists. [1] : ¶ 26 By a note verbale dated 2 February 2024 to the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, Nicaragua urged Germany to halt arms supplies to Israel and alleged that they could be used in violation of the Genocide Convention, denounced the suspension of funding of the UNRWA as contrary to Germany's obligations under international law, and accused Germany of failing to comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention. [1] : ¶ 27 In the note, Nicaragua said that, in view of its own obligations erga omnes partes, it was prepared to institute proceedings before the Court, and reminded Germany of its own obligations. [1] : ¶ 27 Nicaragua claimed that, because Germany "rejected the…contents" of a press release concerning the contents of the note verbale, a dispute exists concerning, inter alia, "the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention, the Geneva Conventions of 1949", and international law. [1] : ¶¶ 30–1
Nicaragua submitted that Germany was aware of "violations being committed by Israel from the moment of their first occurrence" including Israel's alleged intent to "target the civilian population, a clear act of collective punishment". [1] : ¶¶ 39–40 It cited the remarks of the Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, who said that "Israel's security is a German raison d'État", [1] : ¶ 44 supplies of weapons to Israel, [1] : ¶¶ 45, 47, 51, 53, 56 and concerns expressed about harm to Palestinian civilians and a risk of genocide. [1] : ¶¶ 41–3, 48–50, 52, 54–5 It argued that German policy on aid towards Palestinians "increased the vulnerability of the Palestinian population, particularly Gazans, and contributed to the very present risk of irreparable prejudice." [1] : ¶ 57 It claimed that Germany suspended funds on the basis of allegedly unreliable Israeli allegations that members of the UNRWA were involved in Hamas's attack of 7 October. [1] : ¶¶ 58–9 Nicaragua submitted that funding for the UNRWA was "relied upon" for the continuation of its work, on which "over two million people [depend]", [1] : ¶¶ 60–3 including for health services, [1] : ¶ 62 environmental health, pest control, water quality, education, and microfinance. [1] : ¶ 63 Nicaragua cited the UNRWA's warning that suspension of funding could lead to the cessation of its operations "by the end of February", despite the presence of widespread hunger in the Gazan population according to UN reports. [1] : ¶¶ 64–6
Nicaragua sought an adjudication and declaration that [1] : ¶ 67
Nicaragua further asked the court to indicate provisional measures pursuant to its own obligations erga omnes. [1] : ¶ 68 Nicaragua alleged an "imminent risk of a complete humanitarian catastrophe". [1] : ¶ 74 It cited the remarks of Israeli officials, [1] : ¶ 70 and UN officials. [1] : ¶¶ 71–3 It submitted that the court had prima facie jurisdiction because of the existence of a dispute between Nicaragua and Germany. [1] : ¶ 83–4 Nicaragua further submitted that both it and Germany had, in acceding to the Genocide Convention, "undertaken to prevent genocide", including prohibitions on certain acts and positive duties to seek to prevent such acts. [1] : ¶ 86 Nicaragua submitted that there was therefore a "risk of irreparable harm and [an] urgent need to protect the rights of the Palestinian people", that the court had already reached such a conclusion in earlier proceedings instituted by South Africa, [1] : ¶ 94 that it had expressed concern that the situation was worsening, [1] : ¶ 95 and that its application engaged not only the obligations under the Genocide Convention by which the court was concerned in those proceedings but also "those of convenitional[sic] and customary international law". [1] : ¶ 98 Accordingly, it submitted that "the rights Nicaragua seeks to preserve involv[e] the lives of hundreds of thousands of people". [1] : ¶ 99
Nicaragua therefore sought the indication of provisional measures including [1] : ¶ 101
The Rules of Court provide that "request[s] for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases". [22]
On March 15, 2024, the court announced oral arguments would be heard on 8–9 April. [23] Nicaragua presented its case on 8 April. [24] German response was presented the following day.
On April 26, it was announced that first ruling on provisional measures will be delivered on April 30. [25]
On April 30, the court ruled against provisional measures, though declining to throw out Nicaragua's case, as requested by Germany. [26] [27]
Germany responded that the case would be at odds with the "indispensable third party" principle established in the Monetary Gold case. It stated that only a small amount of the 326 million euros worth of arms/military equipment deliveries in 2023 would be for war weapons (Kriegswaffen). Moreover, 80% of exports since October 2023 occurred in that month alone. And despite the pause in payments to UNRWA since January 2024, the German government helped the Palestinians with payments to UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the International Red Cross. [28]
Imogen Saunders of the Australian National University wrote that Nicaragua's application was the "first…to allege contribution to the act of genocide rather than the commission of the act itself". [29] Saunders wrote that Nicaragua's case "rests on a finding that genocide is being committed in Gaza", in which case Israel would be an "indispensable third party" to the case; in the absence of an indispensable third party, a case is inadmissible. [29] Saunders suggests that Nicaragua may have intervened in South Africa's proceedings against Israel under Article 62 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice in order to avoid impediments to the admissibility of its case. [29]
The International Court of Justice, or colloquially the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.
The International law bearing on issues of Arab–Israeli conflict, which became a major arena of regional and international tension since the birth of Israel in 1948, resulting in several disputes between a number of Arab countries and Israel.
In legal terminology, erga omnes rights or obligations are owed toward all. Erga omnes is a Latin phrase which means "towards all" or "towards everyone". For instance, a property right is an erga omnes entitlement and therefore enforceable against anybody infringing that right.
Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice.
Kobi Peretz, is an Israeli singer who sings in the Mizrahi style.
A provisional measure of protection is the term that the International Court of Justice uses to describe a procedure "roughly equivalent" to an interim order in national legal systems. The order has also been termed in the press as preliminary measures. The carrying out of the procedure is termed indicating the provisional measure of protection. Requests for the indication of provisional measures of protection take priority over all other cases before the ICJ due to their urgency.
Ofer Cassif is a far-left Israeli politician who has represented Hadash in the Knesset since April 2019.
The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , commonly referred to as the Rohingya genocide case, is a case which is currently being heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case was brought forward by the Republic of The Gambia, on behalf of 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in 2019.
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, was a proceeding before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest legal body of the United Nations (UN), stemming from a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022 requesting the Court to render an advisory opinion relating to the legality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.
The State of Israel has been frequently accused of carrying out the crime of genocide against Palestinians during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Debate is ongoing as to whether Israel's treatment of Palestinians since the Nakba meets the definition of genocide or not; among those who argue that it does, debate is also ongoing as to whether the genocidal actions are continuous or limited to specific periods or events. This treatment has also been characterised as "slow-motion genocide", as well as a corollary or expression of settler colonialism and indigenous land theft.
Since the start of the Israel–Hamas war on 7 October 2023, the UN Human Rights Council has identified "clear evidence" of war crimes by both Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces. A UN Commission to the Israel–Palestine conflict stated that there is "clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed in the latest explosion of violence in Israel and Gaza, and all those who have violated international law and targeted civilians must be held accountable." On 27 October, a spokesperson for the OHCHR called for an independent court to review potential war crimes committed by both sides.
Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war. By mid-August 2024, after nine months of attacks, Israeli military action had resulted in over 40,000 confirmed Palestinian deaths—1 out of every 59 people in Gaza—averaging 148 deaths per day. Most of the victims are civilians, of whom at least 50% are women and children, and more than 100 journalists.
South Africa v. Israel is an ongoing case that was brought before the International Court of Justice on 29 December 2023 by South Africa regarding Israel's conduct in the Gaza Strip during the Israel–Hamas war, that resulted in a humanitarian crisis and mass killings.
Namibia–Palestine relations refer to foreign relations between Namibia and the State of Palestine.
The Israel–Hamas war has had significant effects on some major European Union member countries and institutions.
Germany–Nicaragua relations are friendly and are characterized by the numerous solidarity movements and aid associations in East and West Germany that were formed in the 1970s and 1980s. In 2024 relations became tense after Nicaragua accused Germany of aiding genocide in Palestine.
Younis Tirawi is a Palestinian journalist known for his investigative reporting concerning security and political affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. His recent work has focused on tracking social media accounts of Israeli soldiers, earning him recognition during the Gaza–Israel war. The findings of his investigative work are most notably cited by the South African Team at the ICJ in its legal case against Israel accusing it of genocide.
Since the beginning of the Israel–Hamas war in 2023, the Israeli military and authorities have been charged with committing war crimes, such as indiscriminate attacks on civilians in densely populated areas ; genocide; forced evacuations; the torture and executions of civilians; sexual violence; destruction of cultural heritage; collective punishment; and the mistreatment and torture of Palestinian prisoners. Humanitarian organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'tselem, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, the UN Human Rights Council, and human rights groups and experts, including United Nations special rapporteurs, have documented these actions.
Balkees Jarrah is a lawyer who serves as associate director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program.
'Long years of apartheid'... The South African lawyers have relied on UN reports, reports by Palestinian journalists and research by NGOs, because Israel prevents the international press from entering the Gaza Strip, as well as investigators from the International Criminal Court and the UN Human Rights Commission. They added that this genocide is committed "against a background of apartheid, expulsion, ethnic cleansing, annexation, occupation, discrimination and ongoing denial of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination."
In the court application, South Africa argues that the treatment of Palestinians also bears strong resemblance to South Africa's own racially motivated apartheid regime, which ended in 1994 with Mandela's election. "It is important," the submission reads, "to place the acts of genocide in the broader context of Israel's conduct towards Palestinians during its 75-year-long apartheid, its 56-year-long belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory and its 16-year-long blockade of Gaza, including the serious and ongoing violations of international law associated therewith, including grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and other war crimes and crimes against humanity."
... thousands of Hamas and other militants breached Israeli sovereign territory by sea, land and air, invading over 20 Israeli communities, bases and the site of a music festival. What proceeded, under the cover of thousands of rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel, was the wholesale massacre, mutilation, rape and abduction of as many citizens as the terrorists could find before Israel's forces repelled them. Openly displaying elation, they tortured children in front of parents, and parents in front of children, burned people, including infants, alive, and systematically raped and mutilated scores of women, men and children. All told, some 1,200 people were butchered that day, more than 5,500 maimed, and some 240 hostages abducted, including infants, entire families, persons with disabilities and Holocaust survivors, some of whom have since been executed; many of whom have been tortured, sexually abused and starved in captivity
The conflict with Hamas poses serious operational and legal challenges: in conducting close-quarter urban combat, while mitigating harm to the surroundings; in seeking to put a stop to Hamas' military use of hospitals, while minimizing disruption of medical services; in helping civilians leave areas of the most intense fighting, while Hamas forces them to stay in the line of fire; in facilitating the provision of aid, when that aid is constantly stolen by Hamas, to sustain its military efforts; in balancing humanitarian considerations with the need to act forcefully against an adversary that still fires rockets deep into our country and holds our citizens hostage.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)