Nicaragua v. Germany

Starting on 7 October, Israel began bombing the Gaza Strip in response to Palestinian attacks earlier that day; a few weeks later, Israel invaded Gaza. As of 17 September 2025, Israel has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Most of the fatalities were women and children. As recognized by genocide studies scholars and numerous human rights organizations, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. South African application 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. 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. Israel's Foreign Ministry characterized South Africa's charges as "baseless" and further accused South Africa as "functioning as the legal arm" of Hamas. 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, and over 250 were taken hostage. Israel points to ongoing firing of missiles at civilian population centres, the kidnapping and holding of Israeli hostages in Gaza, 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. 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. 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". The court did not order Israel to suspend its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, which South Africa had requested. Both South African and Israeli officials welcomed the decision, with each considering it a victory. The court also expressed "grave concern" about the fate of the hostages held in the Gaza Strip ==Proceedings==

Nicaragua's application Jurisdiction 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. Oral proceedings On March 15, 2024, the court announced oral arguments would be heard on 8–9 April. Nicaragua presented its case on 8 April. German response was presented the following day. Provisional measures by the court On April 30, the court ruled against imposing any provisional measures, though declining to throw out Nicaragua's case, as requested by Germany. Germany's response to Nicaragua's application 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 (). 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. ==Commentary==

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". 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. 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. ==See also==