Germany on Monday challenged Nicaragua’s claims that it has breached international obligations by supplying weapons to Israel, asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to dismiss the case brought against it.
Germany responded to proceedings instituted by Nicaragua in 2024 alleging that Germany breached the Genocide Convention, multiple Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, and other conventions of international law by supplying weapons to Israel in its continued attack on Gaza. Julia Monar, who acts as the agent of Germany in the case and is a legal adviser of the German foreign ministry, denied the claims on jurisdictional grounds. First, Monar argued that the ICJ requires a “dispute” in order to exercise jurisdiction over a case and that there is no dispute because Germany did not have the opportunity to respond to Nicaragua before the latter instituted proceedings. Second, she argued that Nicaragua’s claims refer to situations that predate Germany’s voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, which are therefore precluded from being litigated. Third, she argued that the case raises a new and “dangerous” precedent that the ICJ can inadvertently rule on the legality of the actions of third-party countries.
Monar also denied Nicaragua’s claim that Germany “persistently refuses to meet the most fundamental obligations imposed by international law,” insisting that “Germany’s domestic legal regime does not leave any leeway for Germany’s obligations under international law.” Monar expressed Germany’s “unwavering support for the existence and security of the state of Israel … resulting from Germany’s lasting historical responsibility.” She emphasized that Germany recognized Palestinians’ right to self-determination, expressing support for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.
Nicaragua is scheduled to deliver the first round of its oral argument on September 8. According to its application instituting proceedings, Nicaragua is set to argue that by continuing to supply weapons to Israel, Germany “has not only failed to fulfil its obligation to prevent the genocide committed and being committed against the Palestinian people – including those in its component part in the Gaza Strip – but has contributed to the commission of genocide.”
Germany has a long history of assisting Israel and is the second-largest supplier of arms to Israel. Olaf Scholz, a German politician who served as chancellor until 2025, declared in 2023 that the “only place” for Germany is by “Israel’s side.” He framed this as a ‘perpetual task’ arising from a “responsibility for the Holocaust.” Meanwhile, Nicaragua has a long history of solidarity with Palestine. Nicaragua was the first Central American nation to set up diplomatic relations with Palestine, a solidarity strengthened by the countries’ shared histories of colonization.
Facts Only
* Germany challenged Nicaragua's claims regarding international obligations by supplying weapons to Israel and requested dismissal from the ICJ.
* The representative denied jurisdictional claims by arguing the ICJ requires a dispute and that Germany did not have an opportunity to respond prior to proceedings.
* The representative argued Nicaragua’s claims related to situations predating Germany’s submission to the ICJ, precluding litigation.
* The representative asserted the case raised a precedent regarding third-party countries' legality.
* The representative denied claims that Germany persistently refuses fundamental international law obligations, stating domestic legal regimes do not leave room for such obligations.
* The representative expressed Germany’s support for Israel’s security based on historical responsibility and recognized Palestinian right to self-determination.
* Nicaragua intends to argue that continuing arms supply contributes to or fails to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people.
* Germany is the second-largest supplier of arms to Israel.
* Olaf Scholz stated in 2023 that Germany's position is by "Israel’s side" due to responsibility for the Holocaust.
* Nicaragua was the first Central American nation to establish diplomatic relations with Palestine.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The dynamic presented involves a tension between asserted state responsibility rooted in historical context and the procedural requirements of international adjudication. Germany frames its actions through a lens of historical obligation—responsibility for the Holocaust and support for the two-state solution—which attempts to establish a moral or historical constraint on contemporary legal obligations regarding arms supply. Conversely, Nicaragua frames the issue as a violation of fundamental prohibitions against genocide, linking current military actions directly to past responsibilities and ongoing duties. The dispute hinges on whether established state history grants immunity from present-day accountability under specific international conventions, or if the invocation of procedural fairness must supersede historical claims when addressing contemporary human rights law.
The narrative structure attempts to shift the focus from direct attribution of contemporary legal breaches to a debate over jurisdictional legitimacy and historical precedent. The strategic use of historical context—Germany’s role in the Holocaust versus Nicaragua's solidarity with Palestine—serves to establish opposing moral weightings rather than resolving the core factual dispute about adherence to specific treaties. This mechanism leverages established narratives of victimhood and responsibility to frame an ongoing legal contest, potentially obscuring whether the procedural arguments regarding jurisdiction successfully isolate the substance of the international law claims from the broader political context. The persistence of historical framing as a justification within a contemporary litigation context invites scrutiny on how moral imperatives are translated into enforceable jurisdictional facts.
BRIDGE QUESTIONS:
What criteria should legally prioritize historical responsibility versus contemporary state consent in adjudicating claims of international legal breach? How does the concept of 'responsibility' function when applied to actions undertaken by states that operate under distinct legal frameworks? If procedural arguments about jurisdiction are raised, what alternative avenues exist for addressing substantive claims of systemic violation when jurisdictional hurdles are deliberately constructed?