Germany defends genocide case before the UN Supreme Court

Germany has said Israel's security is the “core” of its foreign policy, as it defends the genocide case against it in the UN's highest court.

Nicaragua had accused it of violating the United Nations Convention on Genocide by sending military equipment to Israel and halting funding for the United Nations relief agency.

Berlin rejected these allegations before the International Court of Justice in The Hague on Tuesday.

In 2023, about 30% of Israel's purchases of military equipment came from Germany.

Purchases totaled €300 million ($326 million, £257 million).

Israel rejects accusations that it is committing acts of genocide in its campaign in Gaza, and insists that it has the right to defend itself.

The Hamas-run Ministry of Health there says that more than 33,000 people were killed in the Israeli attack on Gaza, the majority of them civilians. Gaza is on the brink of famine, with Oxfam reporting that 300,000 people trapped in the north have been living since January on an average of 245 calories a day.

Nicaragua says German arms sales to Israel, which totaled $326.5 million last year — a tenfold increase from 2022 — make it complicit in Israel's alleged war crimes. The Central American country has taken the case to The Hague to ask judges to issue emergency measures to prevent Berlin from supplying Israel with weapons and other aid.

Germany's delegate strongly rejected the accusations, saying on Tuesday that the Nicaragua case – which she said was rushed and based on the “weakest evidence” – was more directed towards Israel.

“Nicaragua insists [on] File a lawsuit against Germany before this court, [and] It took a one-sided view of the conflict. “She fails to properly weigh the facts and the law in this case,” attorney Tanja von Oslar Gletschen said Tuesday.

“Our history is the reason why Israel’s security is at the heart of German foreign policy,” she told the court.

“Where Germany has provided support to Israel, including in the form of exports of arms and other military equipment, the quality and purposes of these supplies have been grossly distorted by Nicaragua.”

She said in her opening speech that Germany is doing its “utmost to fulfill its responsibility” towards Palestinians and Israelis alike.

She added that it is Germany's duty to remind Israel of the rules of international humanitarian law even when it exercises its “right to self-defense.”

Regarding the issue of stopping its funding for the UN aid agency, she said that Germany was among the largest international donors to Gaza in 2024.

Another lawyer representing Germany, Christian Thames, said Germany had resumed funding operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), a fact “ignored by Nicaragua.”

According to papers submitted to the International Court of Justice, Nicaragua has asked the UN Supreme Court to resume funding for the relief agency, one of the few international bodies still operating in Gaza.

On Monday, the opening day of the trial, Nicaraguan lawyers said Berlin was “pathetic” for supplying weapons to Israel while at the same time providing humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.

Alain Pele, a lawyer for Nicaragua, said it was “urgent for Germany to suspend ongoing sales.”

He told the judges that “Germany was, and remains, fully aware of the danger that the weapons it provided and continues to supply to Israel could be used” to commit genocide.

The Nicaragua case has raised broader questions about the accountability of countries that have been supplying weapons to Israel since the start of the conflict in Gaza.

Michael Baker, a law professor at Trinity College Dublin, told the BBC on Monday that there was uncertainty about states' obligations to prevent genocide or ensure respect for humanitarian law. He said the case against Germany could help clarify the issue.

“Under international law, states can also be held liable for aiding or assisting another state’s violations of international law,” he noted.

“But international law relating to aiding or assisting in the commission of an unlawful act is full of uncertainty. For example, it may not be clear whether Nicaragua needs to prove that Germany knew that its assistance to Israel risked contributing to violations of international law, but that Germany intended this result.

Critics of the Nicaragua case have highlighted the country's checkered human rights record. The government of President Daniel Ortega imprisoned opponents and banned protests. In March, the UK's mission to the United Nations accused the government of a “relentless” crackdown on human rights.