THE HAGUE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds public hearings in the case Nicaragua v. Germany

Please be seated. The sitting is open. The Court meets today to hear the first round of oral arguments of Nicaragua on the preliminary objections raised by Germany in the case concerning alleged breaches of certain international obligations in respect of the occupied Palestinian territory, Nicaragua v. Germany. For reasons duly made known to me, Judge Bhandari is unable to sit with us today. After ascertaining the views of the parties, the Court decided, pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 2 of its Rules, that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed thereto will be made accessible to the public. In accordance with the Court practice, these pleadings and documents annexed will be placed on the court's website. I shall now give the floor to His Excellency, Mr. Carlos Arguello Gomez, agent of Nicaragua. You have the floor, sir.

Mr. President, members of the court, good morning. It is an honor to appear before you once again as agent of Nicaragua, accompanied and assisted by a team of colleagues who will plead before this court to address a matter concerning not only Nicaragua's rights and obligations, but those of the entire international community, and most crucially, the rights of the Palestinian people, whose representatives are also part of our delegation. Before continuing, I would like to extend our congratulations and welcome to a newly elected registrar, Mr. Santiago Villalpando. Mr. President, Nicaragua invokes Germany's responsibility in connection to multiple violations of international law, particularly in respect of the odious scourge of genocide and international humanitarian law, the right to self-determination, and the prohibition of racial discrimination racial segregation, and apartheid. It involves Germany's obligations under treaty law and customary international law. The claims made by Nicaragua involve the most serious breaches of obligations arising under perentory norms of general international law. Mr. President, it has been more than two years since Nicaragua filed this case and submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures. The court's order of 30 April 2024 recalled that all states, and I'm quoting, "All states parties are under an obligation to respect and ensure respect for the Geneva Convention in all circumstances, and that the Genocide Convention requires state parties that are aware or that should normally have been aware of the serious risk that acts of genocide would have been committed to employ all means possible or means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide so far as possible. The Court also considered particularly important to remind all states of their international obligations relating to a transfer of arms to parties to an armed conflict in order to avoid the risk that such arms might be used to violate these conventions. You specifically pointed out that all these obligations are incumbent upon Germany as a state party to the said conventions in supply of arms to Israel. Mr. President, would I, going further for the moment, be permitted to make two comments on the text of your order just cited? First of all, as the Genocide Convention recognizes in its preamble, "At all periods," and I quote, "At all periods of history, genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity," end of quote. So the scourge of genocide is not new. But what is new in the case before us is the way it is being carried out publicly and live-streamed. This is something that has never happened before. The crimes for which the Nazis were punished in Nuremberg, particularly the inhumane acts committed against the civilian population of the different countries in which it was perpetrated, were not publicized at the time of commission. Even the horrible scenes of the emaciated survivors of the concentration and extermination camps are photos and videos taken only after their liberation. Over the past three years, every single day, people around the world bear witness to horrible scenes of brutality, suffering, and destruction. Schoolchildren in Germany are probably more aware today of what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territory, and particularly the Gaza Strip, than their ancestors were of the horrors of the Nazi regime. The consequence of all these crimes being committed in public, with all cameras running, is important for the present case. Despite the news blackout imposed by Israel, there cannot be any doubt that the German government is fully aware of the crimes being committed by Israel. If even the general public is aware of it, whether or not they know the name to give it, It is impossible that with the type of political, commercial, and military relations with Germany with Israel, it could not be aware, or normally should have been aware, of the serious risk that acts that could amount to genocide were being committed by Israel, and to have employed all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide as far as possible. The means recently available were enormous. Germany is the second largest provider of weapons to Israel. and second largest business partner. Germany's agent spoke about what she described as the horrific events of 7 October 2023. But while she boasted about Germany sending money and other forms of assistance to the occupied Palestinian territories, there was not a word of sympathy, of condolences, of concern about the tens of thousands of Palestinian children and other non-combatants who have lost their lives who have lost their limbs, who have no homes, who are living in the wasteland that Israel's army has imposed upon the people of the Gaza Strip, and of the Palestinians who live in the West Bank, who every single day suffer violent attacks by settlers who are protected and encouraged by Israel's government. Mr. President, one of the main claims of Germany before this court today is that Israel is an indispensable party to these proceedings. That is, that only with Israel being a party to this case can it be established that there is even a danger of genocide that would impose the obligation to prevent it. Although our case is not limited to the obligation to prevent and ensure respect in various conventions, as well as in customary law, it is illogical to presume that it is necessary for Israel to be present in order for the Court to determine that genocide is taking place and hence the obligation to prevent exists. that it is possible that violations of international humanitarian law might be taking place, and thus the obligation to ensure respect exists. Mr. President, what Israel is doing is a question of fact that has been amply established in differing instances, including the advisory opinion in order of this Court. This Court, at this point, will be amply covered by Professor Peled in the course of this pleading. Nicaragua's claims rest entirely upon the allegations of Germany. It was Germany who, on 11 and 12 October 2023, declared, and I quote, that there was only one place for Germany, the place at the side of Israel, end of quote. It was Germany that offered Israel all the support in every area. It was Germany who, in November 2023, publicly stated that it opposed a ceasefire. It was also Germany who authorized and continues to authorize millions in military exports, despite this court's pronouncement that, I quote, "All these obligations are incumbent upon Germany as a state party to the said conventions in its supply of arms to Israel." End of quote. Mr. President, the second comment I would make about your order of 30 April 2024, reminding Germany of its international obligations relating to a transfer of arms to parties to an armed conflict, including Israel, is that this order and all the international obligations and instruments on which this order was based upon have been entirely ignored by Germany. Certainly, Germany has claimed since the oral hearings on provisional measures in April 2024 that it checked compliance with international humanitarian law on a case-by-case basis and for each of the export authorizations granted. It has given various statements over the past three years expressing concern for the catastrophic situation in Gaza, acknowledging that international humanitarian law has been truly violated. And yet, Germany has not only never stopped supporting military equipment to Israel, but also opposed and blocked broad state-level actions against Israel in compliance with international law. Germany affirmed before this Court that 98% of exports were only subordinate protective equipment and went on to authorise millions in military equipment and components for lethal weapons and ammunition directly after the hearings on provisional measures. Between early April 2024 and the end of June 2026, the value of individual export licenses granted amounted to 1,154,046,124 euros. Germany supposedly declared a strict halt on authorizations of exports of military equipment bound for Gaza Strip in August 2025. Yet, at the same time, it allows shipments based upon previously approved equipment to continue. In fact, as an Israeli official described it, and I quote, "This was mainly symbolic," end of quote. In November 2025, Germany started again to approve exports of considerable value. But in contrast to its declarations, Germany's profound indifference to international humanitarian law does not end there. In November 2025, Germany participated in, and I quote, "an international seminar organized by the Israeli Armed Forces on operational lessons from the war across all arenas, aimed at strengthening cooperation, enhancing familiarity with diverse operational approaches, exchanging professional knowledge and experience between the participating militaries, and reinforcing understanding of the IDF's activities." End of quote. In January this year, both countries concluded a cybersecurity pact. This normalizes the unlawful combat methods and tactics that have resulted in well-documented atrocities against Palestinians. In the first half of 2026, Germany has already approved almost 800 million euros in arm exports to Israel. Yesterday, Germany has stated that it receives, and I quote, "assurances from Israel that military equipment will be used in accordance with international humanitarian law." End of quote. These assurances, whatever they are worth, do not waive Germany's obligation not to supply weapons to Israel, as recalled in the order of the court. But the commerce of military weapons is not only one way. Israel also sells large amounts of security and military equipment to Germany. Most conspicuously, Germany's 2023 contract to buy the Arrow 3 missile system from Israel initially valued at $3.5 billion, was further expanded in December 2025 to another $3.1 billion, bringing the total figure to $6.6 billion. This was described as the largest defense export contract in Israel's history. Now, Germany has announced that it wants to purchase from Israel the Arrow 4 missile system. And although a price tag remains a closely guarded secret, One requires little imagination to see the astronomical numbers in the war. As described by an Israeli diplomat, I quote, "These deals tie countries into a long-term relationship with Israel, which help curves moves towards sanctions against Israel." End of quote. In a recent visit to Israel, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that Germany and Israel are bound by a mutual security partnership, and further stated that our relations with Israel can never be seen independently of the responsibility that Germany bears for the security of the only Jewish state in light of the Shoah, that most atrocious crime against humanity committed by Germans. End of quote. Germany claims that this responsibility has the force of a Staatsrason. This was reiterated by Germany yesterday. So let us consider this for a moment. The trial of the war criminals at Nuremberg was for multiple crimes against humanity as a whole, and not only for Jewish. If there is a sincere moral imperative justifying this, it must be for the responsibility for all these crimes against humanity. and should involve the obligation to do all possible to stop this from happening to other human beings. A sincere raison d'etat would see Germany doing everything possible to stop the crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinian people. Another less dignified aspect of the way this raison d'etat has evolved is by covering with a moral layer the highly lucrative business for both German and Israeli weapons manufacturers. I have pointed out above the huge amount of business involved in the mutual buying and selling of weapons. Mr. President, in spite of the statement yesterday, and I quote, that Germany's domestic legal regime does not leave any leeway for Germany's international legal obligations under international law to be disregarded, end of quote, German foreign policy is best illustrated in the words of the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, who explained in July, in reference to international law, "that legal systems are there to provide guidance, but they are never followed 100% to the letter." Mr. President, Germany has emphasized that it has recently supported individual sanctions by the European Union against the Israeli Minister of National Security. This action was immediately taken by Germany after the minister advocated nightly executions of Gazans. This statement was described by the German Chancellor as inhumane and as an explicit violation of international law. One is compelled to wonder, how is this statement any different from the other statements in conduct by Israeli officials since October 2023? For example, when the Israeli prime minister referred to Palestinians as bloodthirsty monsters and described Palestinian children as children of darkness, while also inciting the killing alike of men, women, and children by citing biblical passages. Or when the Minister of Defense announced a complete siege because Palestinians were human animals and declared that he had removed every restriction on the Israeli military. or when the same Minister of National Security said that they are all terrorists, that they should also be destroyed. Mr. President, I reviewed the judgment of the Israeli court on the Nazi criminal Eichmann to see if statements of this nature were part of his indictment. I found none. The comments of Hannah Arendt on this trial, famously recalled as the banality of evil, have no mention of Eichmann's enticement involving this type of assertions, now commonly reiterated by Israeli officials. This Court has in record all the explicit statements dehumanizing Palestinians, inciting genocide and war crimes, and yet Germany has always effectively opposed any measures in response to this conduct. That was the case in April 2024, when I refused to review the association agreement with Israel. In June, August 2024, when he led a group of nations against a proposal in sanctioning Israeli ministers for incitement to war crimes. Similarly, in August 2025, Germany opposed the suspension of scientific research funding for Israeli entities. It was also the case two months ago in July, when some European countries attempted to introduce a ban on products from territories illegally occupied or restrict government officials from Israel. In fact, Germany described those measures as inappropriate. The current Minister of Foreign Affairs has visited Israel 10 times since he was appointed last year. It seems that it is business as usual despite the increasingly catastrophic situation for Palestinians. Mr. President, if Germany is so secure in the legality and morality of the raison d'etat that is supposed to inspire its dealings with Israel, then it should welcome the opportunity afforded by this case to explain and justify its reasons. And yet we are now involved in an attempt by Germany to avoid at all costs that its actions be judged by this Court. These legal questions will be dealt in the following way. Dr. Cruzatto will address the question of the existence of a dispute in all detail. At this point, I will only comment that Nicaragua and Germany's position concerning the question of the performance or non-performance of certain international obligations incumbent on Germany are irreconcilable and have been from the very beginning. On 12 January 2024, a few days after South Africa filed its application against Israel for violations of the Convention on Genocide, Germany announced publicly that it would be filing an intervention in support of Israel. Germany went on to describe South Africa's genocide allegations as baseless and even warned against political instrumentalization of this charge against Israel. If there was any doubt about the contrasting positions and the existence of a dispute, it should be recalled that Nicaragua filed a request to intervene in the South Africa v. Israel case on 7 February 2024, on the basis of Article 62 of the Statute, asserting the same claims as South Africa. Mr. President, Germany has indicated that a significant number of Nicaragua's claims do not relate to situations or facts subsequent to 30 April 2008. It has taken particular issue with the position of Nicaragua considering the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people to have long been violated long before 2008. Although Dr. Mueller will address how Germany's preliminary objection based on the temporal limitation of this declaration is without merit, I will make a small point. The facts and situations mentioned by Nicaragua that occurred prior to 30 April 2008 are part of and inform the historical background of the case. They merely reveal the gravity of the conduct with regard to the Palestinians which Nicaragua has submitted to a Court scrutiny. How could it be otherwise, given Germany's Statlason is blind devotion and loyalty to Israel's attacks on the Palestinian people that go back to Israel's very beginnings. But let me restate very clearly that each of Germany's violations invoked by Nicaragua are stand-alone acts whose legality must be appraised on its own merits. In simple terms, what Germany claims is that since the rights of the Palestinian people have been violated since long before 2008, then Germany must have been responsible for the violations of its own obligations ever since, and that reiteration of such violations occurring after the critical date are excluded. This is an unheard extension of the temporal limitation used by some states when accepting the court's jurisdiction. If Germany really intended to exclude consent to a court jurisdiction over any responsibility with respect to crimes committed by Israel after 2008, that were of the same nature as those committed before that date and hence supposed to exclude its erga omnes obligations derived from these crimes, then it should have stated that clearly. It would have been a very embarrassing reservation to the Court's jurisdiction if it had been expressed so clearly, but that is in fact what they are now claiming under the cloud of legalism. Mr. President, The scope of this case extends beyond the crimes of genocide, as it encompasses a pattern of racial discrimination, racial segregation, and apartheid, one that has been facilitated by Germany. Germany asserts in its preliminary objections that the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims. Professor Himsay will explain in detail how Germany urges in its assertions and misconstrues the terms of Article 22 of the Convention. Dr. Powers will afterwards explain that, in fact, Article 22 of the Convention does not bar the Court's jurisdiction over breaches of the Convention in light of the urgency and circumstances of the present case. Mr. President, the question of the so-called monetary gold principle will be addressed by Professor Pelley. At this point, I would emphasize that Nicaragua is not requesting the Court to adjudge that Israel has committed these violations and is responsible for them. Your judgment will be binding only between Germany and Nicaragua. If this judgment were a judgment on Israel's rights and obligations, with conclusions directed at Israel, then it could have been considered as a possible indispensable party. But Nicaragua is only asking for a judgment against Germany. If Israel considers that it is an indispensable party, it should ask to join the case or intervene in any other way. we would certainly not oppose an appropriate attempt to do so. Nicaragua's optional clause acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction and the fact that it is also a party to the Genocide Convention, of which Israel is also a party, have forced Israel the possibility of bringing a case against Nicaragua for its statements that it had violated the Genocide Convention and international humanitarian law. Any judgment by the Court on this case would not remove this possibility for Israel of presenting such a case, since this Court has not been asked to rule anything against Israel. Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank you for your kind attention. May I ask you to please give the floor to Dr. Crosato.

I thank the agent of Nicaragua for his statement. I now invite Dr. Alfredo Crosato Newman to take the floor. You have the floor, sir.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is an honor to appear before you on behalf of the Republic of Nicaragua. As announced by the Agent, I shall address Germany's first preliminary objection, the alleged inexistence of a dispute between the parties. This objection is entirely without merit. That may be easily dismissed. As Nicaragua showed in its written statement, and as I will further explain in responding to what Germany said yesterday, such dispute most certainly exists, and this jurisdictional requirement is met in the present case. I shall proceed as follows. I will first say a few words about the criteria to determine the existence of a dispute. I will then address the facts showing that a dispute existed by 1 March 2024. when these proceedings were instituted. And finally, I shall recall Germany's subsequent conduct, rejecting at every opportunity Nicaragua's claims. Mr. President, I turn first to the criteria to determine the existence of a dispute between the parties. I can be brief on this point, as those criteria are well known, and the parties are largely in agreement on them. A dispute, as the Court has consistently noted, is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or interests, where the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other. Determining the existence of a dispute is a matter of substance, not of form or procedure, and requires an objective assessment of the facts. A disagreement need not necessarily be stated expressis verbis. Whatever the professed view of a party, its actual position can be inferred from the facts. This is so also when a state fails to respond to a claim in circumstances calling for a response. Keeping with the prevalence of substance over form, the Court has flexibly applied the criteria I have just mentioned, not least when seized of a case under exceptional circumstances. Most recently, in allegations of genocide, the Court found that a dispute between Ukraine and Russia existed concerning the alleged breaches of Articles 1 and 4 of the Genocide Convention by Russia. The Court found it sufficient that Ukraine had advanced that claim very broadly in a public statement and only hours before the seising of the Court. Germany, intervening under Article 63 of the Statute in those proceedings, supported such a flexible approach. There is, Mr. President, one particular point on which the parties do disagree. Germany suggests that in this case, this criteria should not be applied in the way the court normally applies them. It refers to Nicaragua's claims as exceptional or unique, arguing that the dispute is twice removed from a usual bilateral dispute. Because of this, according to Germany, the usual test should be stringently applied. This was repeated yesterday in a somewhat more convoluted manner. It was suggested that the Court should apply the usual test, not a different test, not a stricter test. Germany called upon the Court to be strict in the application of the requirements of the usual test. Be that as it may, this position has no basis in law. There is no precedent in the Court's case law, nor any other authority supporting it. In fact, the Court has been seized of several cases by states not directly injured by the alleged breach of an international obligation, such as those involving East Timor, Myanmar, Syria, and Israel. The court has never suggested that the criteria to determine the existence of a dispute should be applied any differently. And there is indeed no good reason to do so here. Germany's characterization of the court's usual context might have had some relevance in the previous century, but it is no longer the right way to describe things. States seek the court's intervention in a growing number of circumstances that are not situated in a purely bilateral context. A significant number of contentious cases, as I just noted, rely on the erga omnes principle. Advisory opinions, five of them within the past seven years, respond to requests from large majorities of states who actively participate in the proceedings before the court. This multilateralization characterizes the Court's activities in recent years. It manifests in an unprecedented manner. Great expectation from states and confidence in the Court to deliver rulings that promote the principles and purposes of the United Nations. In any event, it is not clear what Germany expects when it refers to a stringent or strict application of the usual test. The suggestion essentially appears to be that Nicaragua should have sought prior negotiations with Germany and that the Court should have insisted only after such negotiations failed. Yet such a precondition would be inconsistent with the criteria to determine the existence of a dispute, which only require opposing views between the parties. Such a precondition is also not found in two of the bases of jurisdiction invoked by Nicaragua, Article 9 of the Genocide Convention and Germany's optional clause declaration of 30 April 2008. Germany made a new declaration on 21 October 2025 with effect from 30 October. That new declaration does contain a condition on prior negotiations, but it cannot be retroactively applied to these proceedings, which were instituted when Germany's 2008 declaration was valid. If anything, Germany's new declaration confirms that the 2008 declaration did not contain such a precondition and that it is not a pre-existing bar to jurisdiction. To the extent that Germany seeks such retroactive application when calling for a stringent test, which would appear to be the case, such position must be rejected. Mr. President, I now turn to the facts showing that a dispute existed at the time of the filing of the application. Nicaragua formulated its claims against Germany on two occasions in early February 2024. It did so in a note verbale from its foreign ministry addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany on 1 February 2024, which laid down several claims for what Nicaragua considered breaches by Germany of its obligations under international law. And it did so in a press release issued by the government of Nicaragua also on February 1st, addressing alleged violations of international law by Germany, as well as Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. These documents, which should be read together, are available at tabs three and four of your folders. Nicaragua's legal position was conveyed clearly and comprehensively. Both documents indicated first the urgent context of Nicaragua's claims. Among other things, Nicaragua referred to the ongoing military actions carried out by Israel in the Gaza Strip since the events of 7 October 2023, as well as the Court's provisional measures order of 26 January 2024 in the South Africa-Israel case. It was recalled that the Court, alongside various UN organs, agencies, special rapporteurs and independent experts, had warned of the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza the use of hate speech against the Palestinians, and the risk of genocide, along with breaches of IHL. Nicaragua also spelled out the rules of international law that it considered were being breached by Germany. The note verbale and press release referred to violations by Germany of the Genocide Convention, in particular the obligation to prevent genocide, IHL, including the law of occupation, the principle of self-determination, and related rules of customary international law. Germany's conduct contrary to these rules was laid down as well. Nicaragua referred to, among others, the supply of arms, ammunition, military technology and components to Israel, the suspension of funding to UNRWA, and more generally to Germany's contribution to the collective punishment of the Palestinians and to the apparent objective of forcing the Palestinian population to leave the occupied Palestinian territory. Germany does not contest that Nicaragua set out some of its claims in the notarial and press release, but it maintains that what are now central claims of Nicaragua's case, as reflected in the memorial, were not mentioned in these documents. Germany refers specifically to Nicaragua's claims relating to self-determination, racial discrimination, racial segregation, and apartheid, non-recognition and non-assistance, and the obligation to prosecute and punish. This argument, Mr. President, is based on a far too restrictive reading of the notarial and press release, taken out of their context. What matters is not whether a specific rule is expressly mentioned, but whether its subject matter is referred to with sufficient clarity. In this regard, Germany appears to be confused between the subject matter of the dispute and the underlying argument for it. As explained in the written statement, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination was in fact expressly mentioned in the non-verbal and press release, and the continuing denial of that right has always been a central part of Nicaragua's claims. Claims concerning racial discrimination are also readily apparent. from the references in the notarial and press release to IHL and customary international law. This body of law, as is well known, prohibits various forms of discrimination. The same is true in respect of the obligation to prosecute and punish. Practices of apartheid are considered a grave breach of Additional Protocol I, and customary law requires states to investigate, prosecute, and punish such a war crime. The Genocide Convention similarly imposes an obligation to punish the commission of acts of genocide. As for claims on non-recognition and non-assistance, these arise, as you know, under the customary international law on state responsibility. The background of Nicaragua's claims must also be considered. Those claims were not made in a vacuum, but in a context that was all too well known to Germany. Germany's breaches of international law, of which Nicaragua complains, arise in the context of serious, systematic, and interconnected violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territory, violations which have been confirmed by this Court and a great number of other authorities. The rules at issue span across various fields of international law, including those that Germany argues do not fall within the scope of the present dispute. In sum, all of Nicaragua's claims were conveyed to Germany on 1 February 2024. Those claims are reflected in Nicaragua's application and memorial, with the further developments that are necessary in pleadings before the Court. Significantly, Germany has not argued that Nicaragua's memorial transforms the subject matter of the dispute so as to render all or some of Nicaragua's claims inadmissible. This suggests that Germany has from the outset understood the scope of Nicaragua's claims in their entirety. If you were to find that Nicaragua did not convey some of its claims with sufficient clarity before the filing of the application, that would, in any event, not be the end of the matter. As I will show in a moment, Germany's conduct subsequent to the application, of which we heard very little yesterday, confirms and further crystallizes the scope of the dispute. Mr. President, another argument advanced by Germany concerns form. The note verbal, according to Germany, was sent to the wrong e-mail address and only picked up on 13 February 2024, 12 days after it was transmitted by Nicaragua's foreign ministry. It also argues that the press release was not addressed to Germany specifically. Because of this, Germany says it could not have been aware of Nicaragua's claims and did not have sufficient time to consider them. But this is not a convincing argument. The not verbal was sent to the official e-mail address of the permanent mission of Germany to the UN in New York. Germany confirmed receipt on 14 February 2024 and did not indicate that this way of transmission was effective. Diplomatic exchanges with permanent missions at the UN, as the court has noted, are relevant when determining the existence of a dispute. This is particularly so when the matter is being actively discussed at the UN, as was and is the case of the question of Palestine, including the situation in the Gaza Strip. As for the press release, Germany complains that it begins by addressing the people of Nicaragua and the international community and not Germany specifically. But this is beside the point. The press release referred to conduct by Germany that Nicaragua considered contrary to international law. And Germany was aware of the press release. It had been widely disseminated and transmitted through a diplomatic note to all permanent missions to the UN.

Excuse me, interpreters are having a problem, so please speak slowly.

Yes, of course. This is further confirmed by the exchange of emails between Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, and the UK, which shows that as early as 2 February 2024, Germany had already started to consider Nicaragua's claims and to coordinate its response. Germany, in brief, argues that it never opposed those claims, but had rather reserved its position, and that it had not yet given a response to Nicaragua when the application was filed. During the entire period between 1 February and 1 March 2024, Germany was, I quote, "actively considering its position." This argument is plainly contradicted by the facts. Germany did oppose Nicaragua's claims and did so quite clearly. On 7 February 2024, during a press conference, the German Foreign Ministry made public official statements on the possible action by Nicaragua against Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and Canada before the Court in connection with the conflict in the Gaza Strip. Asked about the nonverbal and press release, and how Germany intended to react, the Foreign Ministry said the following, I quote, "We are aware of a press release. I cannot confirm here any further steps that you are suggesting. Beyond that, we naturally reject the relevant content of the press release." This last statement, which Germany was careful not to highlight yesterday, was not a casual one. As I noted a moment ago, Germany had for days been considering the contents of the press release and coordinating its response with Canada, the Netherlands, and the UK. Answering a follow-up question, Germany's foreign ministry then reaffirmed its position. We know the press release. Nothing else is known. Accordingly, we have no reason to comment further. We reject the contents of the press release. These official statements alone suffice to establish that Germany positively opposed Nicaragua's claims, giving rise to a dispute between the parties. Yesterday, we heard a somewhat hesitant attempt by Germany to argue that these statements did not amount to a rejection of Nicaragua's claims. It was suggested, for example, that Germany's rejection of the relevant content of the press release referred to the receipt of the not verbal. But this is not what the Foreign Ministry said. The statements were referring to the content of the press release in its entirety, including the claims advanced by Nicaragua. This is self-evident. Council for Germany also indicated that this was an ad hoc response to an unexpected question addressed to a journalist and not to Nicaragua. Yet Germany was in fact addressing claims advanced by Nicaragua. The statements were public, and Germany must have known that Nicaragua would become aware of these statements, as in fact it did. How else could Nicaragua understand these statements other than a rejection of its claims against Germany. This is, we submit, the only reasonable way to interpret the statements of the German Foreign Ministry. There is another reason why Germany's argument fails. Having rejected Nicaragua's claims on 7 February 2024, Germany then remained silent for weeks, until Nicaragua felt compelled to seize the Court. The urgent circumstances, in fact, call for a swift and serious response by Germany. The claims advanced by Nicaragua were of the utmost gravity and concern an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in the occupied Palestinian territory. And Nicaragua, confronted with Germany's blanket rejection of any claim against it, could not be expected to just sit and wait. In the circumstances, Germany could not prevent a dispute from arising and the present case from being brought to the Court by remaining silent. Such an outcome, in the words of the Court, would be unacceptable. To somehow justify its silence, Germany has suggested that it was considering Nicaragua's claims when the application was filed. Their preliminary objections did not produce any evidence in support of this assertion. It was only weeks ago, on 31 July, that Germany belatedly sought to do so, requesting the authorization to submit the e-mail exchange I mentioned earlier. Nicaraguan principal did not oppose the production of such document, but with a caveat. The e-mail exchange was clearly incomplete and heavily redacted, so Germany should provide a complete copy. Germany provided a new copy of the e-mail exchange on 24 August. Having now before us a fuller, for still partly redacted version, one can easily conclude that the e-mail exchange does not support Germany's position. The emails that Germany initially sought to withhold from Nicaragua and from the Court show that Germany was considering Nicaragua's claims from 2 February 2024, and that it was engaged in active discussions about those claims, only not with Nicaragua. Then, as we have shown, Germany rejected Nicaragua's claims on 7 February. The fact that Germany was at the time considering the contents of the press release, and not the note verbale, is irrelevant. The contents of the two documents were virtually identical. I should emphasize, Mr. President, that there is no shred of evidence, no shred of evidence, showing that Germany was considering Nicaragua's claims in a positive manner. that Germany did not oppose Nicaragua's claims, that Germany agreed with Nicaragua's legal position, or that Germany was willing to change its course of action to meet Nicaragua's concern. Germany offers nothing of the sort. In light of this, Mr. President, members of the court, the inescapable conclusion is that Nicaragua's claims were positively opposed by the other party. This takes me to the last part of my presentation: Germany's conduct after these proceedings commenced. That conduct is significant. Germany has at every opportunity rejected Nicaragua's claims as presented in the Application and Memorial. This continuous opposition confirms the existence of the dispute and further crystallizes its scope. In a government press conference of 4 March 2024, three days after the application was filed, the spokesperson of the federal government said that Germany considered the allegations on aiding and abetting genocide unfounded. I quote, "Let us make it very clear that we naturally reject the accusation made against us by Nicaragua." This language, as you will notice, echoes that used by the German Foreign Ministry on 7 February. In a not verbal to the Court dated 11 March 2024, Germany again stated that it firmly rejected the factual and legal basis of Nicaragua's application. In a post on X dated 15 March 2025, Germany's agent yet again confirmed that the German government rejects the unfounded allegations made by Nicaragua. Germany's pleadings at the hearing on provisional measures were also replete with rejections of Nicaragua's position. Germany firmly rejected Nicaragua's accusations and denied that any of the rights invoked by Nicaragua were plausible, adding that Nicaragua's claims do not withstand scrutiny. Germany also made it clear that the parties' position on the facts of the case could not be further apart. Germany did not address these statements in its presentation yesterday. And the reason for this is understandable. They completely defeat any argument by our friends opposite that Germany did not oppose Nicaragua's claims before the filing of the application. As we have demonstrated, it did. and has continued to do so until today. To conclude, Mr. President, the parties have a disagreement on points of law and fact. Nicaragua conveyed its claims in early February 2024 and did so in appropriate form. Germany firmly rejected those claims on 7 February and then remained silent for weeks, despite the gravity and urgency of the matters raised by Nicaragua. After the Court was seized of this case, Germany continued to oppose Nicaragua's claims, confirming the existence of the dispute and crystallizing its scope. As a result, Germany's first preliminary objection must be rejected. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this concludes my presentation today. I thank you for your attention and kindly ask you, Mr. President, to invite Dr. Muller to the podium.

I thank Mr. Crosato-Nehrmann. I now give the floor to Dr. Daniel Mueller. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is always a special moment to stand before you in the Great Hall of Justice, here where the stained glass window to my right reminds us that the realisation of a more just order an order that allows all people to flourish in peace as possible. With this awareness and with respect for the role of the Court, I have the honor of assisting the Republic of Nicaragua this morning. The present case shows in the clearest and most serious way why international law exists and why it remains indispensable. The Federal Republic challenges the Court's jurisdiction, arguing, among other things, that Nicaragua now presents a case against Germany that spans decades and that relies on distant events. And that, and I quote again, Germany, "Nicaragua's claims depend on assertions of decade-long violations of international law centered on Germany's longstanding lawyer relationship with Israel." End of quote. Germany aims at convincing you that the present dispute or parts of it fall outside the consent contained in Germany's optional clause declaration of 13th of April 2008, which is limited to, and you have it on the screen, all disputes arising after the present declaration with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the state. But members of the court, The dispute that Nicaragua has brought to your attention is not the one that Germany describes by making a deliberate and selective choice of very small extracts and dates drawn from Nicaragua's memorial. Before discussing Germany's overly broad application of this temporal limitation, I must make three preliminary points. First, Mr. President, Germany's objection concerns only the second aspect of the temporal limitation. The Respondent contends that the present dispute is not with regard to situations or facts subsequent to its Optional Clause declaration. Germany does not, however, contest that the dispute brought before the Court by Nicaragua arose after the date of that declaration, after 13th of April 2008. Second, Germany submits that its objection would have the effect of excluding, and I quote, "a significant number of Nicaragua's claims," end of quote, or as counsel described it yesterday, "central claims of Nicaragua." Although he then continued to list these claims, he avoided explaining which of Nicaragua's claims would remain unaffected. Yet, there is no doubt that Germany does not torture claims based on the Genocide Convention by this objection. And of course, it cannot. The temporal limitation of Germany's optional clause declaration could not have any effect on the compromissory clauses invoked by Nicaragua. Claims based on Article 9 of the Genocide Convention or on Article 22 of CERD therefore remain subject to the Court's jurisdiction regardless of whether they concern situations or facts prior to 2008 or not. Third, and this is my last preliminary point, the temporal limitation that Germany included in its 2008 optional cross-declaration is well known to the Court. The Permanent Court and this Court have already had occasion to consider limitations formulated in comparable, if not identical terms, contained in optional clause declarations of other states or in treaties. This was also recalled yesterday morning. I will not dwell on these cases in detail. The Court knows them. It is entirely sufficient to note, and the parties agree on that point, that for the proper application of the temporal limitation, the Court must identify the dates of those facts or situations, and I will quote the judgment in Right of Passage, those facts or situations with regard to which the dispute has arisen, or in other words, as was said by the Permanent Court in the case concerning the Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, only those which must be considered of being the source of the dispute, those which are its real cause. Or to use the more accurate and more telling French version of the Permanent Court's judgment, facts and situations who must be considered as the real cause of the conflict. Despite this general agreement, we still consider that our colleagues apply this case law in a highly questionable manner. They do so with a single aim, expanding the scope of the temporal limitation far beyond what its terms allow, transforming it into a limitation without limit whatsoever. Rather than identifying the facts or situations that constitutes le fait generateur du differend, Germany endeavours to identify and even adds facts or situation that, in its view, should have given rise to a dispute with Nicaragua. Germany accepts that, and I quote, "its more recent conduct may have prompted Nicaragua to submit its claims to the court." Indeed, Members of the Court, this more recent conduct constitutes the object of the dispute and its real cause. However, Germany asserts then that this more recent conduct cannot be separated from conduct predating 30th of April 2008 and does not give rise to a new separate dispute. This more recent conduct is still, according to Germany, inextricably linked to prior conduct by which, if Nicaragua is to be believed, Germany violated its international obligations. Members of the Court, Germany's argument cannot stand for at least three reasons, which I will address in turn. The first reason is simple and straightforward, although Germany has carefully ignored it. The question of whether a fact or situation constitutes the source, the "fait generateur", or the real cause of the dispute is not merely a question of causation. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to identify the fact or situation without which the dispute would never have existed. The Permanent Court explained this in the case of the Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, and I quote, "It is true that a dispute may presuppose the existence of some prior situation or fact, but it does not follow that the dispute arises in regard to that situation or fact. For this simple reason, Germany's effort of carefully singling out from Nicaragua's factual presentation every date prior to 13th of April 2008 is an opposite. In fact, our colleagues attempt to transform the historical context of the dispute into its subject matter. Contrary to Germany's allegation and its preliminary objections, the dispute submitted to your scrutiny concerns neither the 1897 World Zionist Congress, nor the 1917 Balfour Declaration, nor distant events or circumstances such as, for example, the 1947 General Assembly Resolution 1812. Without doubt, the dispute would most likely never have arisen without these events. But these events merely constitute the background against which the dispute is set, the history, or to use the Court's characterization in its 2024 advisory opinion, the general context. Of course, this context dates back and has been lasting for several decades. to the great distress of the Palestinian people and the international community. Nevertheless, these historical facts do not constitute the real cause of the present dispute. They are its indispensable background to understand the present situation. For the proper application of the temporal limitation, it is equally pointless to insist, as Germany does, on the fact that the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination has been violated for decades, that the unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territory has lasted since 1967, or that Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory or elsewhere have been subjected to racial discrimination, racial segregation and apartheid for nearly 80 years. These facts as serious as they are, do not constitute the cause and subject matter of the dispute before you. They explain why there is an obligation to respect and promote the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, why there is an obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, an obligation to prevent and condemn racial segregation and apartheid, and an obligation not to recognize an unlawful situation. However, the dispute does not arise from the facts or situations that generate these obligations. Mr. President, in this respect, the present case can be compared to the case concerning jurisdictional immunities of the state. In 2010, the court considered that, and I quote, "The dispute that Italy intended to submit to the court by way of its counterclaim related to the existence and the scope of the obligation of Germany to make reparation to certain Italian victims of serious violations of humanitarian law committed by Nazi Germany between 1943 and 1945, rather than to the violations themselves." End of quote. The dispute that Nicaragua has brought to your attention also concerns the violations by Germany of its own obligations obligations arising from the serious violations of the rights of the Palestinians and the Palestinian people. It does not concern the serious violations of the right of the Palestinian people themselves. The facts that gave and give rise to these serious violations constitute the origin of the rights asserted by Nicaragua and the obligations incumbent upon Germany. They are not, however, the facts or situations to which the dispute in question relates. It is worth recalling at this point that organs and bodies of the United Nations, including the Security Council and the Court as its principal judicial organ, have already established these facts and situations and the consequences that flow from the violations of the rights of the Palestinian people for all States. In 2004, the Court found that the construction of the wall and other measures taken previously severely impede the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination. Your Court further found that as a consequence of Israel's policies and practices, which span decades, the Palestinian people has been deprived of its right to self-determination over a long period. and further prolongation of these policies and practices undermines the exercise of this right in the future. The Court also reaffirmed that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law, and that the occupation of the entirety of the Palestinian territory, which has lasted since 1967, is unlawful. Still in 2024, the Court found that the regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, and that Israel's legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities, in violation of essential international obligations under the Covenant and CERD. And again in 2025, this Court considered that the new urgent request for an advisory opinion of the General Assembly was situated in the context of Israel's prolonged occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory for more than 58 years, and the continued denial of the Palestinians' people right to self-determination. Members of the Court, all this is part of the background of the present case. Not only has your Court established these facts and their consequences with full authority, and Professor Pelley may revisit this point later this morning. But Germany itself has expressly acknowledged them, including yesterday morning. But while Germany accepts these facts, which therefore cannot be the cause of the dispute between the parties, what remains is the question whether Germany draws the necessary consequences in respect of its own international obligations. This, Mr. President, is the object, the sole object, of the present dispute. Members of the Court, our colleagues carefully avoid mentioning the distinction between the origin of the obligations and rights at issue on the one hand and the origin of the dispute on the other hand. Indeed, they attempt to dilute that distinction and render it completely ineffective, and this is my second point. Germany asserts, in essence, that if Nicaragua's submissions were to be accepted, Germany would necessarily have been in breach of its international obligations for decades, and that consequently, the present dispute would have to concern all of these violations, facts, and situations, which it proclaims to be inseparable or inextricably linked. This reasoning, Mr. President, is flawed. Similar past violations cannot by themselves transform a dispute into one concerning necessarily all violations. In its preliminary objections, Germany justified its position by referring to the Court's orders on provisional measures in the legality of use of force cases. It claimed to discern from those orders a principle according to which whenever an application concerns a particular act that forms part of a series of comparable or identical acts, the entire series must necessarily be treated as relevant and must constitute the source, the "fait generateur", or the real cause of the dispute. Council for Germany did not refer to these orders yesterday, and rightly so. They say nothing of the sort. There is one simple reason for that. The question the Court had to resolve was not whether the dispute concerned facts and situations prior to Yugoslavia's consent to jurisdiction, but only, and I quote the Court's orders, whether in the terms of the text of Yugoslavia's declaration, the dispute brought before the Court arose before or after 25th of April 1999. End of quote. While the date on which the dispute arose is one thing, the question whether that dispute stems from facts or situations prior to a certain date is another, and Germany accepts this. In any event, the mere fact that in the context of these legality of use of force cases, new similar facts could not give rise to new separate disputes at a later date in no way implies, either in logic or in law, that any dispute brought before the Court must necessarily concern all comparable facts or situations. This is illustrated by the Rights of Passage over Indian Territory case. Although in that case there had been a few incidents in the past, as acknowledged by the Court, A dispute arose only with regard to violations of Portugal's rights in 1954, and despite the previous incidents, that dispute fell within the temporal limitation of India's optional clause declaration. And in the end, Members of the Court, this is nothing but common sense. The temporal limitation cannot preclude the Court from reviewing facts or situations occurring after the critical date, simply because similar facts or situations existed in the past and might have given rise to responsibility on the basis of comparable or identical arguments. If it were otherwise, the temporal limitation in itself would weaken, merely through the passage of time, long-standing rights and obligations even in the face of more recent denials or violations. We have always done this. It's not only a flimsy excuse to justify any international wrongful act. It is also not a sufficient reason to exclude facts and situations occurring after the critical date from the court's jurisdiction under the temporal limitation. Germany did not intend to exclude by its temporal limitation disputes which regard to violations of its international obligations that began before 13th of April 2008, but only disputes which regard to situations or facts prior to the state. Of course, states are free to exclude from the court's jurisdiction facts or situations more or less remote in time about whose lawfulness they might have doubts. Nevertheless, the temporal limitation cannot have such an effect on similar facts or situations subsequent to the critical date. This is consistent with the inherent purpose of such temporal limitations, which, according to the Permanent Court, is to, and I quote, "preclude the possibility of the submission to the Court by means of an application of situations or facts dating from a period when the state whose action was impugned was not in a position to foresee the legal proceedings to which these facts and situations might give rise." However, once a state has made its declaration, it is surely in a position to foresee the consequences and the legal proceedings to which subsequent facts and situations might give rise. This was the case with India in the right of passage case. This was the case with Bulgaria in the Electricity Company case, and this is precisely the case here. Germany must answer before your Court to claims made by Nicaragua which concerns facts and situations subsequent to 13th of April 2008. Germany does not deny that it has authorised the export of military equipment and war weapons since 2008. The data, however generic they may be, confirmed this. Nicaragua also mentioned in its memorials previous volumes of German export licenses, in particular to illustrate the dramatic increase in authorizations in October 2023, or to highlight military cooperation as a defining element of Germany's relations with Israel. This does not mean, however, that the dispute concerns those earlier authorizations. These elements may shed light on the dispute, but they do not constitute its real cause. Since accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction, Germany could have foreseen that any authorisation to export military equipment, whether it classifies such equipment as other military equipment or war weapons, so that any authorization to export military equipment could be the subject of legal scrutiny and proceedings before the court. This is the case of the numerous authorizations granted between 2008 and 2023, as well as to the military contracts and cooperation agreements entered into during that period by German companies. All of this took place while the rights of Palestinians, particularly in the Gaza Strip, but also in the West Bank, were consistently and severely undermined, including through incursions and military operations such as so-called Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 and January 2009, or Operation Protective Edge in 2014. Germany was also in a position to foresee the consequences of the dramatic increase in authorizations granted at an accelerated pace in October 2023, immediately after the tragic events of 7 October, events whose existence is neither to be denied nor whose magnitude and gravity to be minimized. The export licenses for military equipment and weapons of war issued in October 2023, and those that have followed without interruption since then, are facts at the heart of this dispute. They must be assessed in light of the catastrophic situation in the Gaza Strip and the flagrant disregard for the most basic rights of the Palestinian people, both within the Gaza Strip, a territory held under total siege, and elsewhere, which continue to this day. Members of the Court, Germany was and remains fully aware of these facts, that these facts could be the subject of judicial scrutiny and proceedings before the Court. It was fully aware of this when it authorised the export of military equipment worth more than 251 million euros between 7th of October 2023 and the hearing on provisional measures. It was still fully aware of this when it continued to grant authorisations worth approximately 4.5 million euros between April and September 2024 even though, as recalled by Nicaragua's agent, your Court had reminded all States of their international obligations relating to the transfer of arms to parties to an armed conflict. Germany was certainly fully aware of this when, in October 2024, it significantly increased the volume of authorisations, despite the General Assembly's urgent call, the General Assembly's call urging all States to cease the provision or transfer of arms, munition and related equipment to Israel in all cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they may be used in the occupied Palestinian territory. Germany understood that the licenses issued between October and December 2024, worth more than 146 million euros, could be the subject of legal scrutiny and proceedings before the court. Why, otherwise, would it have deemed it necessary to obtain, this time, a paper assuring that the exported equipment will only be used in accordance with international humanitarian law, whatever these assurances were actually worth? Nor could Germany have ignored that the authorizations granted in the first half of 2025, totaling nearly 90 million euros, were likely to be the subject of this dispute. It was fully aware of this when, in the second-half of 2025, it authorised the export of military equipment worth nearly 115 million euros, and this despite a temporary suspension of new authorisations between August and November 2025, a suspension prompted by great concern to the Federal Republic regarding the military offensive in the Gaza Strip. These figures also show that immediately after the lifting of the suspension in November 2025, justified by the so-called ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, Germany again authorized exports in considerable amounts and with considerable pace. And members of the court, Germany was still fully aware of this. than in the first half of 2026, it continued granting authorizations for the export of military equipment, although the German authorities were conscious that the situation in Gaza remains and continues to be fragile, and despite the increasingly worrying situation in the West Bank. The value of military equipment authorized for export between January and March 2026 reached 63.6 million euros. and for the period between April and June 2026, the considerable amount of 735.8 million euros. According to information of the federal government made available only yesterday morning, this includes licenses for the export of weapons of war in the amount of 508.8 million euros. Weapons of war that Germany consistently claimed it did not provide since February 2024. One of these weapons of war is, according to information provided by the federal government, a major project in the maritime defense sector, presumably referring to a nuclear-capable submarine. Whatever might have been the date of the underlying contractual arrangement, The necessary authorization for the export of the submarine was granted under Germany's War Weapons Control Act in December 2023. The second authorization under the Foreign Trade and Payments Act appears to have been granted recently, and the submarine was reportedly delivered some days ago. But in the second quarter of this year, Germany has also granted licenses for the export of other weapons of war including ammunition like projectiles and propelling charges, and other essential components like ignition charges. Mr. President, allow me to add this. The total value of military equipment whose export has been authorized by Germany since 7th of October, 2023, more than 1.5 billion euros, 1.5 billion euros. confirms that this is not merely the confirmation of earlier situations or facts. It also completely refutes Germany's claims that the equipment in question is merely of a subordinate or defensive nature. Protective gear, helmets, body protection plates, camouflage paint, flak jackets, as you were told in April 2023. The equipment authorized includes not only a submarine and other war weapons, but also essential military components, for instance, equipment falling within export list category 0006, military land vehicles and components, such as engines produced by MTU or transmission systems produced by Renc, which are indispensable to the Merkava tanks used on a large scale in the Gaza Strip. and in the West Bank. Let me return to the question of temporal limitation. What Nicaragua submits to the Court's scrutiny and jurisdiction are the export authorisations for military equipment issued after 13 April 2008, as well as the numerous events occurring after that date that Nicaragua has detailed in its written submissions. These include, for instance, the involvement and participation of German companies, enterprises and institutions in activities contributing to the deprecation of natural resources in the occupied Palestinian territory and in infrastructure projects carried out there for the sole benefit of illegal settlements. Very recently, Germany, together with other states, expressed the position that businesses involved in such activities and I quote, "should be aware of legal and reputational consequences, including the risk of involving themselves in serious breaches of international law," end of quote. Members of the court, so should Germany, including when German companies were and remain involved in the development, installation, and operation of surveillance systems torturing the Palestinian population. and in the direct and indirect financing of economic and military activities to the detriment of the rights of Palestinians and the Palestinian people. This is also true of cooperation with universities located in the illegal settlements. Submitting these facts to the Court's jurisdiction in no way amounts to retroactively applying Germany's optional clause declaration or to disregarding the intent behind its temporal limitation. Because, and I take the liberty of paraphrasing the court's judgment in the right of passage case, the finding that the court has jurisdiction in this case will not involve given any retroactive effect to Germany's acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction. The court will in fact only have to rule on the existence of the obligations claimed by Nicaragua since 2008, on the alleged failures of Germany to comply with its obligations at that time, and on any redress with respect to such failures. The Court has not been asked to make any finding whatsoever regarding the period prior to 13th of April, 2008. So Germany seeks to evade this conclusion by asserting that all these facts and situations are inextricably linked to those that occurred before its optional clause declaration and cannot be separated from them. This position is vain, and this, members of the Court, is my third and final point. Despite Germany's efforts to present its practice in the field of export authorisations for military equipment as an inseparable whole, the circumstances of the present case are not comparable to those in Fessfedt and Morocco, nor to those in Certain Property, relied upon by counsel yesterday, nor to those in jurisdictional immunities of the state. In Phosphates in Morocco, the 1920 dahirs establishing the monopoly regime were not only prior acts comparable to those occurring after the critical date. They were, in the words of the Permanent Court, the essential facts constituting the alleged monopolization and consequently the facts which really gave rise to the dispute. In the opinion of the court, the legality of all subsequent conduct entirely dependent on the legal position resulting from the legislation of 1920. The post-critical date facts or situations invoked by Italy did not add anything. The same was true in certain property, where the court concluded that the German court decisions relied upon by Liechtenstein, and I quote, "cannot be separated from the settlement convention and the Banach degrees, and that these decisions cannot consequently be considered as the source or real cause of the dispute," end of quote. And in the same vein, in jurisdictional immunities, the provision of the 1947 peace treaty formed the determining legal framework upon which the subsequent legal situation depended. In the present case, however, Germany cannot, and does not even attempt to, identify or invoke any fact or situation prior to 13th of April 2008 upon which the entirety of its conduct, including post-critical date facts, would wholly depend. Quite to the contrary. Germany has itself confirmed that each of the facts that Nicaragua relies upon is autonomous, examined and assessed on a case-by-case basis, and adopted in light of the situation at the moment it occurred. As it repeatedly stated before the German Bundestag, the Federal Government, and I quote, it's on the screen, decides on the granting of licenses for the export of military equipment and arms on a case-by-case basis and in light of the situation at hand, after careful consideration, taking into account foreign and security policy considerations in accordance with legal and political guidelines. This also applies to arms exports to Israel. During the hearings in April 2024, Counsel for Germany also assured the Court that the review under Germany's so-called robust regulatory system framework was conducted on a case-by-case basis and for every license that is granted. You took note of this in your order of 30th of April 2024. Members of the Court, Germany's agent spoke yesterday quickly about the decision taken on 8 August 2025 suspending new authorisations. Indeed, that decision confirms that Germany does not consider itself bound in any way by past facts or circumstances when authorising the export of military equipment. Of course, this was only a temporary decision. rescinded on 24th of November 2024, and it did not entail a ban of exports of previously authorized military equipment. But it demonstrates that irrespective of any prior practice, Germany could act differently within the framework of its own policy and regulations, and that its conduct was in no way dependent on or conditioned by any earlier essential facts akin to the 1920 dahirs in phosphate in Morocco or the settlement convention in certain property. German courts have confirmed the same. In two decisions handed down just days before the suspension of new authorizations was lifted, the Administrative Tribunal of Berlin explained that, and I quote, a future decision-making practice by the respondent, which means the German government, that mirrors the present case based on an essentially comparable factual situation in a future licensing procedure cannot be predicted with the required degree of probability." End of quote. The administrative tribunal which dismissed the appeals not because they were ill-founded, as you heard yesterday, but on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing and a right to contest export licenses decisions before German courts. So the administrative tribunal also emphasized that the lawfulness of export authorizations did not depend on the lawfulness of prior authorizations. Rather, it could be determined only on a case-by-case basis taking into account the content of the decision and the specific circumstances in which it was adopted. The same must apply in the present proceedings before your Court. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the dispute that Nicaragua has submitted to your jurisdiction does not concern situations or facts prior to 13th of April 2028, as Germany claims. It concerns facts and situations that occurred after the critical date. The Court is called upon to rule on breaches by Germany of obligations existing after 2008, at the time of the alleged facts, and to determine the consequences of these internationally wrongful acts. The Court is not being asked to rule on any alleged violations of international law prior to 2008. We are, of course, conscious that jurisdiction only exists within the limits within which it has been accepted, and that it is for each state to decide upon the limits it places upon its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court. But, members of the Court, a state cannot, by adopting an excessively broad interpretation of the limits it has itself established, reduce the Court's jurisdiction beyond what it has accepted. Your jurisdiction extends to everything that has been accepted. And just as the Court must not exceed the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the parties, it is equally bound to exercise that jurisdiction to its full extent. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind attention. And, Mr. President, may I ask you to please call on my colleague, Professor Ardi Imseis, so that he may continue the presentation on behalf of Nicaragua, perhaps after the coffee break?

I thank Dr. Miller. Before I give the floor to the next speaker, the court will indeed observe a break of 10 minutes. The sitting is adjourned.

Play from the Khan Ride Destination Weekend Dhamaka.

ah

Please visit it. The sitting is resumed. I now give the floor to Professor Aldi Imtiaz. You have the floor, sir.

Mr. President, members of the Court, it is an honor to once again appear before you, this time on behalf of the Republic of Nicaragua. I shall address Germany's preliminary objections concerning the Court's jurisdiction over Nicaragua's claims regarding racial discrimination, racial segregation, and apartheid against the Palestinian people. Germany asserts that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims because, in its view, these claims cannot be brought on the basis of Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, or CERD. Germany further asserts that jurisdiction over these claims cannot be based on its optional clause declaration either, as Article 22 of the Statute amounts to another method of peaceful settlement chosen by all the parties, per paragraph 1 of that Declaration. Mr. President, Nicaragua submits that Germany's position is unfounded and must be dismissed. To this end, I will develop two points. First, Leaving aside Germany's position regarding Article 22 of CERD, which I will get to in a moment, Nicaragua's claims concerning racial discrimination, racial segregation, and apartheid are grounded in rules of international law outside of CERD. These rules, being part of customary international law and conventional international humanitarian law, engage Germany's obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes. They are therefore plainly encompassed by the consent of the parties to the Court's jurisdiction under their respective optional clause declarations. Second, with respect to its argument under CERD, Germany is incorrect in asserting that Nicaragua's claims, to the extent that they are covered by CERD, cannot be brought on the basis of Germany's optional clause declaration. and this is because Germany misconstrues the terms of Article 22 of CERD and misapplies the terms of its optional clause declaration. If it pleases the Court, I shall now address each of these points in turn. First, the Court has jurisdiction over Nicaragua's claims based on customary international law and conventions other than CERD regarding racial discrimination, racial segregation, and apartheid against the Palestinian people. The starting point for this convention, which you can see on your screens, is the limited scope of Article 22 of CERD, which provides, "Any dispute between two or more states parties with respect to the interpretation or application of this convention which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for a decision unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement. On its face, it is therefore plain that Article 22 of CERD relates only to disputes with respect to the interpretation or application of that Convention and to no other instrument. This means that Article 22 cannot apply to any dispute concerning obligations that find their authority in rules of international law outside of CERD. And this is true even where such obligations relate to the prohibition of racial discrimination, racial segregation, and apartheid, as is the situation in the case at bar. It is well established in the Court's jurisprudence that certain acts may fall within the ambit of more than one instrument, and a dispute relating to those acts may relate to the interpretation or application of more than one treaty or instrument. It is precisely for this reason that in its submissions on the issue, Nicaragua makes clear that its claims against Germany concern the latter's breaches of international law simpliciter. These claims concern customary international law, including as may be codified in CERD and other conventional international law. Substantively, it is settled that the prohibition of racial discrimination is now part of customary international law, as was affirmed by the Court in its 2024 advisory opinion on Palestine. In Barcelona Traction, the Court affirmed that the prohibition of racial discrimination qualifies as an obligation erga omnes. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Court further noted that the prohibition of racial discrimination, an essential part of international human rights law, is also a fundamental element of international humanitarian law. For its part, the International Law Commission has affirmed that the prohibition of racial discrimination and apartheid constitute peremptory norms of general international law. And it follows from that that racial segregation and apartheid, which the court has characterized as constituting two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination, are equally prohibited under customary international law. Importantly, even if CERD might help in determining the existence and scope of a state's obligations under custom, such customary legal obligations remain independent of CERD itself. The implications of this for questions relating to jurisdiction were usefully addressed by the Court in another matter involving Nicaragua over 40 years ago. In dismissing a United States challenge to the Court's jurisdiction in the case concerning military and paramilitary activities, The court stated that it "cannot dismiss the claims of Nicaragua under principles of customary and general international law simply because such principles have been enshrined in the texts of conventions relied upon by Nicaragua. The fact that the above-mentioned principles, recognized as such, have been codified or embodied in multilateral conventions does not mean that they cease to exist and to apply as principles of customary law." Such principles continue to be binding as part of customary international law, despite the operation of provisions of conventional law in which they have been incorporated. Therefore, since the claim before the Court in this case is not confined to violation of the multilateral conventional provisions invoked, it would not, in any event, be barred by the multilateral treaty reservation in the 1946 United States declaration. So what, then, Mr. President, does all of this mean? We submit that it means that Nicaragua's claims against Germany that are grounded in rules of international law outside of SIR, in particular rules of custom, customary international law, and conventional international humanitarian law, fall squarely within the consent of the parties to the court's jurisdiction under their respective optional clause declarations. Crucially, not even Germany takes issue with this proposition, judging by its written pleadings on its preliminary objections and, indeed, by the fact that opposing counsel simply ignored this line of discussion yesterday. Two points underscore this. First, Germany's optional clause declaration of April 2008 excludes "any dispute which the parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement or which is subject to another method of peaceful settlement chosen by all the parties." But Nicaragua's claims that are grounded in rules outside of CERD are plainly not barred by this exclusion. since Article 22 of CERD would not be applicable in such a situation, it would therefore not constitute another method of peaceful settlement agreed upon by the parties, thereby depriving the Court of jurisdiction. Perhaps this is why Germany strains to bring all of Nicaragua's claims regarding racial discrimination, racial segregation, and apartheid to those that, and I quote, could have been covered by CERD." Germany doubtless understands that absent this rather curious and self-serving qualification, which attempts to reframe the nature of Nicaragua's claims, it is clear that the Court has jurisdiction on the basis of Germany's optional clause declaration. Second, Germany asserts that Nicaragua's claims that are grounded in rules of international law outside of CERD do not fall within the temporal limitation of its optional clause declaration. As Dr. Mueller has explained, that argument lacks merit. But beyond that, by simply tendering it, Germany necessarily concedes that these claims fall within the scope of the declaration, rather than the terms of Article 22 of CERD. And this is because Article 22 of CERD has no temporal limitation And as the Court is well aware, a state cannot import limitations and reservations from its optional clause declaration into compromissory clauses. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I now turn to the second of my two points, namely that Germany errs in asserting that the Court lacks jurisdiction under its optional clause declaration in respect of Nicaragua's claims to the extent that they are covered by CERD. In this respect, Germany misconstrues the terms of article 22 of CERD and misapplies the terms of its optional clause declaration. Now, Germany objects to Nicaragua's claims to the extent that they could have been covered by CERD, I quote, because in its view, these claims, again, quote, cannot be brought on the basis of Germany's optional clause declaration as an alternative source of jurisdiction. And in support, Germany relies on the previously mentioned reservation in its 2008 optional clause declaration, excluding any dispute which the parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement or which is subject to another method of peaceful settlement chosen by all the parties. Germany posits that Nicaragua's claims under CERD fall within this reservation because these claims are subject to another method of dispute settlement, namely through Article 22 of CERD, which both litigants purportedly chose to become parties to through becoming party to CERD. Germany also contends that the dispute resolution procedure under CERD constitutes another method of peaceful settlement, barring the Court's jurisdiction. until such time as certain preconditions are met. Now, Germany rightly accepts, and there is agreement between the parties on this, they rightly accept that the Court's jurisdiction under optional clause declarations and compromissory clauses must be assessed separately and that the former may be broader than the latter. Nevertheless, and this is where the parties differ, Germany claims that by virtue of its reservation, recourse to the dispute settlement mechanism of Article 22 of CERN for claims brought under that convention is exclusive and overrides its optional clause declaration. Mr. President, Germany's position is mistaken. It ignores not only the relevant jurisprudence, but also the text of CERN itself. The following three points demonstrate this. First, Germany fails to take sufficient note of a well-known case of the Permanent Court referred to earlier that is highly pertinent to this matter. In Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, Belgium relied on each of the parties' optional clause declarations, as well as a compromissory clause in its 1931 bilateral treaty, as providing two jurisdictional bases for its claims against Bulgaria before the Court. Although the Permanent Court accepted Bulgaria's objection concerning the 1931 treaty, which imposed a condition requiring the exhaustion of local remedies, it upheld its jurisdiction under the optional clause declarations, rejecting Bulgaria's ratione temporis objection. It did so even though the Belgian optional clause declaration contained a limitation similar to Germany's reservation in the case at bar, excluding, and I'm quoting, cases where the parties have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to another method of Pacific settlement in its judgment the court offered the following dictum which is instructive for the present matter and worth quoting at length and I quote the multiplicity of agreements concluded accepting the compulsory jurisdiction is evidenced that the contracting parties intended to open up new ways of access to the court rather than to close old ways or to allow them to cancel each other out with the ultimate result that no jurisdiction would remain. In concluding the Treaty of Conciliation, Arbitration, and Judicial Settlement, the object of Belgium and Bulgaria was to institute a very complete system of mutual obligations with a view to the pacific settlement of any disputes which might arise between them. There is, however, no justification for holding that in doing so they intended to weaken the obligations which they had previously entered into with a similar purpose, and especially where such obligations were more extensive than those ensuing from the treaty. It follows that if, in a particular case, a dispute could not be referred to the Court under the treaty, whereas it might be submitted to it under the declarations of Belgium and Bulgaria accepting as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute, the treaty cannot be adduced to prevent those declarations from exercising their effects and disputes from being thus submitted to the Court. Mr. President, this reasoning remains most compelling. It is clear that Germany cannot be allowed to invoke the compromissory clause contained in Article 22 of CERD in order to prevent the parties' optional clause declarations from, and I'm quoting the court, "exercising their effects to give jurisdiction to the court." Allowing it to do so would unduly weaken the obligations accepted by Germany through its optional clause declaration. Second, nothing in the text of Article 22 of CERN actually suggests that the dispute settlement mechanism it establishes is exclusive. In fact, the text of Article 22 confirms the contrary. It expressly authorizes recourse to other modes of settlement agreed upon by the parties to a dispute. This is the plain meaning of the terms at the end of the provision. quote, "unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement," end quote. In point of fact, a cursory glance at Article 16 of CERD confirms this. It provides that the provisions of this convention concerning the settlement of disputes or complaints shall not prevent the states parties from having recourse to other procedures for settling a dispute in accordance with general or special international agreements in force between them. If Article 16 expressly contemplates the existence of other procedures for settling a dispute between states parties then, however can it be said that the Article 22 regime be exclusive? In short, Mr. President, it can't. And as covered in Nicaragua's written statement, the negotiating record for Article 16 demonstrates that its drafters were indeed motivated by a desire to ensure the non-exclusivity of Article 22. Accordingly, disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention can indeed be submitted by States Parties to dispute resolution outside the system of Article 22 of CERD. Mr. President, my third and final point is that Assuming Germany is correct, arguendo, one would be left with an absurd result. And this is not a smokescreen, as was asserted by opposing counsel yesterday. Taken to its logical conclusion, an endless loop would indeed be created between Germany's optional clause declaration and Article 22 of CERD in a manner that would ensure they cancel each other out, as was forewarned by the Permanent Court. The reservations of Germany's optional clause declaration would preclude jurisdiction because Article 22 would, in Germany's view, constitute another method of peaceful settlement. Simultaneously, Article 22 would preclude jurisdiction because, again, in Germany's view, the parties would have been deemed to have agreed to another mode of settlement through their optional clause declarations. Taking this position would, in fact, leave no jurisdictional avenue, thereby frustrating the very object and purpose of these dispute resolution instruments. In the end, Germany's approach clearly contradicts its own stated intentions. In May 2008, the federal government informed the Bundestag that its optional clause declaration was intended to, and I'm quoting here, send a strong and positive signal to the international community on the strengthening of international law and was aimed at quote strengthening international jurisdiction and peaceful dispute resolution and at putting international relations on a legal footing end quote would that those lofty words were true Mr. President Nicaragua would not now have to spend the court's precious time refuting Germany's attempt to shield itself from international judicial scrutiny for its violations of obligations concerning racial discrimination, racial segregation, and apartheid against the Palestinian people, among other serious breaches of peremptory norms of general international law. Mr. President, members of the court, this concludes my brief submission. I should like to thank you for your time and careful attention, I would also like to ask you to request that Dr. Power be called to the bar to continue Nicaragua's submission. Thank you.

I thank Professor Mtaise for his statement. I now invite Ms. Susan Power to the podium. You have the floor, madam.

Mr. President, members of the court, it is a great honour to appear before you to assist the Republic of Nicaragua. Yesterday, Germany argued that the conditions for cession of the court under Article 22 of the statute of the International Court of Justice were not met, as Nicaragua had made no attempt to settle the alleged dispute over racial segregation discrimination through negotiations are via the third procedure. I will demonstrate that, should the court consider that article 22 of the third procedure represents the only basis of jurisdiction for Nicaragua's claims, the extreme urgency of the unfolding horror in Palestine was among the considerations requiring Nicaragua's urgent recourse to the court. The gravity of the situation, which the CERD committee characterised as a humanitarian catastrophe, marked by a sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanisation directed at Palestinians, demanded that Nicaragua act without undue delay to give effect to CERD's overriding object and purpose, namely prompt eradication of racial discrimination in all its forms, including extreme manifestations of hatred and genocide. Mr. President, members of the court, Germany's insistence on an amicable settlement would have resulted in irreparable harm to the Palestinian people. Recourse to negotiations under CERD's interstate complaint mechanism entails lengthy procedures that would have risked imperilling the Palestinian group. The prescribed timelines are three months for a response under article 11, six months for a committee referral after receipt of the initial communication, and three months for parties to agree the composition of the ad hoc conciliation commission, which have prolonged, in the words of the secretary general, the tragic human toll that Palestinians face. The urgent need to prevent violations of jus cogens norms that protect the Palestinian group from destruction cannot be postponed by procedural delay. Complaints themselves take years to be heard, with no mechanism for injunctive relief. After Nicaragua notified Germany of its claims, it was clear from Germany's subsequent silence and continued arming of Israel that its basic position had not subsequently evolved. As the court noted in South West Africa cases, It is not so much the form of negotiation that matters as the attitude and views of the parties on the substantive issues of the questions involved. There was no realistic possibility at that stage of a bilateral negotiated settlement of the disagreement between the parties, or that future negotiations would lead to a settlement. The exceptional, life-destroying circumstances in the present case necessitated, and continue to necessitate, settling the dispute without undue time constraints. To prevent racial discrimination against a group, there must be a group left to protect. That is true of the right to self-determination, and it is also true of the application of surge. On 1 March, when Nicaragua filed its application, more than 30,000 Palestinians had been killed. Life was draining out of Gaza at a terrifying speed. Nicaragua could not wait six months for thousands more Palestinians to be killed. especially given the surge committee's warnings of racist hate speech and dehumanization of the Palestinian people and Nicaragua's awareness that apartheid itself is a recognized form of the crime of genocide and this court had already recognized the threat to the existence of the Palestinian group from plausible acts of genocide the court can and then should consider the implications of this threat to the Palestinian group, the conventional and customary use cogent duty to prevent harm, and the urgency in doing so in its assessment of Article 22. Mr. President, members of the court, this is even more so given the fact, as you recalled, that, in Ukraine v Russia, article 22 of CERD must also be interpreted in light of the object and purpose of the convention, which includes a number of separate considerations provided for in articles 2, 1, 4 and 7 of the convention. Considerations of urgency contained in those articles clearly inform the object and purpose of CERD, which requires state parties to eliminate racial discrimination without delay, to adopt measures speedily, and to eradicate racial discrimination effectively and promptly. All states were put on notice of the extreme manifestations of hatred against the Palestinian people. UN special rapporteurs warned of a second Nakba, heightened discrimination against Palestinian women and girls, and abusive practices against Palestinian children, requiring the dismantling of Israel's settler colonial apartheid. UN reports documented increased hate speech and incitement to hatred. that violence against Palestinians had exploded after 7 October 2023, entrenching the long-standing discriminatory system under which Israel exercises control over Palestinians, and that dangerous rhetoric had contributed to a toxic atmosphere in which violence and discrimination have flourished. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights urged all States, especially States with influence, to immediately take urgent and concrete measures to prevent, repress and punish all incitement to hatred and violence. As Dr. Krasato has shown, Germany rejected all of Nicaragua's claims in February 2024, and it gave no signs of willingness to change the conduct that Nicaragua regarded as contrary to international law. Negotiations under such circumstances would have been futile, and Nicaragua acted without delay to prevent the further arming of acts maintaining racial segregation and apartheid, which states, including Germany, have pledged under CERD and the UN Charter to take joint and separate action to end. Mr. President, members of the court, Nicaragua's recourse to Article 22 followed the CERD Committee's emergency mechanism, issued not once but twice, and which Germany completely ignores in its assessment under Article 22. and you can see that in your tab 8 and 9 of the judge's folder. And Nicaragua did so in line with its own duty to prevent and condemn under Article 3 of CERD. The very purpose of CERD is preventative. Article 8 establishes an emergency mechanism, where the committee considers specific situations that require immediate attention in order to prevent serious violations of the convention. And states must take urgent action by ending all policies and practices and relations that support, sustain, or encourage racist regimes. Germany does not mention the October 2023 early warning and urgent action procedure, which was triggered by the third committee and highlighted the increase in racist hate speech and dehumanisation, and the smearing of Palestinians as human animals, which could incite genocidal actions. Nor does Germany acknowledge the second urgent warning of the third committee, which was on 21 December 2023, expressing its grave concern about the resumption of brutal hostilities in the Gaza Strip and the deterioration of human rights in Palestine. The committee called on all states to fully respect their international obligations, in particular those arising from CERD, and for states to co-operate to bring to an end the violations that are taking place and to prevent atrocity crimes. Germany, State party to search quite astonishingly ignores the committee's urgent calls and the duty to prevent and condemn in its application of article 22 and it's an in its arming and support of Israel Mr. President members of the court the Palestinian people are not a political abstraction whose lives are subject to negotiation They are a people whose actual existence is threatened by destruction, fuelled by the very system of racial discrimination, racial segregation and apartheid that Germany materially supports and arms. In light of the object and purpose of CERD, the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be barred by alleged non-compliance with the conditions of article 22, and Germany's objection must therefore be rejected. Mr. President, members of the court, thank you for your kind attention. I ask you to please call on my colleague, Professor Pellet, so he may continue Nicaragua's presentation.

I thank Ms. Power. J'invite maintenant le professeur Alain Pellet à prendre la parole, vous avez la parole, Monsieur.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I now give the floor to Mr. Pellet.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the court, I must say I have never quite understood what the so-called monetary gold principle serves. It is obvious that we have to preserve the principle, real principle of consent to jurisdiction. But why, oh why, have the consequences of the court, or the findings of the court in its judgment of 15 June 1954 been turned into a principle? This precedent, due to very specific circumstances, has remained isolated, with one exception, for the judgment on East Timor on 30 June 1995, a judgment that also was rendered on very specific circumstances. So, I do not intend, sir, to tilt at windmills, but I will posit, even though I don't really believe in it, that there is a monetary goal principle. What would it be? Well, it has often been described as complex, and it is indeed, insofar as it cannot be boiled down single thing. For the principle to come into play, it requires, one, a state other than that referred to in the application to have an interest in the settlement of the dispute. Two, that that said state has not consented to be bound by the future judgment. Thirdly, it also requires that for this third state to have legal interests potentially at stake in the case at hand, but that is not enough. For indeed, fourthly, it also requires the interests to be the very subject matter of the decision. And that is the relative innovation introduced by the Monetary Gold judgment. It sets a general principle that the court may determine or rule on the conclusions of the parties, even if legal interests of absent states are affected. The court joined to it an exception that it must refrain from doing so if such an interest would form the very subject matter of the decision. Now, having heard Mr. Wordsworth yesterday, it seems to me that both parties agree. There is no need for me to dwell on the first two requirements. They are met, and both parties agree on that. The parties also agreed to state that an interest of Israel may be affected by a judgment to be rendered, if only because If the court were to accept the conclusions of Nicaragua, the submissions of Nicaragua, Israel would be deprived of its massive support from Germany, the support that Germany affords in breach of its international obligation. At least that would be the case if Germany were to abide by the future judgment, but there is no reason to doubt that. But you could still discuss whether this was indeed a legal interest. However, Should you consider that Israel has a genuine interest worth protecting, then the only question to be discussed would be to see whether this interest were indeed the very subject matter of the decision on substance. In its judgment of 1954, the Court states, and I quote, "Italy believed that she possessed a right against Albania for the redress of an international wrong which Albania had committed against her. And the court adds, therefore, it is necessary to determine whether Albania has committed an international wrong against Italy and, if so, to determine also the amount of compensation. So, looking at these issues on substance would be to rule on a dispute between Italy and Albania. But in this case, Mr. President, contrary to Italy in the monetary gold case, Nicaragua is not asking the Court to say whether the responsibility of Israel is engaged by what it does in the Gaza Strip or, more generally, in occupied Palestinian territory. Nicaragua is very much aware of the fact that Israel rejects any compulsory jurisdiction clause, with one exception. Nicaragua has therefore not asked you, ladies and gentlemen of the Court, to rule on the responsibilities of Israel. In accordance with Article 38 of the Rules, the object of the dispute, or the subject matter of the dispute, is clearly indicated at the end of the application under paragraph 67, which you shall find under tab 11. With a few variations, these are also restated in Nicaragua's memorial, which you shall find under tab 12. All of these submissions call on the Court to declare that Germany has breached its own obligations under inter alia the Convention on Genocide, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, principles of international humanitarian law, and other basic principles of international law. And lastly, Nicaragua asks the Court to find that Germany say Germany must make full reparation for the injury caused by its internationally wrongful acts, its own acts, its acts. The application by Italy in 19, or the claims of Italy in 1954 and those of Nicaragua today are not only worded differently, they are different in their own nature. As the court had stated in the monetary gold judgment, the vital issue to be settled concerned the international responsibility of Albania. In this instance, it is the responsibility of Germany, and only Germany, which is at stake. This is clear from the wording of Nicaragua's submissions, but also of the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, Israel's activities in the Gaza Strip and the rest of the Palestinian, occupied Palestinian territories are indeed the background for acts that concern us here. But the court is not called upon to give a legal... determination on the behavior and conduct of Israel, the court need only find the conduct of Germany to be incompatible with its own obligations, Germany's obligations vis-a-vis the applicant state and the international community. Indeed, There is no need for Israel's responsibility to be established for genocide, serious violations of international humanitarian law, human rights, including the right of self-determination, and other acts that may be attributed to Israel. The risk of serious violation of international law need only be established for the responsibility of Germany to stem from its own failure to respect obligations incumbent upon itself due to the plausibility of the risk. Incidentally, even Mr. Wordsworth recognised that the duty to prevent, or the obligation of prevention, does not necessarily rest on the existence of genocide, but also on a serious risk thereof. That was something he said during the provisional measures hearings. Yesterday, our learned friend was much more vague and confused and cautious. The simple existence of the risk of a violation, a serious violation of international law, imposes on states to do all they can to prevent the occurrence or continuation of such facts. As court stated in the genocide case in 2007, and I quote, A state's obligation to prevent and the corresponding duty to act arise at the instant that the state learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. In such cases, the states have to employ all means reasonably available to them so as to prevent the event so far as possible. You yourselves restated it in this case in your order of the 30th of April 2024 when you said, and I quote, that pursuant to common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, all States party are under an obligation to respect and ensure respect for the convention in all circumstances. The same goes, in general terms, for the obligation incumbent on all members of the international community to prevent the occurrence of serious violations of imperative norms of international law. That is an obligation of conduct and not one of result, as you said in 2007. Now, in this case, it is this obligation of diligence that is the one incumbent on Germany. In the genocide case in 2007, in this case that our learned friends rely upon significantly, the court stated that the responsibility of a state is engaged if it has failed to take all measures to prevent genocide which were within its powers and which might have contributed to preventing the genocide. Therefore, that is true without the subjective element of intent being necessary, because a state would not contribute to foreseeable violations, whatever its intentions may be. This applies to any serious violation of an imperative norm of international law. Amongst the things to be taken into account, the Court mentions the capacity to influence effectively the action of persons likely to commit or already committing genocide, as well as the strength of the political links, as well as links of all other kinds, between the authorities of that state and the main actors in the event. The capacity of Germany to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people, or to contribute to preventing the commission of genocide against the people of Palestine, is undeniable given its privileged links with Israel. As the Council for Germany rightly noted yesterday, The Court in its 2007 judgment had stated that, and I quote, "a state can be held responsible for breaching the obligation to prevent genocide only if genocide was actually committed." Now, to justify its position in the 2007 judgment, which was then quoted in the 2015 judgment, the Court relied on Article 14 of the ILC Articles relating to the extension in time of the breach of an international obligation, which provides that, and I quote, "The breach of an international obligation requiring a state to prevent a given event occurs when the event occurs. and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in conformity with that obligation. The travaux preparatoires for that article show that it was not meant to cover each and every obligation to prevent. As the Special Rapporteur, James Crawford, said in his second report, not all obligations directed towards preventing an event from occurring are of this kind, and it is not the function of the draft articles to force all such obligations into a single form. The court itself highlighted that regardless of the occurrence of a preventable situation, the simple fact that a state failed altogether to take any appropriate steps by itself, and this is still a quote, constituted a clear and serious breach of its obligations. So, it is indeed an autonomous obligation that is distinct from the occurrence of a breach of the obligation, which is the object of the prevention. In this instance, it is the obligation incumbent on Germany to ensure the respect and prevent the breach of the erga omnes norms at play, whether we are talking of international humanitarian law, the prohibition of genocide and of racial discrimination, and/or of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It would obviously be unbearable to wait for a genocide or crimes against humanity to have occurred before sanctioning the failure to respect such obligations of prevention. Now, to come back maybe more specifically to the 2007 judgment, the rest of paragraph 431 does immediately narrow the reach of this seemingly paradoxical initial statement. The Court adds the following. This obviously does not mean that the obligation to prevent genocide only comes into being when perpetration of genocide commences. That would be absurd, since the whole point of the obligation is to prevent or attempt to prevent the occurrence of the act. In fact, A state's obligation to prevent and the corresponding duty to act arise at the instant that the state learns of, or should normally have learnt of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the state has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent, it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit." So it is the very risk, once it is established, that gives rise to the obligation to prevent. And it's hard to see how the opposite view could be compatible with the purpose of the 1948 Convention and its purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose. However, in this instance, it doesn't really matter. Most unfortunately, genocide has occurred and is ongoing, not only in the Gaza Strip, but also across the occupied Palestinian territories, including in East Jerusalem. The extremely serious violations of human rights and of international humanitarian rights, which all states have a duty, a legal obligation to prevent, are ongoing. Moreover, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is denied more than ever. But we have to go somewhat further, ladies and gentlemen of the court. In this case, it is no longer an issue of the risk of a genocide or the risk of a serious violation of international humanitarian law or human rights, including the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It is now well and truly established that this risk has materialised and that the responsibility of Israel is engaged due to serious and lasting violations of many imperative norms of international law. That is a given. Thus, even if the monetary gold principle, as interpreted by Germany, were to be at play in the present dispute, quo non, it could not prevent you from exercising your jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal that ruled on the Larsen versus Hawaiian Kingdom and was presided by James Crawford, clearly stated that, again in another context, the monetary gold principle does not apply when, and let me quote that in English, "the legal finding against an absent third party could be taken as a given." According to the preliminary objections of Germany and according to Mr. Worsworth yesterday, the application and memorial of Nicaragua are replete with assertions that Israel is in breach of multiple and fundamental norms of international law, and the great majority of its claims against Germany are dependent on the Court making prior determinations as to these breaches by Israel. Well, the Court and many other international bodies have already come to these prior determinations. I could recall a number, but I have not much time, so I should only give a couple of examples, and you, members of the Court, will refer to tab 13 for further useful references. As concerns international humanitarian law, the respondent state claims, and I quote, "The determination of whether Germany has breached the obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law would, as a prerequisite, require the Court to pass judgment on whether Israel has failed to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention and, more broadly, other provisions of treaty and customary law invoked by Nicaragua. Mutatis mutandis, Germany reasons in the same way as concerns its lack of attention vis-a-vis Israel's flagrant violations of other fundamental norms of international law, such as discrimination, racial segregation, apartheid, or the systematic assaults on the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. As Mr. Miller mentioned earlier, the court on a number of occasions has found that Israel is committing or is at risk of committing a genocide and that it is acting in breach of humanitarian international law and of international human rights law. And Sam Wordsworth was much upset by that yesterday. And having said, and I quote, that the court in particular ruled on the imminent risk of plausibility of rights that were made in the context of the South Africa v. Israel provisional measures proceeding." He also alleged that the Court, and I quote, "The Court's finding in the South Africa case served a different purpose in a different case." Why that, Mr. President? Well, the case brought by South Africa is indeed different from ours but the purpose of such findings is the same determining the risk of genocide or of serious violations in the same context now to reduce the reach of the court and other international bodies international institutions and credible NGOs, Germany is saying that these are mainly advisory opinions that are not binding. Now, this is really underestimating, seriously underestimating, the legal reach of these determinations and, more specifically, of your own opinions. Nicaragua does not challenge the fact that, as such, the Court's opinions are not binding. However, The court, when it gives opinions, acts as a court of law. It states the law, and its determinations enjoy the highest legal authority. The court regularly states that, even when it is giving consultative opinions, it is and remains a court of law and must apply the international law for which it is the favoured body which interprets it. I also note that whenever it has been possible, the Court has referred to its own legal conclusions within its consultative opinions, advisory opinions, as it does quote its own judgments. As concerns the Special Chamber of ITLOS in the dispute concerning the delimitation of the maritime border between Mauritius and the Maldives, it relied directly on the Court's Chagos opinion of 2019. And having said, and I quote, "It is equally recognized that an advisory opinion entails an authoritative statement of international law on the question with which it deals." The chamber then stated that the determinations made by the ICJ in an advisory opinion cannot be disregarded simply because the advisory opinion is not binding. It recognised the conclusions and findings of the court in its 2019 opinion and took account of it in asserting the legal status of the Chagos archipelago. Now, there is no reason to consider your findings and determinations as givens, unless, of course, the court were to give less authority to its own advisory opinions than what the, what it lost, recognise in its opinions, or less authority than the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, or the African Court of Human and People's Rights recognize it. Indeed, this last body in 2022 gave full effect to your opinion of 1975 on the Western Sahara. And this is all the more relevant as the court's solutions are quoted or confirmed by very many other trustworthy bodies. The lack of consideration that our learned friends give in their pleadings to advisory opinions is very different from what Germany usually does. Thus, during the vote on the resolution on the 2024 opinion at the General Assembly, Germany stated that the be no doubt that Germany respects the ICJ's advisory opinions, that it will act in line with the obligations of international law set out in it, and that it is ready to assist in its implementation in its entirety to achieve justice and lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Germany also recognized, and I'll quote in English, don't think there's a French translation for that, that the court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. Contrary to what Mr. Wordsworth said, Nicaragua is not alone in, and again in English, to seek to make something of Germany's vote in the UN General Assembly endorsing the 2024 advisory opinion and calling upon all states to comply, and likewise of a statement by Germany's representatives that Germany would act in line with the obligation of international law set out in the opinion. Agent for Germany expressly referred to this yesterday. in her introductory remarks. Let me add that my learned friend has a tendency to somewhat change what we say, and from the very beginning of his last argument when he states, "On Nicaragua's case, even though the very subject matter of a contentious case is the state responsibility of a non-consulting party, the court can still make findings concerning that absent state by reference to determinations made in past advisory opinion. That is how our position was presented. But no, sir, no, we are not using the court's prior positions and the positions of previous of many authorities to establish the responsibility of Israel. It is not the subject of this case. These clear positions stated clearly indicate that the responsibility has been established elsewhere as Germany itself recognizes and that is a given from which we should look at the responsibility of other states in this case of Germany.

Second argument Germany's second argument namely that the court not receive sufficient information to allow it to reach its conclusions regarding the situation in Palestine is equally unconvincing and even smacks somewhat of cynicism. The Court itself, moreover, emphasized that it had sufficient information to answer the questions put to it when it issued its various opinions on the situation in Palestine. I allowed that Israel exercised its right to put forward its views and to provide the Court with all the information it considered relevant. Yesterday, Mr. Wordsworth quoted a passage from the 2024 opinion stating that the Court need only establish the main features of Israel's policies and practices, and on that basis, assess the conformity of these policies and practices with international law. These main features are also quite precisely what is required for the purposes of the present case. It is by no means a question of establishing Israel's responsibility for specific violations, but rather of noting that it is almost universally recognized as having committed genocide, or at least posing a risk of genocide, and as having committed various violations of international humanitarian law and other fundamental rules of general international law. And to conclude on this point, I'll briefly turn to Germany's final submission, according to which advisory opinions could only be of significance to those parts of Nicaragua's case not concerning events in Gaza post-October 2023. I note that Germany thus accepts, a contrario, the relevance of the Court's findings for the period prior to that date. Nevertheless, as regards the subsequent period, the Court's advisory opinions have no expiry date. The advisory opinions of 2004, 2024, and 2025 on the situation in Palestine as it continues today are almost unanimously recognized as authoritative. Germany itself has acknowledged this on various occasions. On 4 December 2024, Along with 150 other states, it voted in favor of the General Assembly Resolution 7991 concerning Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem. So resolutions 79 and 91, both of these resolutions call for compliance with your advisory opinions of 2004 and 2024. And as the German ambassador noted yesterday, Germany also voted in favor of the General Assembly's request for an advisory opinion of 19 December 2024 on Israel's obligations regarding the presence and activities of the United Nations. other international organizations and third states in and relation to the occupied Palestinian territory. The legal authority of the advisory opinions on the situation in Palestine as it has on the situation in Palestine since October 2023 is also evident from the court's case law. And in its 2024 opinion, the court drew upon the findings it had made 20 years earlier regarding them as established. Furthermore, in its advisory opinion of the 22nd of October 2025, it once again referred to its previous advisory opinions. In addition to these opinions, the court also referred to the situation prevailing in Gaza in the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip. Mr. President, members of the court, Even if the monetary gold principle were of any relevance whatsoever to our case, it is established that Israel is in breach of numerous rules of international law. The Court, therefore, has no need to make any prior determinations regarding Israel's conduct. It has already done so on several occasions over the past 22 years. And these findings have been supported by numerous other international bodies. They constitute established facts. They constitute givens. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the court, I would have a lot of, a lot more things to say, but some of my colleagues overstep their speaking time. So I will do that on another opportunity. Thank you very much for your That is the end of my pleading, which is also the Republic of Nicaragua's final submission in this first round.

Thank you.

I thank Professor Pelley.

Today's sitting. The Court will reconvene tomorrow, Wednesday, the 9th of September, 2026, 30 p.m. to hear Germany's second round of oral argument. At the end of the sitting, Germany will present its final submissions. Nicaragua will present its second round of oral argument at the sitting on Thursday, 30 p.m., at the end of which it will also present its final submissions. Each party will have a maximum of one and a half hours to present its arguments for the second round. As the parties and their counsel turn to their preparation for the second round of these oral proceedings, I take this opportunity to remind them of Article 60, Part 1 of the Rules of Court, pursuant to which The oral statements of the second round are to be as succinct as possible. The Court has emphasized this requirement in Practice Decision 6. The purpose of the second round is to enable each of the parties to reply to the arguments put forward orally by the opposing party. The second round must therefore not be a repetition of the statements already set forth by the parties, which moreover are not obliged to use all the time allotted to them. The sitting is closed.