Preliminary objections at The Hague

Germany asked the International Court of Justice on Monday to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Nicaragua that accuses Berlin of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention through its military exports to Israel. Legal representatives for Berlin appeared in The Hague for four days of hearings focused strictly on jurisdiction and legal admissibility rather than the substantive merits of the allegations. Germany argued that Nicaragua failed to adhere to standard dispute resolution procedures, giving Berlin less than one month to respond before initiating formal court proceedings. The German legal delegation maintained that the court lacks authority to adjudicate the dispute.

Julia Monar, legal adviser to the German Foreign Ministry, presented Berlin's defense during the opening session.

“Nicaragua's conduct indicates that it was not interested in hearing Germany's view on its allegations, but simply in bringing Germany before this court.”

Arguments over arms sales and export controls

Berlin outlined its export control framework to demonstrate compliance with international humanitarian law. German officials stated that military transfers undergo rigorous case-by-case reviews designed to prevent equipment from being deployed in active hostilities in Gaza. The German government previously instituted a pause on arms exports to Israel for approximately three months in 2025 before resuming shipments following a ceasefire that halted large-scale fighting in October 2025. Although defensive supplies continued this year, Berlin insisted that offensive weapons of war remain prohibited under current licensing guidelines.

Monar addressed the specific categories of equipment authorized for transfer since the initial filing.

“Germany has not, since 2024, authorized an export of weapons of war, with final destination in Israel that can be used in the Gaza conflict.”

Third-party obligations under the convention

A central pillar of the German defense rests on the legal principle that the court cannot rule on aiding and abetting without first establishing a primary violation. German counsel argued that adjudicating Berlin's compliance would require the judges to assess the actions of Israel, an indispensable third party that has not consented to the jurisdiction of this proceeding. In contrast, Nicaragua asserts that the 1948 Genocide Convention imposes an autonomous obligation on all signatory states to prevent genocide as soon as a concrete risk arises, regardless of whether a prior judicial determination exists.

German representatives rejected Nicaragua's characterization of the sales, describing the claims as inaccurate and distorted representations of German policy. The court previously refused Nicaragua's request for emergency provisional measures in April 2024, noting that war weapons comprised roughly 2% of German military export authorizations to Israel and that nearly 80% of the volume had been approved before late October 2023.

Broader litigation and future schedule

The dispute takes place alongside separate proceedings at The Hague, including South Africa's genocide application against Israel. Full hearings on the merits in that case are not scheduled to take place until late 2029 at the earliest, after both parties requested additional 18-month periods for written pleadings. Nicaragua presents its oral counterarguments on Tuesday to defend the court's jurisdiction over Berlin.

The International Court of Justice is expected to issue its ruling on Germany's preliminary objections to jurisdiction later in 2026. If the judges determine that the case can proceed, several additional years of written arguments and hearings will follow before any final judgment on the merits.