Arms in Palestine at the International Court of Justice

Nicaragua argued that, by providing Israel with political, financial, and military support, and withdrawing assistance to UNRWA, Germany was breaching its obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide and “facilitating the commission of genocide”, its obligations to prevent violations of the Geneva Conventions, and IHL. However, in its response, Germany detailed the types of licences for arms exports granted to Israel since 7 October 2024, stating that only four licences were granted for “war weapons” and that it had not approved new ones. One of the four licences was granted for 3,000 portable anti-tank weapons in the immediate aftermath of the attack by Hamas. Germany also detailed that its decision to suspend funding to UNRWA was only temporary and that it continued to provide other forms of humanitarian aid to Gaza. On 24 April 2024, Germany officially announced that it would resume cooperating with UNRWA, signalling a resumption of frozen funding, before the ICJ issued its Order of 30 April 2024.

The Court ruled that the circumstances at present did not warrant the indication for provisional measures based on the factual information and legal arguments presented by the Parties. In its Order, the Court noted that, under the German legal framework, “an assessment is carried out … to ascertain whether there is a clear risk that the particular item subject to licensing” would be used in violations of the relevant international crimes. It further noted that there was a reduction in licences granted from 200 million EUR in October 2023 to 24 million EUR in November 2023 and to approximately 1 million EUR in March 2024, according to information submitted by Germany. Despite this, the Court noted that the case will proceed. It reminded States parties of their obligations to respect and to ensure respect of the Geneva Conventions regardless of whether or not they are involved in a given conflict. It also recalled that the Genocide Convention requires States to employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent the commission of the crime of genocide so far as possible.

Regardless of the Order on the request for provisional measures, the judgement highlights the importance the Court places on the licensing assessment for arms exports, and the risk that such arms might be used to contribute to violations of international crimes in a given conflict. This does indicate that there may be certain licensing decisions or the export of certain items that may not be permissible according to the ICJ. This is notable given that, in February 2024, Nicaragua stated it would aim to hold Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands responsible for violations of the Genocide Convention, IHL, and customary law.

Moreover, the Court has not removed the case per Germany’s request and will continue to entertain the case and, possibly, rule on the merits of the case at a later stage. Its emphasis on all States Parties’ obligations under the Geneva and Genocide Conventions, including in relation to the transfer of arms to parties of an armed conflict and the risk of these arms being used to violate these Conventions, illustrates the international Court’s recognition of States obligations to engage in responsible arms trade under international law.