Wed Sep 25 08:00:57 UTC 2024: ## ICJ Case Raises Concerns About Germany’s Arms Sales to Israel: Expert Criticizes Narrow Interpretation of Geneva Conventions
**The Hague, Netherlands** – A recent blog post by PhD researcher Parisa Zangeneh at the University of Galway raises concerns about Germany’s interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in the ongoing International Court of Justice (ICJ) case, *Nicaragua v. Germany*. Zangeneh argues that Germany’s understanding of Common Article 1, which obliges states to respect and ensure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances, is too restrictive and undermines the protections offered to vulnerable populations.
The case focuses on Nicaragua’s allegations that Germany’s continued support of Israel, including arms sales, contributes to violations of international law in the occupied Palestinian territory. Germany maintains that the external dimension of Common Article 1 only applies if there is a confirmed violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) by the state receiving the arms, in this case, Israel.
Zangeneh argues that this interpretation is too narrow, ignoring the obligation of due diligence to prevent and repress breaches of the Conventions, even if a confirmed violation hasn’t been established. She points to the widespread knowledge of Israel’s alleged IHL violations, citing statements from UN officials and Palestinian NGOs.
Moreover, Zangeneh criticizes Germany’s attempt to use the *Monetary Gold* precedent to challenge the ICJ’s jurisdiction. Germany argues that Israel is an indispensable third party and its consent is necessary for the case to proceed. However, Zangeneh draws on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) ruling in *Mauritius v. Maldives* to argue that Israel’s consent is not required, as the case primarily concerns Germany’s conduct.
The ICJ’s recent order regarding provisional measures did not adequately analyze the opposing interpretations of Common Article 1, leaving the scope of Germany’s obligations under the external dimension unclear. Zangeneh argues that this ambiguity could have significant consequences for the protection of vulnerable populations and the broader principles of humanitarian law.
Zangeneh urges the ICJ to reject Germany’s restrictive interpretation of Common Article 1 and to uphold the broader obligations of states to ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions in their international relations. The ICJ will continue to hear arguments from both sides, with final written pleadings due in 2025 and 2026.
First Piper 