Nicaragua has asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to reject Germany's bid to throw out its genocide case arising from the war in Gaza, arguing before the Hague-based court that the claims should proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The case, brought by Nicaragua against Germany, centres on Berlin's military and other support for Israel. Nicaragua contends that Germany's arms exports and broader assistance implicate it in violations of the Genocide Convention in connection with Israel's military campaign in Gaza. Germany has moved to dismiss the case, and the ICJ held hearings on that preliminary challenge, with Nicaragua urging the judges to deny the German application and allow the proceedings to continue.

Nicaragua filed its application at the ICJ in March 2024 under the Genocide Convention of 1948, invoking the court's jurisdiction under Article IX of the treaty. Germany's objections target the court's ability to hear the dispute at all — a threshold question the judges must resolve before any examination of the substance of Nicaragua's allegations.

At this procedural stage, the court does not rule on whether genocide has occurred or whether Germany bears responsibility. It decides only whether the case is admissible and whether the ICJ has jurisdiction. Nicaragua argued that both states are parties to the Genocide Convention and that the dispute between them falls squarely within Article IX, which permits disputes relating to the Convention's interpretation or application to be referred to the court.

For Germany, the stakes are considerable. A ruling upholding jurisdiction would expose one of Israel's closest European allies to years of litigation over its arms export policy toward Israel, with potential findings on state responsibility under the Genocide Convention. A dismissal would end the case at the doorstep. Germany is a major supplier of weapons and military equipment to Israel, and Nicaragua's filings seek to draw a legal line from that support to alleged violations in Gaza.

The case runs on a parallel track to South Africa's separate genocide proceedings against Israel at the same court. Nicaragua has also participated in those proceedings as an intervening party. The Germany case is one of several ICJ matters stemming from the Gaza war, which began after the Hamas-led attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and the Israeli military campaign that followed.

Practical consequences for practitioners

For legal teams advising governments and defence contractors, the jurisdictional phase of Nicaragua v. Germany is the key procedural battleground. If the ICJ upholds jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention, states providing military or other support to a party engaged in armed conflict face a realistic prospect of being sued at The Hague by third states — even without any direct role in the underlying operations. Counsel should track the court's forthcoming ruling on admissibility closely, as it will shape the evidentiary and pleading strategy for the merits phase and set a precedent for similar convention-based claims. Arms export licensing authorities and their legal advisers will also need to weigh litigation risk at the ICJ when approving transfers, since discovery-style disclosure of export decisions could follow if the case proceeds.

The court has not indicated when it will rule on Germany's preliminary objections. Judgments on jurisdiction at the ICJ typically follow within months of the closing of hearings. Whatever the outcome, the ruling will clarify the reach of the Genocide Convention's dispute-settlement clause over allied support relationships — a question with implications well beyond these two parties.

The ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, sits in The Hague and adjudicates disputes between states. Its judgments are binding on the parties, though the court has no enforcement power of its own. Fifteen judges normally hear each case, supplemented where necessary by judges ad hoc appointed by the parties when no national sits on the bench.

Nicaragua's legal team framed the dismissal bid as an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the consequences of German arms supplies. Germany's counsel countered that the case should not proceed. The hearings at the Peace Palace concluded with the judges reserving their decision.