Nicaragua issued a memorandum urging Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada to stop backing the Israeli occupation and supplying it with arms.
Isn't it illegal, by their own laws, for many of these countries mentioned to sell Israel military equipment, supplies, and ammunition due to the recent ICJ ruling? Not even international law, but their own civil laws. Which should open weapons manufacturers and their governments up to civil lawsuits. I know South African lawyers plan to file such lawsuits against the USA and UK.
The pressure must be kept up against Israel. Not a moment of relief. Genocide cannot be tolerated.
So far, ICJ only ruled that there is a plausible case for Israel committing genocide. Once the case is decided, and if ICJ does rule that Israel conducted a genocide, then it most certainly will open up both countries and individual entities that facilitated the genocide to prosecution. The pressure absolutely needs to be kept up on both Israel and the states supporting it. Israel cannot do this on their own, it's the support for the west that makes the genocide possible.
Even if it's only plausible, many countries have laws on the books preventing the sale of weapons to countries under suspicion of committing genocide. I know that the UK has such a law. UK arms export licensing Rule 2c states: licences must “not grant (licenses) if there is risk …of a violation of international humanitarian law”.
So already with the ICJ's plausible ruling, many parties and countries open themselves up to lawsuits if they continue business with the Israeli military. Japan has stopped working with Israeli Elbit systems because of this, and it also led to the US pushing through their major arms deal with Israel, including 25 F-35 and 25 F-15 fighter jets, to be singed the day before the ICJ delivered their preliminary verdict.
Well, they need to make sure the ruling is final and not act on allegations without due investigation before they cut funds. You know, like they did with the UNRWA.
Are you really trying to both sides this? Firstly the law in question uses the word "risk", not "certainty" so I'm sure the ICJ ruling that there's a plausible case of genocide against Israel fits that description.
Secondly, the Western nations that cut funding from the UNRWA did so as a form of protest after Israel lost in court and as a way to de-legitimise the case against Israel, as a lot of findings in the preliminary ruling of the ICJ use UN figures as a source. They are not cutting funding from the UNRWA because they believe in Israel's "dossier of evidence" with regards to UNRWA participation in October 7, no one believes that, they are cutting funding from the UNRWA to tarnish the reputation of the ICJ, the UN and to attempt to tarnish the evidence used in the case of genocide against Israel. Because if Israel is found guilty of genocide, these nations will be complicit in that genocide. So they are simultaneously trying to cover their arses and reduce the chances of that happening through cutting funding from the UNRWA, for the reasons mentioned above.
What I meant was to show the discrepancy in how said countries dealt with the 2 cases to show how clearly they are impartial, and are not bothered to hide it.
Not even international law, but their own civil laws.
Speaking for germany I'm unsure as to what you're getting at here on a judicial level. Any arms sale has to be approved by the parliament, as such I don't see much hope for a civil law suit here.
Admittedly I'm using Google translate and my very limited knowledge of German here, but wouldn't Germany continuing to sell weapons to Israel be in violation of points 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2?
2.1
Approval may be refused in particular if... There is reason to believe that granting it would run counter to the Federal Republic's interest in maintaining good relations with other countries.
3.1
Approval is to be refused if...There is a risk that the weapons of war will be used in an act that disturbs the peace, especially in a war of aggression.
3.1 This is really interesting because it uses the word risk and not confirmed. Thus even the preliminary ruling of the ICJ should be enough to constitute risk here.
Isn't it illegal, by their own laws, for many of these countries mentioned to sell Israel military equipment, supplies, and ammunition due to the recent ICJ ruling? Not even international law, but their own civil laws. Which should open weapons manufacturers and their governments up to civil lawsuits. I know South African lawyers plan to file such lawsuits against the USA and UK.
The pressure must be kept up against Israel. Not a moment of relief. Genocide cannot be tolerated.
So far, ICJ only ruled that there is a plausible case for Israel committing genocide. Once the case is decided, and if ICJ does rule that Israel conducted a genocide, then it most certainly will open up both countries and individual entities that facilitated the genocide to prosecution. The pressure absolutely needs to be kept up on both Israel and the states supporting it. Israel cannot do this on their own, it's the support for the west that makes the genocide possible.
Even if it's only plausible, many countries have laws on the books preventing the sale of weapons to countries under suspicion of committing genocide. I know that the UK has such a law. UK arms export licensing Rule 2c states: licences must “not grant (licenses) if there is risk …of a violation of international humanitarian law”.
So already with the ICJ's plausible ruling, many parties and countries open themselves up to lawsuits if they continue business with the Israeli military. Japan has stopped working with Israeli Elbit systems because of this, and it also led to the US pushing through their major arms deal with Israel, including 25 F-35 and 25 F-15 fighter jets, to be singed the day before the ICJ delivered their preliminary verdict.
I very much agree.
Well, they need to make sure the ruling is final and not act on allegations without due investigation before they cut funds. You know, like they did with the UNRWA.
Are you really trying to both sides this? Firstly the law in question uses the word "risk", not "certainty" so I'm sure the ICJ ruling that there's a plausible case of genocide against Israel fits that description.
Secondly, the Western nations that cut funding from the UNRWA did so as a form of protest after Israel lost in court and as a way to de-legitimise the case against Israel, as a lot of findings in the preliminary ruling of the ICJ use UN figures as a source. They are not cutting funding from the UNRWA because they believe in Israel's "dossier of evidence" with regards to UNRWA participation in October 7, no one believes that, they are cutting funding from the UNRWA to tarnish the reputation of the ICJ, the UN and to attempt to tarnish the evidence used in the case of genocide against Israel. Because if Israel is found guilty of genocide, these nations will be complicit in that genocide. So they are simultaneously trying to cover their arses and reduce the chances of that happening through cutting funding from the UNRWA, for the reasons mentioned above.
Maybe I should have added "/s".
What I meant was to show the discrepancy in how said countries dealt with the 2 cases to show how clearly they are impartial, and are not bothered to hide it.
Speaking for germany I'm unsure as to what you're getting at here on a judicial level. Any arms sale has to be approved by the parliament, as such I don't see much hope for a civil law suit here.
Wouldn't Germany selling weapons be in direct violation of this
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/krwaffkontrg/__6.html
Admittedly I'm using Google translate and my very limited knowledge of German here, but wouldn't Germany continuing to sell weapons to Israel be in violation of points 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2?
2.1
3.1
3.1 This is really interesting because it uses the word risk and not confirmed. Thus even the preliminary ruling of the ICJ should be enough to constitute risk here.
Doesn't matter, judiically. The german parliament approves it, therefore it's fine.