the latches, the gemini, has breached article one of the genocide convention to effect and yet to prevent genocide. but in order to determine that the has been such a breach, the court must 1st determine that israel has committed genocide. this can be seen, for example, from the post in genocide case. please note this is a power across the nit correct q a for tap on the screen yesterday, but missing the passage is underlined on the screen. despite the obvious importance . in particular, a state can be held responsible for breaching the obligation to prevent genocide. only if genocide was actually committed the passage read out by me. correct? yeah. is it an atomics?

the quote that written for size is that it is not saying that there is no obligation of prevention until the perpetration of genocide commences. but the cold is clear on the need for a prior of finding on genocide before any breach of the obligation to prevent can be determined. and this is reiterated in the 2nd underlined paragraph. if neither genocide know any of the acts, how their acts listed in optical free, if a convention or ultimately carried out, then a states that admitted to act when it could have done said cannot be held responsible. a posterior jewelry, since the event did not happen, which under the rules set out above, must occur for that to be a violation of the obligation to prevent as the same basic point follows from the chrysler and serbia case. the court found that no genocide

had taken pains and heads that could not be any question of responsibility for a failure to prevent genocide affect due to punish genocide or complicity in genocide . turning back to the application, we tried to a den. i just said germany has a you didn't assisted israel and the commission of genocide and breaches of obligations under international humanitarian law at paragraph 673 and 672 and 3. and these allegations, again, cannot be determined without a pride, determination. the conduct of israel is unlawful. article 16 if the i o c. articles on the state responsibility, which the court has considered to be reflective of customer international. is

concerned with aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act. that must be an internationally wrongful act. the common free further terrifies that this must be a completed act. and that of course, he's only confirmed by the subsequent conclusion of the call to him complicity in the crow issue in sub your case, that you've just seen more of the i o c comment tree expressly nodes. the international court is repeatedly a fund for the cannot decide on the international responsibility of a state if in order to do so would have to what is a prerequisite on the little fullness of the conduct of another state. in the last his absence, and without a consent, this is the so called mind a tree gold principle. that principle may well apply to cases on the article 16

since it is of the essence of the responsibility of the aging or assisting state that the deed for assisted state itself committed. and please note that the use of the past tense and internationally wrong for the country does suggest that the monetary gold principle may not be a barrier. she does to judicial proceedings in every case. and indeed, that may, in a given case, already be the requisite pride finding, or indeed the consent from the 3rd stage. but in the current case, monetary gold does indeed apply. no return to the case and it's application shortly . i sent the decoration source of power across 673 and

67 for if the application for breach of coming out one and related customer international. no, due to a failure to ensure your compliance. a breach of the obligation to show respect in all circumstances is necessarily credit. can you take on that having being a lack of the required respect by the of the state. the reason being of the court in the both in the, in genocide case applies equally in the current context. that is, you've seen, the court explained, had the states obligation to prevent the corresponding duty tract arises when the state learns that the existence of a serious risk of genocide which is exactly the same as how they correct q a for trace the operation of coming article was spot is the quote also

explained a genocide must a for that to be a violation of the obligation to prevent precisely the same applies here and it makes no difference. a toll is common article one is invoice aged. it's a rule of due diligence is that is just how the obligation to prevent and to the genocide convention is interpreted. the basic question remains, how can it be said that there was a failure to show respect over the state? if the failure on the part of that the state to respect is not established in the 1st place, i would that this is how the court envisaged the operation of the cell publication and its 1986 judgement in the correct q and usa. and that is also the

intuitive result. it has been tardy usual for one state to support or not, but in the context of an on conflict. and this is not an activity that the international community reaches the seeks to deter. it is only the conduct of the conflict, turns out to be tab being in breach of international humanitarian law. for the x of the state offerings port would be expected to be ruled upon the same basic points applied to paragraphs $6075.00 if the application which is predicated on israel denying kind of science right to self determination and maintaining and imposing an apartheid regime as to the quotes, jurisprudence, the current case is substantially the same as monitoring cold to the coolest

explained. the quote is not merely called upon to say whether the gold should be delivered to it's late or to the united kingdom is requested to determine fast certain legal questions upon the solution of which depends the delivery of the gold or just so here the quote is not merely called upon to pronounce on the stage responsibility of germany. it is required 1st to make determinations as to the state responsibility of israel, a new career. you cannot avoid this by saying that the quote confines breached by germany on the basis of a serious risk of a breached bias route. on the correct analysis, such determinations would not be sufficient to establish breached by germany as follows. from the analogy to the post in genocide case. anyway, it's

a matter of principle. it makes no difference whether the required determination is an actual breach or serious risk of breach. there's still an essential prior determination of the conduct of an absent state on which the responsibility of the respondents state highly depends. the consequent reasoning of the quote in monetary gold concerning the absence of jurisdiction regarding the underlying issue, a breach file pena, task supplies in the current context. this is a tough termination of these questions. questions which relates to the law for law, for character of certain actions of albania. if he's a v h, lee, only 2 states, it's me and all paid. yeah. are directly interested or just so here. substituting

israel for albania, and the correct to for it to me, to go into the merits of such questions would be to decide a dispute between italy and dial pena. the court cannot decide such a dispute without the consent of albania. and this is not the case like now room where the determination is with respect to australia, is contact nearly might've had implications for the legal situation of the u. k. in new zealand. and the court was in a position to hold that no finding in respect of that legal situation will be needed as a basis for the court's decision on that res claims against australia. by contrast, the current case is precisely analogous to east timor with paul. she goes k as to

the law fullness of australia's conduct. in entering into the 1989 treaty with indonesia could not be assessed without 1st entering into the question why it is that indonesia click not law free. have concluded the 1989 tracy. again, current case is on the whole force to turn to the existence of a dispute, which is a basic prerequisite to consent to jurisdiction and to pay thoughts cool. 9 at the genocide convention and article $36.00 to the quote statute. the dispute that is where the item must exist objectively at the time the court is seized. equally well established is a need for pain of one party that is positively opposed by another. and the 2 size

must hold clearly up to sit fuse concerning the question of the performance or non performance of such an international obligations. as to the basic facts in this case, nic correct to i relies. so let's press release 1st, february 2024, and a note football. attaching a letter of 2nd february, as well as the ex accepts from a wide ranging german governmental press conference of sep, in february. so me correct. your says it's a possible position and it's a dispute, but it's a quote is explained the question of whether there is a dispute or not is not, is one of substance, not a full. this is not a books teaching exercise, as can be seen from the quotes, very detailed consideration and post cases as to whether there was indeed the required dispute with respect to this. that is the source of jurisdiction. i think

considering substance the context is of critical importance. the current parties, all right, 2 points of removed from the classic by that to dispute situation. to me correct q a, a p, as in this case, only on the basis of aged uh, got on as obligations by the to buy gemini, which is not, of course, a participant in the ongoing conflict in casa, and this is not the case where the parties had already looked tools before the united nations or in some of the, for in the current situation for that to be a dispute. as a matter of substance, they would have to be some form of meaningful engagement with a claim. because you and twitch gemini, communicated to this position, either to nick crack your, or in such

a way that it could objectively be understood as crystallizing a dispute. it was said yesterday that the legal dispute was described in the correct q as left to a 2nd february 2024. but this note, the ball was sent to the public information email address of germany's permanent mesh mission to the united nations in new not any address that is used for official diplomatic communications. it was not picked up until the 13th of february. and it should be noted that equivalent note football, but also is sent to the public information email addresses for canada, the netherlands, and the united kingdom. and we understand that these were like, twice, only picked up on the 13th february, following a further email, send,

find the correct q a to the nothing that's or this approach of new correct q i is to say the least unusual. and indeed, in the pos nicaragua has always sent notes football to the appropriate email addresses of the ambassador and assistance at the german embassy and my not quite often coughing in the german missions again on the appropriate email addresses. it follows that when at the general press conference of 7, february, a representative of the german federal foreign office was aust questions about having received a note football and how germany intended to respond. gemini was simply not in a position to say in the same material. the x, the press release is a judges folder tab 21. and into course i ask you to read this carefully.

you will see that the journalist asking the questions correct. he understood germany as not having received any note for paul. and you'll also see that you need did not consider itself ready to make any public statement of its position. this was not and could not to be a response crystallizing a dispute on the basis of a claim in a note file that had not been seen once it didn't fact receive the notifiable, germany was actively considering its response and seeking co ordination the 3 states that had received similar emails when without quoting me, correct good, commenced the current proceedings on size march there was no opportunity to

engage. and it is to be emphasized since this is not a case like um the me a ma with a quote cutting for the existence of a dispute following a failure to respond one month following that for you of a notice that ball. but his circumstances with a had already being a number of product communications both outside and within the un general assembly that showed the mutual opposition, the fuse, the crack, your sort to suggest. but twist pony on able to point to in a thing were mostly equivalent. and new to police seeks to invoke the german necked ball of 11 smocks sent to the court all stuff it was seized. and that of course is highly irrelevant because the quote is only concerned with the private face,

the showing. but the fact that this case is the professional measures phase cuts. but this way it is not just that extraordinary relief is sold, given that jurisdiction and the ability to exercise jurisdiction has not yet been established. a full size relief is sold on the basis the germany, a peaceful democratic nation, a long time a vowed support of international and the international legal order is breaching the genocide convention and conventional and customary international law . the determination so could scarcely be more serious, and the relief sold also has and is plainly intended to have direct and indirect impacts on the 3rd states, not before the quote. it is precisely in circumstances such as these,

the jurisdiction primacy. she demands a wheel showing a positive opposition and clearly opposed fuse. not a per super to rush to court in the hope that a box might be conceded at best hop taked. mister president meant that the course. thank you for your attention. i know a huge cold professor peters to the full i think was through what fluid for the statement. i now invite cosign feet, this thing before you have this. what am i mister president, members of the called, it is an honor for me to appear before you and to present germany's position on plausibility. this court has already been seized in another case to deal with heartbreaking consequences of the conflict in gaza,

initiated by the brutal attack of commerce on israel. but this case is not between the 2 parties to that conflict. here this is the 1st case of the quotes history in which provisional measures i saw against the state that stands accused of complicity in black, a vigilance and prevention of acts of another stage that is not potty to this proceedings. both types of legal obligations arise exclusively, unnecessarily, in connection with our in response to the conduct of another state that is absent from these proceedings. mister wordsworth has already demonstrated how this poses a serious admissibility problem. this attempt to request provisional manuals against one state by reference to the conduct of another state, stretches the plausibility assessment to breaking point in an unprecedented manner . this caldwell 1st have to find on the basis of evidence that there are

plausible facts that establish plausible violations on the pallet of israel. the 2nd, the code will have to find that there are plausible facts that establish plausible violations on the part of germany. here the court will especially have to establish whether there are plausible objective and subjective links between the conduct of germany and the conduct of the ap, some 3rd state. israel. in this novel, in special constellation one would have expected nicaragua to abuse concrete evidence and legal reasoning to substantiate its claims against germany. however, nicaragua has set surprisingly little on the law and as regards the facts, it is almost exclusively relied on speculation and in feeling since the garad well claims that germany is complicit in genocide and violations of international humanitarian law. allegedly committed by israel in paragraph 15 of the

application. the applicant mentions german, i quote, involvement and the facilitation of unlawful activities concerning the laws of war . and in paragraph 16, the applicant, the ledges that germany is facilitating the commission of genocide and calls this the distinct base of germany's responsibility of this must fail because the most basic prerequisites for establishing aid and assistance or what's really. busy the same thing complicity are lacking. these prerequisites are a causal contribution of the complaints to the wrongful act and knowledge and intention to facilitate the wrongful act of the main perpetrator. the cover of what has not and cannot provide any evidence to show these elements to be plausible. the standard requirements for causality in law as applied by international tribunals is

up there must be proximity, directness, all that the breach must not be too remote. proximity is established where the consequence of an act is a natural and normal consequence. such a link is especially needed to establish aid and assistance. 8 and assistance must have contributed significantly to the alleged wrongful act. this can only be determined objectively by assessing the quality and the quantity of the real contribution in the concrete case. nicaragua has offered no evidence as to how any of the military equipment from germany could have made a significant contribution to an alleged genocide or to breaches of via jo. given germany's trends and licensing standards set scrutinized precisely these risks.

there was no indication that german equipment would have naturally, aw, normally led to plausible violations of international law by israel. in addition, the cover of what has not provided any evidence for the presence of the necessary subject of elements which our knowledge and intent to in the bosnian genocide case, you insisted that the conduct of an oregon are positive furnishing 8 or assistance to a perpetrator of the crime of genocide cannot be treated as complicity and genocide unless at least that organ or person acted knowingly. that is to say in particular, was aware of the specific content dollars fitzgerald as of the principal perpetrator. if that condition is not fulfilled, that has is sufficient to exclude the categorization of the conduct of complicity. the position is the same and customary law, generally aid and assistance must be given was knowledge of the circumstances and

with the intention to facilitate the occurrence of the wrongful act. nicaragua has not provided evidence on any plausible attends on the part of germany to facilitate internationally wrongful acts. germany, on the contrary, has demonstrated to this court that its intention has always been to assure full respect of international law be at the genocide convention, international humanitarian law or other customer law. driven. he has engaged with these threat on numerous occasions to urge compliance. as explained by professor thomas, germany as a robust legal framework and produce fruits procedures in place with regard to arms exports. these procedures have been and will continue to be applied with regard to humanitarian aid. germany has contrary to the other guys just by the garage, blah, increase. that's f thoughts significantly. given these facts,

any obligation of intention to facilitate the perpetration of allegedly wrongful acts by israel is founded because of the elements of aidan, the systems are absent. all claims that germany has aided and assistant in maintaining a situation resulting from a legit, serious breaches of use. cool guns by israel as the go 41 section 2 of the articles on the state responsible. he put it are equally baseless. i now turn to germany's obligations under article one of the genocide convention and com and article one of the geneva conventions. although generally speaking, obligations to prevent genocide and to ensure respect with h l. r. indeed, germany's own obligations. nevertheless, the emergence of these obligations, the scope, the exec content,

and any possible breach of such obligations innovatively depend on. and they also vary by reference to the degree and to the kind of the risk of wrongful acts by another state. in this case, east rel, to allow me to start with the obligation to prevent genocide, that is an obligation of conduct that is incumbent upon all states. germany is, of course fully aware of the diverging views of the legal categorization of these rarely conduct of it's in its defense against the ongoing attack by how much the court has been seized, to judge upon this question. in another case, not this one. in the current context, it should be noted that germany is continuously engaged politically with each rolling a dialogue that has not tried away from critical questions in the strongest terms. german leaders have one east ralph, the grave. dangerous that a ground offensive and rough i would pose 4 months in candles, meetings,

german leaders and diplomats have worked towards the opening of mall board of crossings. and you for a professor. tom stayed earlier to prevent from mean germany is engaged in emergency deliverance dropping food from the air. these concrete metals of the heart of german policy. so germany has continuously used all reasonable means at its disposal to both exert its influence on these rarely partners in order to improve the situation and to itself furnished humanitarian aid. it continues to do so. every day. germany is lost in any event, julie fulfilled any conceivable obligation to prevent the occurrence of genocide by these concrete measures. we cannot see how i need you to present. could you mount more of jeremy? i turned to colman out to go one of the geneva conventions,

leaving aside the fact that nicaragua as a nonparty to the conflict and gaza, has no standing to enforce germany's obligations under common optical one with regard to a search state like israel, a violation of common optical, one of the geneva conventions by germany is not plausible. the 1st, nicaragua, case of 1986. this court identified one specific external obligation, incumbent upon non parties to an armed conflict. the obligation not to encourage violations of international humanitarian law by another state that finds itself anom conflict. it is inconceivable that germany would encourage israel to violate international humanitarian law. and indeed, not even a cover or alleges this 2nd, the obligation to ensure respect generates so called positive obligations to exert one's influence on poverty stone. i'm conflict to observe. i asked you durham and

he has always fulfilled and continues to fulfill this obligation. it is persisting the urgent israel to apply restraint to allow for you many terran access by opening check points and the like, ongoing and depths bilateral exchanges between various ministries on several levels . focus on the processes that these are all have in place to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. yesterday we heard nicaragua acknowledge these endeavors. 3rd, there is the issue of arms export end of the export of other military equipment. as i said, common article one unparalleled customer law, prohibits states from encouraging violations of h l. however, this provision does not generate a negative obligation to refrain completely from military support to a state involved in an conflict.