conflict to observe, i it shall durham, and he has always fulfilled and continues to fulfil this obligation. it is persisting the urging israel to apply restraint to allow for him any terran access by opening checked 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 and of 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. common article one does not and cannot blog all

transfer of age to a state that might exercise its right to self defense. as such, a blanket prohibition would be nonsensical because it will be incompatible with every state's right to support countries acting in self defense. while the scope of common optical one is contested and requires further discussion, even taken edits brought us plausible interpretation. the obligation to ensure respect, embodied and common article one can do no more than suggest that all states must conduct a proper risk assessment for decisions regarding exports of military equipment and ours. so assuming that common optical one has implications for the transfer of arms and military equipment. because it has failed to offer any evidence, but plausibly show that germany did not act in due diligence in its export law and

practice. the german legal framework on the manufacturing marketing, an export of weapons, click soften, and all the military equipment is full, layered and strict. the german constitution itself, the highest level of the country money told by a robust constitutional court prohibits export of weapons without a license by the federal government. following these provisions, germany applies the war weapons control act, its foreign trade and payment act, the u. common position and the trade treaty as binding law. mr. thomas already explained that at least form industries are involved here, as you also see on the slide of the drum and the federal government's political principles on the export of weapons. and the military goods of 2019 explicitly seek to and i quote, the principles, design or restrictive weapons export policy within the framework of germany's international obligations. these principles are general administrative rules of

defense of the german constitution. with these, the government binds itself and limits its discretion. the principles refer to the you common position. further, the export of weapons and military equipment is to the extent feasible subject to parliamentary control. the federal government informs parliament about licensing decisions that have gone through the federal security council and about the kind number of goods, recipient, country and, and whole german enterprises. such reports also cover the total volume of the transactions unless an individual instances constitutionally protected interests prohibit such disclosure. this information is not classified, it's not secret. allow me to single out only 2 of the relevant benchmarks. all of the rules can be found in the judge's folder of the you common

position. germany having assessed the recipients countries attitude towards relevant principles established by instruments of international humanitarian law, applies the rule that it shall deny any export license if there was a clear risk that the military, technology, or equipment to be expanded might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and quote, where the terminal storage is identified, such a clear risk, they must deny the export licenses. but please note the assessment of course is by reference to the relevant equipment supplied. if it is a batch of helmets or training ammunition, of course the assessment may be no risk at all. in the narrow scope of the application of the alms trade 3 t terminal for a tease by, quote, shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms if they have knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of

genocide, crimes against humanity, greg preaches a tex directed against civilian objects, while the walcross if an export is not prohibited under this prohibition, drummond authorities assess the potential that the item could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of wyatt. if they find an overriding risk of such a negative consequence, they may not authorized the export. but again, flag tickets might not post such a risk. our fall to legal and political control regime of exports of arms and military goods is robust. it is democratic, as transparent as possible, given the sensitivity of the material involved. and it is subject to parliamentary and to some extent judicial oversight. nicaragua has provided no evidence whatsoever that the german licensing policy is not appropriate for conducting the

risk prob, knows this required by international law. by contrast, the german legal framework provides for constant reassessment in the light of highly dynamic situation on the ground. the domestic procedures in place amply satisfied the obligation to ensure respect on the common optical one so that any breaches implausible. to conclude, the court must apply a reasonable standard of plausibility, that does justice to the special features of this case. the case is brought to this court by a state not potty to a conflict against another state that is equally not potty to that conflict. it requires the application of a stretch of possibility tests that operates on 2 levels. nicaragua has not provided any evidence for the elements of causality, full knowledge and intention to facilitate germany's conduct as far removed from what ever putative breaches of international law by israel. all this leads to

complicity being out of the question germany has fulfilled any potential duty to take proactive steps to prevent any misconduct, including alleged genocide. well, that's tireless efforts to improve the situation for the people in gaza. finally, germany is employing stringent criteria with respect to a very limited supply of weaponry. it thus satisfied the due diligence standards under article one of the genocide convention. and all the more so its obligation to ensure respect on the broad umbrella clause of common optical, one of the geneva conventions. mister president, members of the court, the situation and gods as unbearable. too many lives have been destroyed. too many life plans shattered. we all want this to end, but this type of strategic legation between proxies will not bring us closer to the school. mr. president, this concludes my presentation. may i know,

request the call to call and professional counterpart cattie will continue with germany's presentation. thank you for your attention. i think we speak this photo statement. japan mentioned, i now cool. mr. palupa could teach the flu. you have the salsa. mister president, members of the court. it is for me and on us to appear before you on behalf of the federal republic of germany. the quote indicates professional measures. if somebody quote you, there is a real, an imminent risk of irreparable pressure. this concerning the rights claimed and of quotation that cora gunn has not demonstrated that germany's conduct meant that there were any risks to the rights of this you. council said nothing on the point which is however,

a crucial one. hope of old. they dwelt on the tragic situation that currently prevails in gaza. and on the 2 orders that you issued in january and march 2024. in the case between south africa and israel. mister president, there is one thing that must be clear at the outset. neither of these 2 orders can be used to demonstrate the existence of an imminent risk attributable to germany in new orders. you submissively acknowledge that the situation in gaza is such that that is a real, an imminent risk for the rights of the palestinians. but the risk as is you in your orders, is that that stems from the conduct of israel. your conclusion is

based solely on consideration being taken of israel's conduct. whereas what we're dealing with in this case is the conduct of germany. i need to sit by referring to jim. these conduct that the existence of any imminent risk has to be established. what your orders state clearly is that the humanitarian situation in the gaza strip is catastrophic. germany is fully aware of that. its political leaders have declared on numerous occasions that they are distraught in the face of the suffering of the civilian population of casa . as a member of the international community, germany has this determinant to be done everything it come to make sure

this suffering ceases. it has stressed the need for international law or to be complied with. others has taken concrete measures with a view to responding to international concerns. these measures go to show no, show me the correct was contentions and its application a totally baseless it also shows and this is what i intend to develop this morning that there is no imminent risk of home attributable to germany in the time allotted to me, i shall deal festival with metro is pertaining to military assistance. after which i shall move to humanitarian aid. the curricula is inviting the courts to indicate a measure measure number one,

asking that germany and by quote is valid. in particular, it's military assistance funds, as he does show and of quotations. and it's a request for the education of professional mattress and the correct q. it justifies this measure by referring solely to the situation in the gaza strip. yesterday nicaragua changed its position no longer. is it talking just about the gaza strip, but crucible genocide, one of the serious violations quote, occurring in the gaza strip as well as of the parts of palestine and of quotation. nicaragua has not explained why this change has a coach. it is not said, said, was there any new fact sort of image that require us to look at the situation

prevailing in the published in the entire tree outside dasa? no, as it provides a detailed information on the question, it's trust entry is quite simply disrupt accusations without specifying any facts. no, providing evidence is the same approach that underlies the 2nd measure, which requires of germany. but it must show vigilance as regards weapons that have already been supplied to israel. nicaragua, in fact, does not say anything as to how in practice germany could show such vigilance the agent for the correct q a yesterday stated, i quote that this measure requires germany to use what type of legal or contractual pause and whatever influence it has of israel and of quotation, mister president, if it is a matter of exciting and the influence of israel,

then nicaragua can, should be reassured, as it knows full well. the highest authority is of the german state, have on numerous occasions of israel to agree to a humanitarian pause. and to make sure that the international monetary in law is complied with. any measure from the court along those lines is not the necessary knowledge and in reality, for the quote to indicate measures numbers $1.00 and $2.00 nicaragua would have had to have furnished creditable proof demonstrating that is an imminent risk that germany intentionally in full knowledge of the fact, school without showing due diligence is providing military aid to israel, such as it is committing the grave breaches of international law. nicaragua has not furnished such proof. in fact,

it cannot do so quite simply and that for an essential reason. german, lo and i'm an administrative practice subordinate to the grunting of export licenses for weapons and not the military equipment to very severe conditions. those conditions go far beyond what is required on to international law. i have no intention of repeating what has already been said on this matter, 5 professors times and pages. i won't quite simply point out that it is difficult to understand how new correct to come. the states that it's current request is urgent. whereas according to german law, for a long time, very strict contrition conditions have had to be complied with, with a view to preventing any risk, including that, relied on by the applicant state. this is all the more true or is that the

compliance with the straight to conditions is something that is monitored throughout the length, the appraisal procedure prior to the granting of licenses. let me refer to, to main features which demonstrate that there's a very painstaking assessment that just carried out by each. the 1st of these aspects concerns the number of full authority, certain involved in the procedure. as a professor, as time some pages were pointed out to the license, authorizing export of weapons requires intervention, the positive several ministries, and within each ministry the expert to prepare a draft opinion as to whether or not the license tripping prompted. the assessment is finalized by senior ministerial officials, in other words, a license could only be approved if the german government in its entirety and that

means all ministers consent agreed that the export conditions have been met. the 2nd, the spect concerns the object of the certification. first of all, this has to do with the nature of the military materially in question, particularly the risk of the being, any inappropriate use that might be made there off. and this is something i would like to stress. there are numerous military alter goals that come under the heading of the military equipment and the export of which is subject to authorize ations according to german legislation. it show no risk of that being of abuse of utilization, and that's is it true of certain articles that have cost as will weapons be

naturally, the situation of the destination countries also examined very closely. each request for a license is given to the foreign export service of the federal for an office, which then draw systematically on the expertise of the specialist of the country in question before giving its opinion. mister president, at this point i should show you how this regime and this procedure have been implemented when of having to do with the export of weapons and other military equipment to israel. however, i don't need to spend any more time on this point. since professor terms has already shown you the number and content of the license which regret licenses which were granted in this context. the framework, however, it was sufficiently precise. german law requires that we take into account of the

situation on the ground is evolving. these are the guidelines which german authorities and german officials are held to having to do. wisconsin. to convince you that there is an imminent risk of pressure to snicker on class is trying to focus your attention on the number of licenses which had been granted by germany in the weeks, immediately following 7 october 2023. nicaragua claims that the weapons exports to israel have continued to can increase. during the following months, professor pele said this explicitly and i quote him. the sales of arms have not ceased. they have in fact, increased very considerably and of quote, this statement distorts reality. professor thomas has explained to you the

real data. you've already seen this graph. the reason i am showing it to you once again is because it's very clearly illustrates that nicaragua, as allegations are without merit. what happens is, in fact the opposite of what nicaragua spoke about yesterday to i don't need to spend any time on the reasons that letter in germany in october of 2023 to reaffirm its commitment to israel security all the more. so because the question which needs to interest us here is to establish if there is an imminent risk which could justify the indication of provisional measures. however,

we cannot seriously claim to rely on this situation existing in october of 2023 to prove the existence of such a risk. what is more, by ignoring germany's conduct since october this risk, it can be established only based on the situation as it exists today. in april 2024 . and let me just say once again, the situation today is clear. german law has imposed strict conditions on weapons exports. this law, his continued to be applied and will continue to be applied rigorously by german authorities and officials, including when these exports have to do with israel. in his case law, the court has already taken into account the guarantees of internal law to execute the existence of an imminent risk of prejudice. in this case,

the court may trust bowes, german law, and the continued practice of those officials who are charged with applying it to conditions that are very strict which should suffice to prevent the risk of pressure to as to the rights that have been cited in this case, so let me come to humanitarian aid now, provisional measure 3 requested by nicaragua. and this says, germany must resume its support and financing of armoire in respect to his populations in gaza and of quote, germany. and this is nicaragua, as argument by suspending its financing to unlock will cons, imminent risk of approaches to the rights of palestinians in gaza. the accusation brought by nicaragua his fully without

a basis and of bad faith. germany has not violated any obligation and does not. and has not created through its conduct any imminent risk approaches of irreparable prejudice. and let me give you 3 points to prove this. first of all, you've already heard this morning of varies and so varied, efforts furnished by germany in giving humanitarian aid. as professor thomas has shown, this aid has never stopped, it was not interrupted and is continuing actively today. germany, it has never shown the intention of stopping that aid. this circumstance is in itself sufficient to be convinced of the absence of an imminent risk attributable to germany. snicker aka is avoiding to taking into account these

initiatives. it is focusing only on the suspension of contributions to unlock. it is obvious, however, that the financing of unlock is not the only possible form of humanitarian aid. a state cannot be held responsible for an immediate risk of prejudice if it is furnishing and providing humanitarian aid to the population. by other means. number 2. so my 2nd observation is that nicaragua is basing itself on an erroneous assumption. it is not because of the lack of financing that humanitarian aid is not arriving to the population of palestine in the true problem is that there are restrictions to the entry and distribution of this mandatory n. a. as you recognize itself yourself, there is an urgent need to increase the capacity

a number of open land crossing points into gaza. in these circumstances, it is useless to focus on the suspension of our financing of unlock. it is clear also that if there are restrictions to your entry and distribution of humanitarian aid, that may cause the imminent risk to the rights of the palestinians and gaza. this risk is not a tribute of all to germany, which has never had any control over the territory. and which is urged many times, including at the highest levels, the officials of israel that they need to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid is my 3rd observation, my last observation concerns the position of germany towards on why, even if we, except to can concentrate specifically on the decision to suspend our financing.

this is not sufficient to conclude that there is an imminent risk of prejudice. first of all, the decision to provisionally suspend financing for n y had no immediate effect on on was activity. in fact, according to the pre established finance plan, no new financing should have been made by germany in the weeks following january 27, 2024. secondly, being aware of how necessary it is to get clarity on the grave allegations that have been made against some members of unless staff germany is continued to recognize the important role to the agency is playing in casa. and this is shown by germany support to the initiatives that are financing to work out for your organization,

including the support for the contribution on 1 march 2024 of 50000000 yours by the e u. where in germany is the largest financial contributor serge lane, despite the difficulties that the suspension of financing could have created for the organization, there is no immediate risk of that on while i will stop it's activities in gaza. the commissioner general of another option, a place or any recognized at the end of march, that the organization has enough financing to continue functioning until the end of may. more over, some states have decided to resume their financing. germany has itself announced a financing of 45000000 years of um for on rise regional work in jordan, lebanon, syria, and the west bank. so now i come to my conclusions for the courts to indicate for

additional measures. there must be a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice, and this risk must be evaluated with respect to germany's conduct. without this, nothing justifies these measures, neither in the area of military assistance nor in the area of humanitarian aid. therefore, the court must refuse to indicate the measures which were requested by nicaragua. mister president, members of the court. i thank you for your attention, and i ask you mister president, to give the floor to the agent of germany about them tanya, yvonne started by him. thank you mister pockets to you for your statement. back to the agent of germany, ms. dunn newborn collection. you have a floating mother. thank you. says the president, members of the court,

including this morning's presentation. permit me to reiterate. germany's great concern for the situation of the palestinians in gaza that concern it shares with things like a rock wall. emphasis quote, to leave it the suffering of the palestinians alongside insuring the release of the hostages and security for israel, a central goals of germany and the current crisis. presentations this morning have highlighted what this currently involves. continues in close engagement with this really and palestinian leaders in order to increase to mentoring access to gaza and provide the essentials humanitarian aid to, to ensure the terrorist or international law in order to promote a sustainable political solution for peace and security in the rich was the president,

germany attaches great importance to the solid and consistent administration of justice by this court. such an administration requires a careful analysis of the evidence and the serious scrutiny of legal claims and respect of the fundamental principles of international business, especially. so when it case was rushed to this court against the state, that is accused of being an excess and an accessory row in the next nations. as jeremy's counsels have set out, a rock horse request has no basis in law or fact. there are no legal reasons to justify the request that provisional measures. germany is not a violation at the genocide prevention nor international humanitarian law. now that directly not in directly our actions, but we support israel and what we assist palest.