On 15 March 2024, the International Court of Justice confirmed that it would hear Nicaragua’s case against Germany on 8 April 2024 and 9 April 2024. Nicaragua claims that Germany’s allotment of financial and military aid to Israel, alongside the withdrawal of aid from the U.N.R.W.A., the U.N. agency that provides aid to Palestinians, violates the 1948 Genocide Convention and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Similar to South Africa’s case against the Israeli government, Nicaragua requested emergency measures to place an immediate moratorium on Israeli military offenses against Palestinian civilians, with hopes of restoring funding to the U.N.R.W.A. Major beneficiaries of the organization, like the U.S. and Germany, have withdrawn financing for the U.N.R.W.A. following possible connections between the agency’s employees and Hamas’ October 7th attacks. The subsequent decrease in funds raises concerns for the humanitarian ramifications, with instances of starvation and deaths due to lack of adequate healthcare on the rise in Gaza. 

In light of the verdict of South Africa v. Israel, in which the I.C.J. found a genocide of Palestinians by the Israeli government to be plausible, and subsequently ordered Israel to take all measures necessary to end and prevent further harm, Nicaragua v. Germany may set an expectation for reduced future foreign involvement in the Gaza conflict. Germany, by supplying weapons and aid to Israel, may violate the responsibility of states to prevent genocide that was laid out in the conventions. With a guilty verdict, other nations that similarly offer aid to Israel may feel pressure to reduce their funding. 

While Nicaragua hopes to alleviate the situation of the Palestinian people, the state continues to carry out human rights abuses domestically, de-legitimizing its grounds for condemnation. A U.N.-appointed group of experts recently revealed major abuses, highly citing the repression of dissent, in their recent report. A member disclosed that “[s]erious systematic human rights violations, tantamount to crimes against humanity, continue to be perpetrated by the Nicaraguan Government for political reasons” in a U.N. press release statement from 29 February 2024. Such damning convictions of the Nicaraguan government do not bode well for the validity of the case, or the Pro-Palestine movement.

Although the I.C.J. may rule in favor of Nicaragua, as it ruled in favor of South Africa on 29 January 2024, these cases demonstrate the insufficient nature of international law. Enforcement is nearly impossible unless through public pressure. Even following the January decision, in which Israel was confronted by the ruling of the I.C.J., military operations against the Palestinian people continue to be carried out by Israeli forces, seemingly unaffected by the court’s decision. Since 2015, Israel has been the subject of 140 U.N. resolutions, which were often centered around Palestinian treatment and various other regional disputes. While the I.C.J.’s rulings are binding, with no enforcing body, the only response that the I.C.J. can facilitate is urging the withdrawal of foreign nations’ ties with Israel and the enactment of sanctions. 

The U.S., Israel’s staunchest supporter alongside the accused Germany, recently placed sanctions against West Bank settlers. The change in sentiment towards the conflict, mirrored by the growing percentage of American voters who desire a ceasefire, alongside the I.C.J.’s ruling in the South Africa case, represents a turning point in the conflict. Public opinion seems to demand peace over a continued military assault. Yet, thousands of Palestinians continue to die and flee, and progress in peace talks is not happening at a fast enough rate to effectively end the conflict promptly. An unenforceable court decision will likely not bring about an end to a conflict steeped in decades of historic tensions and political nuances. Peace will not be brought about through such a simple fix, but the influence of such a decision could place increased pressure on achieving results.

While diplomacy between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people, along with other methods of peacemaking, remains at the forefront of the solution, public pressure and influence serve an incredibly important role in this conflict. U.S. aid to Israel in 2022, amounted to over $3 billion. Other nations, like Germany, also provided a large amount of funding to Israel, especially since the October 7th attacks. Yet, as the conflict stretches and the suffering of the Palestinian population grows, citizens of countries financing the war have grown weary of the violence, and the increasing desire for a permanent ceasefire has crossed political lines and poses a serious question for Western governments. While the Nicaraguan case may have been filed as a political red herring in light of the recent U.N. report detailing Nicaraguan human rights abuses, it is still the first case brought against a country for supplying aid in the Gaza conflict and will serve as a landmark case.

As Israel continues to lead an offensive mission in Gaza, with an end far from sight, the I.C.J.’s decision could influence the potential for a peaceful solution. If aid-providing countries fear a similar case and verdict against their government, they may be more reluctant to continue the financing of the war. A decrease in foreign aid to Israel, supplemented by the reinstatement of aid to the U.N.R.W.A., may reduce the scale of the war currently taking place, thus alleviating the suffering of Palestinian civilians. A reduction of violence and tension in the region may allow for more successful diplomatic talks, facilitating a sustainable solution and lasting peace in the region.