Many international legal decisions are made in the Peace Palace in The Hague, a representative Neo-Renaissance building. The judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently decided that Germany does not have to stop its arms exports to Israel. The process was operated by Nicaragua; It ended happily for the federal government. Things could turn out differently in a 1990s building in Berlin-Moabit. In a few days, the 4th Chamber of the Administrative Court will decide on an immediate stop to German arms deliveries. The court has three cases before it. One is coordinated by a collective of several lawyers, another by the human rights organization European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. The lawsuit she is overseeing was brought by five Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. At the beginning of May they also submitted an urgent application. It lies with the F.A.Z. The men lost relatives in air strikes. The Palestinians’ lawyers are calling for the federal government to be temporarily prohibited from issuing export licenses for “120 mm precision tank ammunition with an end customer in the state of Israel.” The export of other ammunition and projectiles should also be banned, as should the export of “anti-tank weapons and/or small arms that have been used by land, air or sea in Gaza since October 7, 2023”. From the lawyers’ point of view, there is reason to hurry because their clients’ life and limb are at risk. Most of them are apparently in Rafah; a man sought refuge in the Nusseirat refugee camp. The lawyers report that all of them lost family members as a result of Israeli air strikes, and one of the men lost his four children. The Israeli armed forces are already equipped with weapons from Germany, the written statement states. They would also be used in Gaza. The lawyers also refer to reports of another export application. It is available to the Federal Ministry of Economics and concerns 10,000 precision projectiles with a caliber of 120 millimeters to be fired by battle tanks. It can be assumed that “the use of this ammunition . . . “can and will take place at the applicants’ places of residence,” the application states. In view of the “supply needs”, further approvals must also be expected. The Ministry of Economic Affairs made the application at the request of the FAZ. no information and referred to the Ministry of Defense. Lawyers: Even the risk of a violation of international law is enough. The lawyers believe that the basic right to physical integrity also binds the federal government towards the Palestinian applicants. They also refer to the War Weapons Control Act (KrWaffKontrG). It also obliges the federal government to comply with international law in matters of arms exports. According to paragraph 6, an authorization may not be granted if it conflicts with international law. These include the Arms Trade Treaty, the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions. They regulate what is permitted in armed conflicts and are also called “international humanitarian law”. This is what the Berlin proceedings are primarily about. The lawyers emphasized: Unlike in the disputes under international law, it is not a question of “whether Israel can be accused of genocide.” For German export law, “the risk of a violation of international law represents a relevant obstacle”. In this context, they point to the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, the over 30,000 deaths, the destroyed infrastructure and famine. In Nicaragua’s urgent proceedings against Germany, the federal government pointed out that export volumes had declined significantly since the Hamas attacks. Incidentally, 98 percent of the deliveries since October 7th included “other armaments”, not military weapons. The international lawyer Christian Tams also emphasized the “strict examination” that precedes an export permit. At least two ministries are involved, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Foreign Office. After all, Germany is committed to international law, said Tams. The close relations that exist with Israel, including in defense policy, are based on “robust” legal regulations. What does the federal government owe the Palestinians? The Berlin judges did not seem to be satisfied with the statements. In any case, at the end of April they asked the federal government for an explanation as to how it would be ensured in the future that exports to Israel “do not violate any of the Federal Republic’s obligations under international law or their fulfillment. . . would endanger”. They added: “The court assumes that no arms deliveries to Israel falling under the KrWaffKontrG will be approved until a decision has been made on the urgent application.” The fact that this probably expressed more than one statement was made clear by another sentence: “ If this is different, please inform us immediately; If necessary, a so-called hanging decision would then be issued.” This is what interim orders in urgent proceedings are called. In their response, the federal government’s lawyers emphasize that the federal government decides on approvals “in the light of the respective situation after careful examination, taking into account foreign and security policy considerations.” They explain the legal framework and emphasize Israel’s right to self-defense. It does not exempt from international humanitarian law, which the Federal Government continually demands that Israel comply with, “both publicly and in confidential discussions.” ‘” to be able to have it prohibited. The federal government is also not “constitutionally responsible” to them. German basic rights end “where a process is controlled in its essential course by a foreign power. . . “is designed,” they write, i.e. where the federal government’s influence ends. The Federal Administrative Court recognized fundamental rights obligations in “exterritorial” constellations in 2020; At that time it was about American drone operations in Yemen, which were controlled via Ramstein. However, there are strict requirements. The Basic Law should not establish a “universal world law” “with which any foreign, security and development policy decision can be challenged because of the mere ‘possibility’ of a threat to fundamental rights,” the lawyers write. They warn: A “practically unlimited responsibility of the German state” would “paralyze” the federal government in its power to shape foreign, security and development policy. There is no evidence of a connection between German arms deliveries to Israel and violations of international law. The “disastrous humanitarian situation in Gaza” has many causes; “The war weapons delivered from Germany are not included.” The administrative court will probably decide on the urgent procedure at the beginning of next week.
Go to Source