Latin Analysis: Nicaragua Seeks To Join South Africa’s International Court of Justice Genocide Case Against Israel
UN Photo l ICJ-CIJ
In a significant move that underscores the complex geopolitical dynamics around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Nicaragua has announced that they have requested to join South Africa in their case against Israel at the International Court of Law (ICJ) on January 23, 2024. This decision reflects a blend of strategic factors and ideological affinities, which mirrors a larger pattern in global geopolitics. It illustrates how these intersections shape foreign policy choices. Under the leadership of President Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua has pursued a foreign policy that often emphasizes anti-imperialist rhetoric and solidarity with movements perceived as challenging Western narratives, drawing parallels between their struggles with those of other nations like Palestine. Nicaragua’s solidarity with the Palestinian cause is motivated by a sense of historical solidarity against perceived oppression and injustice.
During the height of Apartheid in South Africa, Nicaragua openly condemned the apartheid-era government and policies. They saw the struggle against apartheid as part of a broader global fight against colonialism, imperialism, and racial discrimination. They viewed solidarity with oppressed peoples worldwide as a fundamental aspect of their revolutionary ideology, parallel to the present-day struggle of the Palestinians. Nicaragua's support for the anti-apartheid movement included providing political asylum to activists fleeing persecution and diplomatic support to the African National Congress (ANC) and other anti-apartheid groups. The shared experience of confronting oppressive regimes and advocating for human rights creates a strong bond between Nicaragua and South Africa.
South Africa originally filed their application proceedings against Israel on December 29, 2023, citing the same genocide convention. In this application, South Africa alleged that Israel had begun a genocide against the Palestinians. The ICJ found in a January 26 ruling that it had jurisdiction and therefore ordered several provisional measures against Israel to either end or de-escalate the war in Gaza, though the court did not order a ceasefire. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected any allegations of genocide, stating in the proceedings: “[The allegation of genocide brought by South Africa is] not only false, it’s outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it. Israel will continue to defend itself against Hamas, a genocidal terror organization. On Oct 7, Hamas perpetrated the most horrific atrocities against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, and it vows to repeat those atrocities again and again and again. Our war is against Hamas terrorists, not against Palestinian civilians.”
Nicaragua aims to drag other Western countries into the case for complicity with Israel, as the Government of Reconciliation and National Unity of Nicaragua released a statement on X that they have notified the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada “of its decision to hold them responsible under international law for gross and systematic violations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” Nicaragua additionally urged these countries to “immediately halt the supply of arms, ammunitions, technology and/or components to Israel as it is plausible they might have been used to facilitate or commit violations of the Genocide Convention, including but not limited to acts of genocide, attempted genocide, complicity in genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide.”
The request to join the ICJ case with South Africa sheds light on the focus of Nicaragua’s foreign policy and its alignment with other nations that have condemned Israel’s actions. This decision aligns Nicaragua not only with South Africa, but other nations that have been vocal critics of Israeli policies including Turkey, Jordan, Venezuela, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Namibia. These countries, while diverse in terms of political systems and geography, share common concerns relating to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. By aligning with these nations, Nicaragua seeks to bolster its position within the international community, forging alliances with like-minded countries that will allow them to expand on the world stage and have external influence in multilateral forums such as the ICJ. Additionally, this will not only strengthen its diplomatic ties but also reaffirm its commitment to the principles of sovereignty, self-determination, and international law.
What would compel the Nicaraguan government to join this case while there are other pressing issues happening in the country?
Regional solidarity in Latin America can be attributed as one of the reasons Nicaragua has decided to file against Israel over genocide claims. This solidarity has historical roots in the region’s support for anti-colonial struggles and movements for self-determination. The Sandinista Revolution of the late 1970s into the early 1980s, which brought the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front to power, was rooted in anti-imperialist and socialist ideology. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which comprises a large number of developing countries, often advocates for principles such as self-determination, sovereignty, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. The NAM is an international organization of states not aligned with any specific power bloc during the Cold War. Founded in 1961, these countries wanted to maintain their sovereignty from the influences of the rivaling United States and Soviet Union.
Nicaragua's participation in forums like the NAM may have influenced its decision to challenge Israel's actions through international legal mechanisms like the ICJ, aligning themselves with other countries in the Global South that share similar grievances regarding colonialism, occupation, and oppression. Additionally, Nicaragua may view involvement in international institutions like the ICJ as a way to bolster its diplomatic standing and influence on the global stage. By championing causes such as Palestinian rights, Nicaragua can enhance its reputation as a defender of international law and human rights, potentially garnering support from other countries and strengthening its position within regional and international organizations.
There has not been an official decision made by the ICJ yet to accept Nicaragua’s case, but concerns have been raised over the potential effectiveness of their involvement. Unlike previous interventions under Article 63 of the Court's Statute, Nicaragua invoked Article 62, a less common mechanism. This move introduces uncertainty as the Court rarely grants such requests, especially when the intervening state aims to become a party to the proceedings. Nicaragua's argument relies on the obligations under the Genocide Convention, asserting that all states have a legal interest in ensuring compliance. However, past court decisions suggest that merely having a general interest in international law may not suffice for intervention. Nicaragua must demonstrate that its legal interests would be directly affected by the Court's decision, which seems challenging in this context. While Nicaragua's intervention may be well-intended, it risks prolonging the case without significantly altering its outcome.
Nicaragua's request to join the ICJ case against Israelis was influenced by a complex interplay of historical, ideological, geopolitical, and diplomatic factors, both within Latin America and on the global stage. By aligning itself with regional blocs, global movements, and principles of international law, Nicaragua seeks to advance its interests while standing in solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized around the world.
