Talk:Nicaragua v. Germany

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicaragua v. Germany article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Text and/or other creative content from this version of South_Africa_v._Israel_(Genocide_Convention) was copied or moved into Nicaragua v. Germany with this edit on 2 March 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Change "Rome Statute" to "Statute of the International Court of Justice".

Why it should be changed:

The provision is simply wrong and not applicable in this context. Its a dispute at the ICJ not the ICC.

References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Just look into the law.

Wake161 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Don't know how that error happened; even the source refers to the "ICJ's Statute" and the "Court’s Statute". Liu1126 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Edit request May 2, 2024: Addition of content

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

What I think should be added:

{{Germany responded that the case would be at odds with the "indispensible third party" principle established in the Monetary Gold case. On the factual side, Germany stated that only a small amount of the 326 million euros worth of arms/military equipment deliveries in 2023 would be due to war weapons ("Kriegswaffen"), and since October 2023 this fraction would be only 2 %. Moreover 80 % of the exports since October 2023 would have occured in October 2023 alone. And despite the pause in payments to UNRWA since January 2024, the German government helped the Palestinians by payments to UNICEF, World Food Programme and the International Red Cross.}}

Why it should be added: There is no section containing the response. The ICJ referred in its ruling on 30 April exclusivley to the factual side.
Source: "Deutschland verteidigt sich gegen Nicaragua: Alles nur Testwaffen und Helme?". www.lto.de (de:Legal Tribune Online) (in German). 2024-04-09. Retrieved 2024-05-02.

Redewiker (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Partly done: reworded for grammar, see my edit. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]