This Article has been written by Ms. KUPPARAJU AMRUTHA, a FINAL year student of KONERU LAKSHMAIAH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, COLLEGE OF LAW, GUNTUR.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In 1984, Nicaragua brought a case against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging U.S. support for the contras, a military army, in attacks on Nicaraguan territory with the aim of overthrowing the Sandinist government. The case focused on Nicaragua’s claims of U.S. violations of international obligations, including the United Nations Charter, the Organization of American States Charter, and the U.S.-Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship and Commerce. Following a jurisdiction and admissibility phase, the ICJ confirmed its jurisdiction on November 26, 1984. Despite losing in this phase, the chose not to participate in the proceedings on the merits.
The ICJ added the U.S. multilateral treaty multilateral treaty reservation, deeming it relevant but not preventing the court’s jurisdiction beyond the U.S. optional clause. The court examined facts related to incidents directly attributable to the U.S., such as authorizing the laying of mines in Nicaraguan ports and challenges in establishing the immutability of actions by the contras to the U.S. Nicaragua raised concerns about U.S. economic measures, including the suspension of economic aid and trade embargoes, as indirect forms of investment.
The ICJ rejected U.S. obligations regarding objections regarding the justifiability of issues related to the use of force and collective self-defense, emphasizing customary international law and relying on the United Nations Charter. The court concluded that the U.S. violated the prohibition of the use of force against Nicaragua and breached the obligation not to interfere in another state’s affairs. Direct attacks on Nicaraguan ports, oil installations, and mining operations were found to infringe on territorial sovereignty and the freedom of communication and navigation. The U.S. was responsible for a breach of customary principles of international humanitarian law. In terms of reparation, the ICJ determined that the U.S. was obliged to make reparation for all injuries caused to Nicaragua. The form and amount of reparation would be determined in subsequent procedures. The ICJ urged both parties to cooperate with efforts for a lasting peace in Central America.
ISSUES:
- Whether the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of its Statute to adjudicate on the case initiated by Nicaragua against the United States.
- Whether the U.S. multilateral treaty reservation, specifically regarding disputes arising under a multilateral treaty, applies to exclude the ICJ from considering claims based on violations of multilateral treaties such as the United Nations Charter and the OAS Charter.
- Whether various actions, including the laying of mines in Nicaraguan ports and support for the contras, can be directly attributable to the United States, raising questions about U.S. accountability under international law.
CONTENTIONS OF NICARAGUA:
In 1984, we, Nicaragua, took the decisive step of initiating legal proceedings against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Our primary concern revolved around the substantial support provided by the United States to the contras, a military force whose explicit objective was to launch attacks on our sovereign territory with the clear intention of toppling the Sandinist government.
Our case was built on the argument that these actions by the United States flagrantly violated our international obligations under their instructions, including the United Nations Charter, the Organization of American States Charter, and the U.S.-Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship and Commerce. We firmly believed that the U.S., through its financial and logistical backing of the contras, engaged in an armed force against Nicaragua, constituting a clear breach of established international legal norms.
In our pursuit of justice, we sought interim measures from the ICJ, and those measures were duly granted by the court in May 1984. Despite the absence of the United States during the proceedings on the merits, the we underscored the critical role of the ICJ in establishing public facts and legal considerations.
We face challenges to our claims, particularly U.S. obligations regarding objections regarding the justifiability of issues related to the use of force and collaborative self-defense. Later, we wе the U.S. multilateral treaty resolution, arguing that it should not impeach the ICJ’s jurisdiction beyond the U.S. optional clause. Our case pointed directly to direct attacks on our ports, oil installations, and mining operations, firmly attributing these actions to the United States. We believe that the U.S. bears responsibility for breaches of customary principles of international humanitarian law.
Sееking redress, we rеquеstеd reparation for all injuries caused by U.S. breaches, leaving the determination of the form and amount to be settled by the ICJ. In our pursuit of lasting peace in Central America, we urged both parties to cooperate with Contadora efforts.
CONTENTIONS OF U.S:
The United States presented several contentions in the Nicaragua case to count Nicaragua’s claims. First and foremost, the maintained the extent of its support for the contras, asserting that while some assistance was provided, it fell short of direct control over their military activities. The U.S. chose not to participate in the proceedings on the merits, challenging the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and arguing that issues related to the use of force and collaborative self-defense were not suitable for legal determination but rather political or military considerations.
Additionally, the U.S. invoked a multilateral treaty resolution, contending that certain disputes arising under other treaties like the United Nations Charter and the Organization of American States Charter were outside the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The U.S. maintained that its actions were responsive to perpetrated terrorist attacks and support for rebel forces by Nicaragua in neighboring countries, framing its institutions as legitimate countеr-mеasurеs necessary to safeguard its national security institutions. The evolving Constitution aimed to establish that U.S. conduct was consistent with international law, particularly in the context of self-defense.
JUDGEMENT:
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its judgment on June 27, 1986, in the case initiated by Nicaragua against the United States. The Court dеtеrminеd its jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of its Statute, dismissing U.S. objections. Despite the U.S.’s non-appearance in the proceedings on the merits, the ICJ proceeded with the case.
In addition to the U.S. multilateral treaty resolution, the Court affirms its relevance but clarifies its limited impact. The reservation did not preclude the ICJ’s jurisdiction beyond the U.S. optional clause for claims based on principles of international customary law. The Court attributed certain actions, like the laying of mines in Nicaraguan ports, directly to the United States. While acknowledging U.S. support for the contras, it did not definitively establish the contras as effectively controlled by the U.S.
Regarding the use of force and intervention, the ICJ concluded that U.S. support for the contras and economic measures against Nicaragua breached the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of non-intervention. Accepting Nicaragua’s requirements for reparation, the Court left the determination of the form and amount for a sub sequential phase of the proceedings. The judge emphasized the importance of cooperation with Contadora efforts for a lasting peace in Central America. In summary, the judge found the United States in violation of international law, recognized Nicaragua’s right to seek reparation, and urged both parties to contribute to regional political initiatives.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the international court of justice (ICJ) found that the united states, despite its non- appearance during the proceedings, had violated international law by supporting the contras in launching attacks on Nicaragua. The court addressed jurisdictional issues, rejecting U.S. objections and emphasized its role in establishing relevant facts and law. It ruled on the imputability of actions, determining U.S. responsibility for direct attacks and economic measures. The judgement recognized breaches of customary international law, humanitarian principles, and the U.S Nicaragua treaty of friendship and commerce. Nicaragua’s request for reparation was acknowledged, with the ICJ reserving determination of the form and amount. The court urged both parties to cooperate for lasting peace in central America, marking the conclusion of a complex and significant case.
ANALYSIS:
The case of Nicaragua v. United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) focused on Nicaragua’s allegations that the United States had supported the contras in launching attacks on Nicaraguan territory, aiming to overthrow the Sandinist government. Nicaragua asserted that the U.S. violated international obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Organization of American States Charter, and the U.S.-Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship and Commerce. The ICJ, despite the U.S. non-appearance during the proceedings on the merits, emphasized its active role in establishing facts and relevant law. The Court added U.S. objections, including the justifiability of issues and a multilateral treaty reservation, ultimately deciding it had jurisdiction under the circumstances. The analysis involved determining the immutability of actions to the U.S., especially specially the contras, and assessing the legitimacy of economic measures as indirect forms of intervention. The Court also examined U.S. contentions related to self-defense and invasion, ultimately finding breaches of customary international law. Nicaragua sought reparation, urging cooperation for peace in Central America.
REFERENCES:
https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/icj-nicaragua-v-united-states
https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=psilr