424 MlLlTARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES
1. It is understood that on 12 July 1979 the Provisional Government of
National Reconstruction of Nicaragua addressed a letter to the Secretary General
of the Organization of American States, transmitting a "Plan to achieve peace".
The Nicaraguan Government is requested to supply the Court with a copy of
that letter and of its various annexes, wi(ifappropriate) a translation into one
of the official languages othe Court.
2. It is understood that conversations were held in Managua at the end of
1980between the Nicaraguan Head of State and the Minister for Foreign AfLiirs
and the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central Ameri-
can Afïairs, on the subject of the aid given, according to the United States
Government, to the opponents of the Government of El Salvador. The Nica-
raguan Government is requested to supply the Court with copies of any contem-
porary memoranda or records of those conversations.
3. It is understood that on 20 October 1983 the Government of Nicaragua
submitted certain draft documents to the United States Government, relating to
problems concerning the relations between the two countries, and possibly with
other countriesof the region. The Nicaraguan Government isrequested to supply
the Court with copies of such draft documents, and of the covering letter
transmitting them to the United States Government. and any other pertinent
documents.
Should the Government of Nicaragua wish any of the documents referred to
above to be treated as confidential, being made ;iccessibleonly to the Members
of the Court and to the other Party, no doubt you will so inform me, and 1shall
seek the further instructions of the Court.
14October 1985.
1have the honour to transmit to you herewith copies of two letters which 1
have today sent to the Agent of Nicaragua in the case concerning Militury un~i
Paramilitary Acrivitics in and against Nicarugua (Nicurug~iav. United Stiitesof'
Atneric~)~concerning requests by the Court for information and documents. 1
also enclose a copy of a further letter, also of today's date. by w1transmitted
to the Agent of Nicaragua a question put by Jiidge Schwebel, together with a
copy of the text of that question.
15October 1985.
1 have the honour to refer to the case concerning Military and Paramilitary
Activitirsinaiirlagaifut Nicaruguo (Nicaragua v. UniredStares (iA merim) .
During theoral hearings on the merits of the case in reference, severalquestions
were asked by the Court, which 1now proceed to answer.
In the first place,fer to the Questionsof Judge Schwebelto the Agent of Nica-
ragua.
While each of these questions was answered by the Agent of Nicaragua in his
closing speech on 20 September 1'385,in the interest of assisting the Court 1shall CORRESPONDENCE 425
indicüte here in precisely at what portion of the transcript these questions were
answered.
Question at CR 85/24, pages 44-45 :This question was answered by the Agent
of Nicaragua at CR 85/27, pages 74-75 (see also CR 85/25, p. 15)'. The
Government of Nicaragua has never supplied arms to rebels in El Salvador or
condoned the supply of arms by others from Nicaraguan territory. My
Governmenr has never permitted the establishment of the leadership of the
Salvadoran insiirgents in Command centers in Nicaragua. My Government. like
the Government of the United States and other governments in Central and
South America, has granted entry to leaders of the Salvadoran insurgency from
time to time. My Government has never collaborated in the training of Salvadoran
insurgents or permitted them to be trained by others in Nicaraguan territory.
My Government did not collaborate in the organization of the insurgency in El
Salvador. Thus, there is no validity to any argument of "mirror images".
Question No. 1,CR 85/25?page IO: This question was answered by the Agent
of Nicaragua at CR 85/27, pages 75-76, and by Professor Chayes at CR 85/24,
pages 71-75 2.
Question No. 2, CR 85/25, page II :This question was answered by the Agent
of Nicaragua at CR 85/27, pages 75-76, and by Professor Chayes at CR 85/34,
pages 71-75 3.
Question No. 3, CR 85/25, page 114: My Government has no transcript or
tape recording of the interview in question and has no knowledge of the existence
of any such transcript or tape recording.
Questions No, 4 and 5. CR 85/25, page II :These questions were answered
by the Agent of Nicaragua at CR 85/27, page 75 and by Professor Chayes at
CR 85/24, page 715. Nicaragua's counsel have never stated or implied that the
Government of Nicaragua supplied arms to rebels in El Salvador or condoned
the supply of arms by others from Nicaraguan territory. Any newspaper article
purporting to attribute such statements or implications to Nicaragua's counsel
is inaccurate.
Question No. 6, CR 85/25, pages 11-13" This does not appear to be a
question. It appears to be a secies of quotations from materials that were not
submitted by the Parties to the Court and do not constitute evidence in this case.
Question No. 7, CR 85/25, page 14: This question was answered by the Agent
of Nicaragua at CR 85/27, pages 74-76 and CR 85/25, pages 15-167. It was
never the policy of my Government to supply or ship arms to Salvadoran
guerrillas. Consequently, it was never the policy of my Government ta use the
airstrip at Papalonal or any other part of Nicaraguan territory for such purpose.
It was also never the eolicv of mv Government to seek to overthrow the
Government of El Salvador.
Secondly, the question posed by Judge Ruda.
1. In its Application, Nicaragua requested the Court to adjudge and declare :
"(a) That the United States, in recruiting, training, arming, equipping.
'Pp. 123 :236-237; 146.supm.
lhid.42 :236-237 ;136-139,SLI~IU.
P. 143,supra.
Pp. 143 ;236-237: 136,sttprii.
'Pp. t43-144,supru.
'Pp. 144 ;236-237 ;146,sirpm. MILITARY ANI1 PARAMILITARYACTlVlTlES
financing, supplying and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding,
and directing military and paramilitary actions in and against
Nicaragua, has violated and is violating its express Charter and treaty
obligations to Nicaragua and, in particular, its Charter and treaty
obligations under :
Article 8 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States.
Article 1,Third, of the Convention concerning the Duties and Rights
of States in the Event of Civil Strife." (Application, para. 26.)
2. Inits Memorial on the merits,filed30 April 1985,and in its oral pleadings,
Nicaragua did not refer specificallyto its claims under these two conventions, as
stated by the Agent of Nicaragua in response to a question frorn Judge Ruda.
However, Nicaragua has not abandoned these claims'.
3. In its Memorial and oral pleadings, Nicaragua emphasized the long history
of U.S. military and political intervention in Latin America and the evolution of
a special legal order inthe western hemisphere the very purpose of which was
to outlaw such intervention by the United States. (Memorial, paras. 324-331 =
CR 85/26, pp. 24-26 '.)This regional legakorder established direct obligations of
the United States to its Latin Arnerican neighbors that have a significanceeven
beyond the universal obligations under the United Nations Charter. Because
Nicaragua has been one of the most frequent victims of the U.S. military
intervention it was argued, Nicaragua is in real sense a special beneficiary of
these obligations. (CR 85/26, p. 26'.)
4. These obligations, now embodied in the Charter of the Organization of
American States, have a long jiiridical history both in the customary and
conventional law of the western hemisphere. The famed Calvo Doctrine, enun-
ciated early in the 19thcentury, although most often cited in cases of diplornatic
intervention to collect private debts, was in fact directed against military inter-
vention. as well, a forliori. Other 19th-century juriçts, such as Andres Bello,
Genaro Estrada and Luis Maria Drago, wereequally explicit. (See, e.g., 1Fabela,
"Intervention", p. 134, Paris: Pedone 1961 - D. Antokoletz, "Tratado de
Derecho Internacional Publico". pp. 53-58, Buenos Aires: La Facultad, 5th ed.,
1951.) The history of attempts to deal with the problem by means of positive
international law is equally fengthy. lt dates back, according to some, to the
Treaty of Pcrpetual Union, teague and Confederütion of 1828and the Treaty
of Confederation of 1848.(Antokolet~~op. cit.,pp. 50-53.)
5. AsNicaragua Statesin its Memonal and oral pleadings,these efrorts came to
a head in the seriesof Fan Americanconferencesof the 1920sand 1930s,in which,
step by step, the Latin American States forced the United States to relinquish
its claims to a special right to intervene militarily or otherwise in their afairs.
6. Major milestones in this evolution were the Convention on Rights and
Duties of States and the Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of States
in the Event of Civil Strife, under which Nicaragua claims in this case. It is
Nicaragua's belief, however, that the duties and obligations established by these
conventions have been subsumed in the OAS Charter, which is the climactic
event of the juridical evolution described. lndeed, the language of the OAS
Charter owes much to the provisions of the earlier conventions. Further, it is
Nicaragua's belief, that the rights and duties contained in these conventions are,
at present, principles of custornary and general intrnational law. In order not to
'See No. 158,inJru.
Pp.184-185,sirpm.
P. 185,supra. CORRESPONDENCE 427
burden the Court with repetitive material, separate argument directed specifically
to the conventions was omitted from Nicaragua's pleadings.
7. For example, Article 8 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States
provides: "no State has the right to intervene in the interna1 or external affairs
of another". Article 11 provides :
"... the territory of a State is inviolable and may not be the object of
military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another
State directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily".
These provisions are incorporated substantially verbatim in the OAS Charter,
Articles 18and 20.
8. The subcomrnittee that considered the draft (chaired by Raymundo Rivas
of Colombia) resolved unrinimously to include in its report the following defi-
nition :
"any act of a State, through diplomatic representation, by armed force, or
by any other rneans involving effective force, with a view to making the
State'swilldominate the willof another State, and, in general, any maneuver,
interference or interposition of any sort, employing such means, either
directly or indirectly in the matter of the obligations of another State, what-
ever its motive, shall be considered as intervention and likewise a violation
of international law". (Minutesand antecedents of the Seventh International
Conference of American States, 1933.)
9. The Convention on Rights and Duties of States in the Event of Civil Strife
was signedat Wavanaon 20 February 1928and entered into force for the United
States on 21 May 1930. Under the provisions of Article 1 (3), under which
Nicaragua claims, the United States binds itself "to forbid traffic in arms and
war materials. Except when intended for the government, ..." It isobvious from
this record that the United States not only breached its duty to forbid traffic in
weapons and war materials from its territory to the contrus, but that it was the
principal trafficker and has in fact provided them with most of their weapons.
Nicaragua, however, believesthat the provision simply spells out one species of
armed intervention, prohibited under Articles 18,20 and 21 of the OAS Charter.
The United Shtes, on the record before the Court, is also in admitted violation
of Article 1 (1) of the Convention, which requires the parties "to use al1means
at their disposril to prevent the inhabitants of their territory, nationals or aliens,
from participating in, gathering elements?crossing the boundaries or sailing from
their territory for the purpose of starting or promoting civil strife". Not only
has the United States failed to prevent such actions - it has sent perçons, both
nationals and aliens, from its territory to conduct military and paramilitary
attacks against Nicaragua. It has actively sought to "start" or "promote" civil
strife in Nicaragua, where none exists. The cnntrus, as the evidence shows. have
no indigenous support in Nicaragua and would disappear as an effectiveforce
in the absence of the support, direction and control of the United States as was
so fully disclosed in the testimony. This lawless effort to foment civil strife
has faifed dismaliy, so that stricto senszrthe military and paramilitary attacks
Iliunched by the United States against Nicaragua do not constitute a case of civit
strife. They are essentially the acts of the United States.
1have received a telex communication from Commander Luis Carrion, giving
the information requested by Judge Colliard during Commander Carrion's
deposition.
Commander Carrion has requested that 1should communicate this information
to the Court.428 MILITARY ANI) PAWMILITARYACTIVITIES
The names and nationalities of the vessels are as follows:
"The 1984-1985 and 1985-1986 editions of Regirter ofShQs (published by
Lloyd's Register of Shipping) lists the following companies as the owners of the
foreign ships damaged by CIA mines inNicaraguan harbors :
1. Genpnnte VI,Volker Stevin baggermaatschappij Nederland, Oostmaaslaan 71,
P.O. Box 2695, 3000 CR Rotterdam, Netherlands.
2, Los Curihrs, Naviera Multinational del Caribe S.A., (Namucar) calle 7 y 9
Avenida Segunda, apartado 10095. San José, Costa Rica (Panamanian
Company).
3. Lugunsk, Novorossiysk Shipping Co., UI Svohody 1, 353900 Novorossiysk,
USSR.
4. lver Chaser, Chaser Shipping Corp., Liberian Registration, lver Bugge
(Manager), Storgaten 52, postboks 160, 325f Larvik, Norway.
5. Homin. no listing.
6. TerushioMaru, Nagashiki Kisen KK.. 2886, Konoshima-Sotoura, Kasaoka,
Okayama Prefecture, 714-2Japan."
16October 1985.
1 have the honour to acknowtedge receipt witti thanks of Your Excellençy's
letter dated 15 October 1985. and received in the Registry the sarne day. con-
cerning replies to questions put by Members of the Court during the oral
proceedings in the case concerning Militury und ParunlilituryActivities in und
ugainst Nicurrigua(Nicaruguuv. UnitedStates O/ America).
It is noted that at the foot of page 2 of your letter, anin paragraph 3 on
page 3, there are incoinplete references to the verbatim records of the hearings:
no doubt you will complete these as soon as possible.
16October 1985.
1 have the honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter dated
15 October 1985,and received inthe Registry thesame day, from the Agent of
Nicaragua in the case concerning Militury alid Paramiliiary Activities inund
ugair~stNicurugurr(Nicaragua v. Utlitrd States r,America) , concerning replies
to questions put hyMembers of theCourt during the oral proceedings inthat case.
18 October 1985.
1have the honour to refer to your letter dated 16October 1985in which you
note that there are incomplete references to the verbatim record ofhe hearings
in my letter containing replies to questions put by Members of the Court during
the oral proceedings in the case concerning Militury und ParamilitaryAciivities
in andugainst Nicarag~ta(Niraragua v. UnitedStores (i Anzericu).
In this connection, please not:
Réponses écrites du Nicaragua aux questions posées par les juges