Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND PARAMILITARYACTIVITIESIN AND
AGAINSTNICARAGUA (NI.CARAGUA V. UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA)(PROVI-
Orderof10May1984
By an Order issuedin the case concerningMilitaryand shouldensurethatno actionis takenwhichmight aggravate
ParamilitaryActivitiesinandagainst Nicaragua,Court: orextendthedisputesubmittedtothe Court;
A. Rejected the requestdeby the United Statesof B.4. The United States of America and Nicaragua
Americathatthecase beremovedfromthelistand should ensure thatno actionis takenwhichmightprejudice
B. Indicatedthefollowing provisionalmeasul.es,pend-therightsof the otherrtyinrespectof thecarrying outof
ing theinaldecision; whateverdecision the Cout ayrender.
B.1. The UnitedStates of America sh~ouldimmedi-
atelyceaseandrefrainfromanyactionrestrictingaccesstoor
from Nicaraguan ports,and, in particular, the layingof
mines; These decisions were unanimouslyadopted, except in
B.2. The rightosovereignty andto politicalindepen- respect of paragraphB.2 which was adopted by fourteen
dencepossessedbytheRepublicofNicaragual,ikeanyother votestoone.
Stateofthe regionoroftheworld,should be fullyrespected TheCourtwascomposedasfollows:
andshouldnotinanywaybejl:opa@zedbyay militaryand
paramilitaryactivitieswhirirprohibitedbythe principles JudgesM.Lachs,0P.Morozov,NagendraSingh,J. M.Ruda,nara,
of international law,in parti,cularthe principle thatSlH. Mosler,S. Oda,R. Ago,A. El-Khani,S. M. Schwebel,
should refrainintheir internationalrelations:hornthe thSirRobertJennings,G. deLacharri&re, . Mbaye,M. Bed-
oruseofforceagainst thetenitoriintegrityorthe politicaljaoui.
independenceof anyState,anclhe principle concerning the
dutynot tointerveneinmams withinthe domesticjurisdic-
tion of aStateprinciplesenhodied in the lJnited Nations
Charter and the Charter of the Organizatioilof American
States; JudgesMosler andSir RobertJennings appendedajoint
B.3. The United States of America and IVicaragua separateopiniontothe OrderoftheCourt.JudgeSchwebel,
Continuedon next pagewho voted against paragraph B.2 ofthe Order, appendeda paragraph2, oftheStatuteoftheCourt,namelythe Declara-
dissentingopinion.(Abriefsummaryofthleseopinionsmay tionmadebytheUnitedStatesof Americadated26August
befound annexedhereto.) 1946andtheDeclarationmadeby Nicaraguadated 24 Sep-
tember 1929.Underthesystemof internationaljudicialset-
tlementofdisputesinwhich theconsent ofthe Statesconsti-
tutes the basis of .theCourt's jurisdiction,a State having
acceptedthejurisdictionof the Courtby a declarationmay
ProceedingsbeforetheCourt rely on the declarationby which another State has also
(paras. 1-9) acceptedthejurisdictionoftheCourt,inordertobringacase
beforetheCourt.
InitsOrder, the Court recalled thatn9.April1984Nica-
ragua institutedproceedingsagainst theIJnited States of Nicaragua claim tohave recognized the compulsory
America, inrespectofadisputeconcerningresponsibilityfor jurisdictionof the Permanent Courtof InternationalJustice
militaryandparamilitaryactivitiesinandag;ainst icaragua. by its declarationof24 September 1929, which, itclaims,
On thebasisofthefactsallegedinitsApplication, Nicaragua continuesin force and is deemedby virtue of Article 36,
requestedtheCourttoadjudgeanddeclare(interalia): paragraph 5, of the Statute of the present Courtto9 an
-that theUnitedStatesof Americahad'violated and was acceptanceofthe cc~mpulsorjyurisdictionofthatCourt.
violatingitsobligationstoNicaragua, underseveralinterna- The UnitedStates contendsthatNicaragua never ratified
tionalinstrumentsandunder general andcu.stomaryinterna- the Protocolof Signatureof the Statuteof the Permanent
tional law; CoilrtofInternationalJustice,thatNicaraguanever becamea
--that the UnitedStatesof Americawasundera duty to partyto theStatute'ofthe PermanentCourt, andthatconse-
cease and desist immediatelyfrom all use of force against quentlythe declarationby Nicaragua of 1929 never came
Nicaragua,allviolationsofthesovereignty,territorialinteg- into force and that Nicaragua cannotbe deemedto have
rity or political independenceof Nicaragua,all supportof acceptedthecompullsory jurisdictionofthe present Courtby
any kind to anyone engagedin military or paramilitary virtueofArticle36ofitsStatute.TheUnitedStatestherefore
actions in or against Nicaragua,and allelffortsto restrict requests theCourttoprecludeanyfurtherproceedingsandto
accessto orfromNicaraguan ports; remove thecasefrornthelist.
Foritspart,Nicaraguaassertsthat it duly ratifiedtPro-
-that theUnitedStatesof America hasan obligationto tocolofSignatureoftheStatuteofthe PermanentCourt,and
payNicaragua reparationfordamages incunredbyreasonof setsforthanumberofpoints in supportofthelegalvalidityof
theseviolations. itsdeclarationof 1929.ThetwoPartiesexplainedtheirargu-
On thesameday,Nicaragua urgentlyquested the Court mentsatlengthduringthe oral proceedings.
toindicateprovisionalmeasures:
"-That the United States should iminediatelycease
and desist from providing, directly or indirectly, any
support- includingtraining,arms, ammuiition,supplies,
assistance, finances, directionor any other form of The Courtfinds tha n thiscase, the questionis whether
support-to any nation, group, organization,movement Nicaragua, having depositeda declarationof acceptanceof
or individual engagedorplanningtoengageinmilitaryor the jurisdictionof the PermanentCourt, can claimto be a
paramilitaryactivitiesinoragainst Nicaragua; "Stateacceptingthesameobligation"withinthemeaningof
"-That the United States should im~nediatelycease Article36, paragraph2, of the Statute, soas to invoke the
anddesistfromanymilitaryorparamilitaryactivitybyits declarationof theUnitedStates. As thecontentionsof the
ownofficials,agentsorforces inoragainst:Nicaraguaand Partiesdisdose a "dispute asto whetherthe Courthasjuris-
from anyotheruse or threatof forcein its relationswith diction", the matterhas to besettledby the decisionof the
Nicaragua." Court, afterhaving heard the Partie. heCourt is therefore
Shortly after the institutionof these proceedings,the
United Statesof Americanotifiedthe Registrythat it had unableto accedeto theUnitedStates'request summarily to
appointedan Agentfor thepurposesof this case and, being removethecasefrom'thelist.
convincedthattheCourw t aswithoutjurisdictioninthecase,
requestedtheCourtto precludeanyfurtherproceedingsand DeclarationoftheUnitedStates
(paras.22and23)
1984).oOn24 April. takingintoaccounta letterof the samel The United States also disputesthe jurisdictionof the
Courtinthiscasebyrelyingonadeclarationwhichitdepos-
datefromNicaragua,the Court decided thatit had thenno itedon 6 April 1984,refemng to its 1946Declaration,and
sufficient basisfor accedingto the requestof the United providingthat that Declaration "shallnot applyto disputes
States. withanyCentralAmericanStateorarisingoutoforrelatedto
events inCentral America" and that it "shall take effect
immediately andshall1remain in force for a period of two
years". Since the dispute with Nicaragua, in its opinion,
Jurisdiction clearlyfallswithinhetermsof theexclusioninthe declara-
tionof 6 April 1984,it considersthat the1946Declaration
(paras.10-26) cannotconferjurisdictiononthe Courtto entertainthecase.
Declarationof Nicaragua and requestfor removalfrom For its part, Nicaragua considers that the declaration of
theListmadebythe UnitedStates
(paras. 10-21) 'Unde~rrticle36,paramph5,oftStatutoftheCourt, declaration
Nicaragua claimsto found thejurisdictionof theCourtto madepursuanttheStatuofthePermanenCtourwhichis"stillinforce"
entertainthiscaseonthedeclarationsofthe Partiesaccepting istbedeemeda,sbetweethe ParttstheStatute,beanacceptancoef
the compulsory jurisdictionof the Courtund.erArticle36, stillltrun.nftheInternational Cuftustice rheperiowhichit6 April 1984could not havemodifiedthe 1946Declaration 41 of the Statute,in orderto preservethe rights claimed.It
which,not havingbeenvalidlyterminated,remainsinforce. emphasizesthatitsdecisioninnowayprejudgesthequestion
of its j~uisdictitodeal with the meritsof the case and
Conclusion leavesunaffectedthe rightof the Governmentof theUnited
(paras.24-26) Statesandof the Governmentof Nicaraguato submit argu-
mentsit1respectofsuchjurisdictionorsuchmerits.
TheCourtobservesthatitallughntottoindicateprovisional
measures unlessthe provisionsinvokedby the Applicant
appear,primafacie,toafforda basisonwhichitsjurisdiction
might be founded. It doesnot now have to determine the
validityor invalidityof the declarationofcaraguaof 24
September 1929and, thequestionwhether ornotNicaragua For these reasons, the Court gives the decisof which
couldthusrelyontheUnitedStatesDeclarationof 16August thecompletetextisreproducedbelow:
1946,orthequestionwhether,asaresultofthedeclarationof
6 April 1984,theApplicatior~is excludedat;fromthisdate
from thescopeof theUnited.Statesacceptanceof thecom-
pulsoryjurisdictionoftheCourt.Itfindsthatithedeclarations
depositedbythetwoPartiesn:spectivelyin 1929andin 1946
nevertheless appearto afforda basison whichthejurisdic-
tionofthe Courtmight befounded. A. Unanimously,
RejectstherequestmadebytheUnitedStatesofAmericathat
Provisional Measures theproceedingsonthe Applicationfiledby the Republic of
(para 274) Nicaragua on9April1984,and ontherequestfiledthe same
daybytheRepublicofNicaraguaforthe indicationofprovi-
TheOrdersetsoutthecircumstancesallegeb dyNicaragua sional measures,be terminatedby the removalof the case
as requiring the indicationof provisionalasms, andthe fromthelist;
material it has providto su~lppoirttsallegal:, heGov- B. Indicates,pendingits finaldecisionin the proceed-
ernmentoftheUnitedStateshasstatedthat theUnitedStates ingsinstitutedon9April1984bytheRepublicofNicaragua
does not intendto engagein a debate conc~:rninthe facts against theUnitedStatesof America,the followingprovi-
allegedbyNicaragua, giventheabsenceofjiurisdiction, but sionalmeasures:
ithasadmittednofactualallegationsbyNicaraguawhatever. 1. 'Unanimously,
The Courthad availableto it considerableir~formaticon-
cerningthefactsofthe presentcase,including officialstate- The UnitedStatesof America should immediately cease
ments of United States au!thorities,and has to consider andrefrainfroman actionrestricting, blockingorendan-
whether thecircumstancesdrawn toitsattentionrequirethe geringaccesstoor l13mNicaraguanports, and,inpartirn-
indicationofprovisionalmeisures, but itmakesitclear that lar, the layingofmines;
the rightof therespondenttodispute thefactsallegedmust 2. Byfourteenvotestoone,
remain unaffectedbyitsdecision. The ]righttosovereigntyandtopoliticalindependencpos-
Aftersettingouttherightswhich, accordi~~toNicaragua, sessedbytheRepublicof Nicaragua,likeanyother State
should be urgently protectdythe indicationof]provisional oftheregionoroftheworld,shouldbefullyrespected and
measures,theCourt considersthreeobjecticesraisedbythe shouldnot inanywaybe jeopardizedby anymilitary and
UnitedStates(inadditiontotheobjectionrelatingtojurisdic- paramilitary activitieswhichareprohibitedbythe princi-
tion) againstthe indicatofnsuchmeasures. ples of internationallaw, in particularthe principlethat
First, the indicationof provisionalmeasureswouldinter- Statesshouldrefrain in theirinternationalrelations from
ferewiththe negotiationsbeingconductedinthe contextof the threatoruseofforceagainsttheterritorial integrityor
theworkof theContadoraCiroup,andwoulddirectlyinvolve the political independencof anyState.andthe principle
therightsandinterestsof StatesnotParties1:this case;sec- concerningthedutynotto interveneinmatterswithinthe
ondly, these negotiations constituteda nqior~al process domesticjurisdictionof a State, principlesembodiedin
withinwhichNicaraguais undera goodfaithol:ligation to the IJnitedNationsCharterandtheCharterofthe Organi-
negotiate;thirdly,theApplicationbyNicaraguaraisesissues zationofAmericanStates.
whichshould more properly be committetd o resolutionby FOR : residentElias; Vice-Presidentette-Camara;Judges
thepoliticalorgansoftheU~litedNationsandoftheOrgani- Lachs, Morozov,NagendraSingh, Ruda, Mosler,Oda,
zationofAmericanStates. Ago, El-Khani. Sir Robert Jennings, de Lacharribre.
Mbslye,Bedjaoui.
Nicaraguadisputesthe relevancetothiscaseoftheConta-
dora process-in whichit is actively participating-denies AGAINST: JudgeSchwebel.
thatitsclaim could prejudicetherightsofotherStates,and 3. Unanimously,
recallspreviousdecisionoftheCourt,byvirtueofwhich,in TheGovernmentsoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica andthe
its opinion,theCourtis notquiredto declineto undertake RepublicofNicaragua shouldeachofthemensurethatno
an essentially judicialtask:merely because the question action of any kind is taken which might aggravate or
beforeit isintertwinedwithpoliticalquestic~ns. extendthe disputesubmittedtotheCourt.
4. Unanimously,
TheGovernmentsofthe UnitedStatesofAmerica andthe
RepublicofNicaraguashouldeachof themensurethatno
*~om~pose as follo:residentliasVice-PresidSette-Camara;
The finds that circumstance!r=quire that it JudgfoILachs. o~zov,NagendrSingh.Ruda,MosleOda, Ago,El-
ShouldindicateprovisionalImasu~s, asprovidedbyArticle KhaniS. chwebe,irRobetenning&, Lachmi&rMe,baye, Bedjaoui. action istaken which might prejudice therights of the respectedand should not inany way bejeopardizedby any
other Partyinrespectofthecarryingoutofwhateverdeci- militaryor paramiditatyactivitieswhich areprohibitedby
sion theCourtmayrenderinthecase. theprinciplesofintemational.law".Judge Schwebelcharac-
terized that provision's "emphasisupon the rights of
C. Unanimously, Nicaragua-in a case in whichNicaraguaitself ischarged
Decidesfurther that, untilthe Courtde1ivt:rsits finaljudg-withviolating theterritorialintegrityand politicalindepen-
ment in the presentcase, it willkeepthemiatterscoveredby dew of its neighboursw-as "unwarranted" and "incom-
thisOrder continuously underreview. patiblewiththeprinciplesofequalityofStatesandofcollec-
D. Unanimously, tive:security".
Decidesthat the written proceedingshallfirstbe addressed Judge Schwebelobservedthatthechargesadvancedbythe
to thequestionsof thejurisdictionof the Courtto entertain UnitedStatesagainst Nicaraguawere "of a gravityno less
thedisputeandofthe admissibilityofthe Application; profound" thanthechargesofNicaragua againsttheUnited
Andreservesthefixingofthe time-limitsforthe saidwrit- States,andthat like chargeshadbeen madeagainst Nicara-
ten proceedings,and the subsequentprocedure,for further guaby El Salvador,Honduras and Costa Rica. Those three
decision. CentralAmerican Stateswere notpartiesto thiscase.Never-
theless,claims that Nicaraguis violatingtheirsecuritymay
SUMMARY OFOPINIONA SPPENDED TO properlybemadebytheUnitedStatesandacteduponbythe
THE ORDEROFTHE COURT Court, for the rightsat issuein the case "do not depend",
Judge Schwebel hel~d,upon narrowconsiderationsof priv-
itytoadisputebeforetheCourt.Theydependuponthebroad
SeparateopinionofJudgesMoslerand considerationsof collectivesecurity". EveryState has "a
Sir Robert Jennings legalinterest" inthe observanceof the principlesof collec-
Judges Mosler and Jennings, in a sqparate opinion, tive security.The United States accordingly was justified
emphasisedthattheduties torefrainfromillegaluseofforce in invoking before the Courtwhat it saw as wrongfulacts
or threat of force, and from interventionin the affairs ofof Nicaragua against other Central American States
anotherState,aredutieswhichapplytoNicaraguaaswellas "notbecauseit can speakfor Costa Rica,Hondurasand El
totheUnitedStates;and thatbothStates areunderanobliga- Salvadorbut because the allegedviolationby Nicaraguaof
tion topursue negotiationsin goodfaith in the contextof their security is a violation of the security of the United
regional arrangements. States".
Judge Schwebel dbclaredthathe felt able tovotefor the
Dissenting opinioonfJudgeSchwebel provision of the Court's Order concerning mine-
laying-which is addressed only to the United States-
Judge SchwebelvotedinfavouroftheCourt'srejectionof becausethe UnitedStateshad not alleged beforethe Court
the United States request to dismiss Nicaragua'scase on that Nicaraguais mining the ports and waters of foreign
jurisdictional ground,ndvotedaswellfor theCourt'sindi- States.
cationthat theUnitedStatesshouldnotrestrilctaccessto and Judge Schwebel supportedthe Court'srejection of the
from Nicaraguan ports, particularly by mine-laying. He UnitedStates challengeto jurisdictionbecause,at the stage
"emphatically"dissentedfrom theprovisionof theCourt's of indicationof provisionalmeasures, allNicaraguahad to
Order holdingthat the rightto sovereignty,andto political dowas tomakeout,plrimafacie,abasisonwhichtheCourt's
independence possessedby Nicaragua "slrould be fully jurisdiction mightbefounded.
Summary of the Order of 10 May 1984