Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASECONCERNING lMILJTAR AYND PARAMILITAR Y CTIVITIES INAND
AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGU v.UNITEDSTATES OF' AMERICA)
(JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY)
Judgment o2 f6November 1984
Inthisjudgment,deliveredinthecaseconcerningmilitary JudgesNagendraSingh,Ruda,Mosler,Oda,AgoandSir
and paramilitaryactivitiesimand againstNicaragua(Nicara-rt JeMingSappendedseparate opinionsto the Judg-
guav.UnitedStatesofAmeedca)t,he Courtfound,byfifteenment.
votestoone,thatithadjurirdictiontoentertainthecaseand,
unanimously,thattheApplication filedbyPBcaraguaagainJudgment.chwebel appendeda dissenting opinion to the
theUnitedStatesofAmericawasadmissible.
In these opinions the Judges concerned stated and
explained the positions they adoin xegardto certain
points dealtwithinthe Judgment.
The completetextof the operativepartthe Judgment,
withthevoting figuresilfollows:
"THE COURT, ProceedingandSubmissionosftheRzm'es
"(1) (a) $h, by eleven votesto five, that it hasara$.-11]
jurisdiction to entertain the Application filedby the
Republicof Nicaraguaw9 April 1984..on the basisof andsettingout the submissionsof theMe(paras. 1-10),dings
Article36,paragraphs22nd5, oftheStaltuteoftheCourttheCourtrecallsthatthecaseconcernsadisputebetweenthe
"IN FAVOUR: President Elias; Vice-PresidentSette-Governmentof the Republicof Nicaraguaandthe Govern-
Camara; JudgesLacl,s, Moromv, lvagendra Singh, mentd the UnitedStatesof Americaarisingout ofmilitary
Ruda, El-Khani, de ILacharribre,Nibaye:,BedjaouiandparamilitaryactivitiesinNicaragua andinthe watersoff
JudgeadhocColliard;, itscoasts,responsibilityforwhichisattributedbyNicaragua
"AGAINST: JudgesMosler,Oda,Ago, Schwebeland Sir to theUnitedStates.Inthe presentphthecaseconcerns
RobertJeMingS; theCourt's jurisdictiontoentertainand pronounceuponthis
"(b) finds ,y fo-n votesto two, thahasjuris- dispute, aswellastheadmissibilityof Nicaragua'sApplica-
dictiontoentertaintheApplicationdbythe:Republicof tioncfemngittothe Court (para. 11).
Nicaraguaon 9 April 1984, insofaras that Application
relatesto a disputeconcerningtheinteqnetationorappli-The questionofthejurisdictionoftheCourtto entertain
cationofthekeatyofFriendship,Comrr~emandNaviga- thedispute
tionbetweenthe United:StadeAmericaandtheRepub- (paras. 12-83)
lic of Nicaragua signed;atManaguaonJanuary 1956,
onthebasisofArticlXKIV ofthat'Ikeaity; A. Thedeclarationof Nicaraguaand Article36, para-
"IN FAVOUR: President Elias; Vice-PresidentSette- (paras. 12-51)atute oftheCourt
Carnara; JudgeWtis, Morozov, Nagendra Singh,
Mosler,Oda, Ago.W-Khani.Sir RobertJennings,de TofoundthejurisdictionoftheCourt,Nicaraguareliedon
Lachambre,Mbaye,IAedjaouiJ;udgeadhtx Colliard, Article36 of the Statuteof the Court and the declarations
"AGAINST J:udgesRU&and Schwebel; accepting the compulsoryjurisdinf the Courtmadeby
"(c) jinds,byfifteenvotesto one,that ithasjurisdic-UnitedStatesanditself.
tiontoentertainthecase;
"IN FAVOUR: Presiderit Elias; Vice-,PresidentSette-TherelevanttextsandthehistoricalbackgrotoNica-
Camara; JudgesLachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singh, ragua'sdeclaration
Ruda, Mosler,Oda, '4g0, El-Khani, Sir Robert Jen- @ara~.12-16)
nings, de Lachani&re,Mbaye, Betijaoui;Judge ad Article36,paragraph2, oftheStatuteoftheInternational
hocColliard; Cow ofJustice providesthat:
"AGAINST: JudgeSchw~::bel; "The Statespatties to thepresent Statutemay at any
"(2) $h, unanimcwsly,that theslddApplicationis timedeclarethatthey recognizeascompulsory@sofacto
admissible." and without special agreement,in relationto any other
Stateacceptingthe saobligation,thejurisdictionofthe
Courtinalllegal disputesconcerning:
"(a) the interpretationofatreaty;
"(b) anyquestionofinternationallaw;
The Court was composed as follows: PresidentElias; "(c) the existenceof any fact which, if established,
Vice-PresidentSette-Carrlara;Judges Iachs, Morozov, constituaebreachofaninternationalobligation;
Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Khani, "(d) the natureor extentof thereparationto be made
schwebel, sir be^ ~~~,,~i~d~e~,hharribre,~ b ~ ~ ~ , forthe breachofaninternationalobligation."
Bedjaoui;udgeadhocCc~Xliard. On 14 August 1946, underthis provision, the UnitedStatesmadeadeclarationcontainingreservations hichwill [Thanslutionfio,he French]
bedescribedfurtherbelow.Inthisdeckation, itstatethat. "On behalfafthe RepublicofNicaraguaIrecognizeas
"this declaration shallremaininforceEoraperiodof five compulsoryunconditionallythejurisdictionofthePerma-
years andthereafteruntiltheexpirationofsixmonthsafter nentCourtofInternationalJustice.
noticemay begiventoterminatethisdeclaration." Geneva,24September1929
On 6Ad1984 the GovernmentoftheUnitedStatesdews- (Si~ned ).F.MEDINA"
itedwiihtheSecretary-GeneraloftheUnitedNationsanoti- .- .
theSsnm of Mr. Oeorge ThenationalauthoritiesinNicaraguaauthoriredits
(hereinafterreferred toas "the 1984notification"), referringn, and,on 29Novemb 1939,theMinistry of Foreign
tothedeclarationof 1946,and stating that: mairs ofNicaraguasent atelegMl totheSsnury-Omed
of the Leagueof Nationsadvisingit of the despatchof the
"the aforesaiddeclarationshalln~PP~ tYdisputeswith instrumentofratifi,cation.The filesofthe League,however.
any CentralAmericanState or &sing out ofor related colntainnorecordosfaninstrumentofratificationeverhaving
to events in Central America, any of which disputes beenreceivedandnoevidencehasbeenadducedtoshowthat
agree.e settledinsuchmannerasthepafliestothemmay such an instrumentof ratificationwas ever des~atchto
Geneva.AftertheSecondWorld War, ~icara~uabecamean
"Notwithstandingthe termsof the aforesaid declara- originalMemberof the UnitedNations, havingratifiedthe
tion, this proviso shalltakeeffectimmediatelyand shallCharteron6 Septennber1945;on24October1945theStatute
remaininforcefortwoyears,so astofosterthecontinuing oftheInternational CourtofJustice,whichisanintegralpart
regional dispute settlementprocessc:hseeksa negoti- oftheCharter,cameinto force.
ated solutionto the interrelatediticall,economicand
securityproblemsofCentralAmerica." Thearguments oftheRam'es
In order tobeable torelyuponthe UnitedStatesdeclara- (paras. 17-23)
tionof 1946tofoundjurisdictioninthepresentcase,Nicara- andthereasonin,goftheCourt
gua hastoshowthatitisa "State acceptingthe sameobliga- (paras.2442)
tion"as the UnitedStateswithinthemeaningof Article36, Thisbdng thecsae, theUnited conhds thM Nica-
paragraph2, oftheStatute. ragua neverecamea party to theStatuteof the Permanent
Forthispurpose,itreliesonadeclarationmadebyiton 24 Cow andthatits 1!)29declarationwasthereforenot"still in
September1929Pursuant toArticle36, 2, ofthe force" within the meaningof theEnglishtextof Article36,
Statuteof the PermanentCourt ofInternati.onalJustice, thpagraph 5, ofthestatuteofthepresentcow.
predecessorofthepresentCourt,whichprovided that: In the lightofht:argumentsof the UnitedStatesandthe
"The Membersofthe LeagueofNationsandtheStates opposingargumentsofNicaragua, the Courtsoughtto&ter-
mentionedinthe AnnextotheCovenantmay,eitherwhen minewhetherArticb 36,paragraph5, couldhaveappliedto
signingorratifyingtheProtocoltowhichthepresentStat- Nicaragua'sdeclarationof 1929.
uteisadjoined,oratalatermoment,declarethat theyrec-
ognize as com~uIs~~ bso facto and without CourtnotesthattheNicaraguandeclaratiowas valid
agreement*in relation to any other Member or State atae timewhenthequestionof theapplicabilityofthenew
accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of thesin,--underthe systemof the Permanentcourt of Intma-se,
court. . ." tionalJusticeadeclH*Uiowasvalidonly onconditionthatit
in any of the samecategoriesof disputeas listedin Articlhadbeenmadeby a,Statewhichhad signedthe Rotocol of
36,paragraph2, ofthe StatuteofthepresentCourt. SignatureoftheStatute.Ithadnot becomebindingunderthat
Statute,sinceNicaraguahadnot&posited its instrumentof
NicaraguareliesfurtheronArticle36, pragraph 5, ofthe ratificationof theR~tocolof Signatureandit wastherefore
StatuteofthepresentCourt,whichprovidesthat: notaparty tthe Sta~tut. owever, itisnotdisputedththe
"DeclaratiOnsmade under 36 ofthestatute 1929declarationcouldhaveacquiredbindingforce.Allthat
the PermanentCourtofInternationalJusticeandwhichare Nicmgua need done was to deposiiu instrumentof
in bedenaod, as lhepdes to the ratification,anditcouldhavedonoht atanytime the
present tobe of thecnnpulsayj dayon whichthenewCourtcameintoexistence. Itfollows
dictionof theInternational Court ofJusticeforthe periothatthedeclarationhdaCertain effecwhichcould
whichthey stillhavetorun and in accmhce withtheir bemaintainedformimy Hsving been msde uunmndi-
terms." tionally" and being validfoan unlimited period,it had
TheJudgmentrecallsthecircumstances iinwhichNicara- retainedits potentid effectat the momentwhenNicaragua
guamadeitsdeclaration:on 14 Septemb er29, a mem- &me apartytothestatuteofthe newcourt.
her theLeague it ROtocO1 I,o&r to aconclusiononthequestionwhetha the
ture the Ofthe Courtoflnmnational effectofadeclaratiowhich did not ave bindingforceat the
lustice:'thisRomeo1providedthatitwassubjecttoratifica- ofthePemllt Court be tothe
tionandthat instrumentsofratificationweretobesent tothe court ofJusticthroughtheopelSLtioofAR*le 36,
the On24 se~@m- paragraph5,of the statute ofthatmy, theCourtto& rev-
ber 1929Nicaraguadepositedwith,theSecre:tary-Generlf considerationilltaccount.
the Leaguea declarationunderArticle36, paragraph2, of
theStatuteofthePermanentCourtwhichreads: As regardsthe Fnenchphrase "pourunedurdequin'est
pasencoreexpirt?eWapplyingtodeclarationsmadeunderthe
callbecomeaapartyothStatuofeheInternatioalurtofJust.oea f0nTlerSystem,the (:OWdoesnot considerit toimplythat
StatmeembeOfthe Of only a partytothofthe "ladurdenonexpirke"(the unexpiredperiod)is that of a
PermanenCourofInternatioalstifitsWi, andinthatcase,it commitmentofabindingcharacter.Thedeliberatechoiceof
was-,,ire,to ad tothehtocolofsiWnu oe:thstah oate the expressionseem.sto denote an intentito widen the
cow. scopeof Article36, paragrap5,soas to coverdeclarations
142which havenotacquiredbindingforce.The Englishphrase of the Court, a "State accepting the sameobligation"as
"stillinforce"doesnot expn:sslyexcludeavaliddeclaration theUnitedStatesat thedateof filingof theApplicationand
ofunexpiredduration,made IbyaStatenotpartytotheProto- could thereforerely on the UnitedStates declarationof
colof Signatureof the Statu:teof thePemnent Court,and 1946.
thereforenotofbindingchaxcter.
Withregard totheconside1.ationsoverningthetransferof B. The declarationoftheUnitedStates
the powersof the former Courtto the new one, the Court (paras.52-76)
takestheviewthatthe primaryconcernofthosewho drafted
its Statutewas to maintainthe greatest possible continuity The mfjication of1984
between it andthePermanentCourtandthat theiraimwasto (paras.52-66)
ensure that the replacementf one Court byanother should The acceptanceof the jurisdictionof the Court by the
not result in a step backwardsin relationto the progress UnitedStateson which Nicaraguareliesis the resultof the
accomplished towardsadopting a system of compulsory UnitedStates declarationof 14August1946.However,the
jurisdiction. The logic of a general systemof devolution UnitedStatesarguesthat effectshould be givento the letter
fromtheoldCourttothenewresultedintheratificationofthe sent to the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations on6
new Statutehaving exactly the sameeffectsasthoseof the April1984(seep. 4 above).Itiscley thatifthisnotification
ratificationof the Protocolof Signatureof the old Statute,were validas againstNicaragua atthe dateof filingof the
i.e., inthecaseofNicaragua,atransformationofapotential Application, the Courtwould not havejurisdictionunder
commitmentintoaneffectiveone. Nicaiaguamaytherefore Article36oftheStatute.Afteroutliningtheargumentsofthe
bedeemedtohave givenitsconsenttothe transferofitsdec- Partiesinthis connection, the Courtpoints outthat themost
larationto the International Court ofJusticewhen itsigned importantquestionrelatingtothe effectofthe 1984notifica-
and ratified the Charter,u~saccepting theStatuteand its tioniswhethertheUnitedStateswas fre todisregardthe six
Article36,paragraph5. months'noticeclausewhich,freelyandbyitsownchoice,it
Concerningthe publicatio~~osftheCourt~femd tobythe has appendedto its declaration,in spiteof the obligationit
Partiesfor opposite reasons, the Court notes thattheyhave hasenteredintovis-cf-viother Stateswhichhavemadesuch
regularlyplaced Nicaragua or1the list of tlnoseStates*at a declaration. The Courtnotes that the United States has
haverecognizedthecompulsoryjurisdictionofthe Courtby arguedthat the Nicaraguandeclaration,beingof undefined
virtueofArticle36,paragraph5, ofthe Statute.'Il'ettesta- duration,isliabletoimmediatetermination,andthatNicara-
tions furnishedbythesepublicationshaveken entirelyoffi- guaha; notaccepted"the sameobligation" asitselfandmay
cialandpublic, extremelynul!merouasnd haveextendedover notrely onthetime-limitproviso against it. The Court does
a periodofnearly40years.'['heCourtdrawsfromthis testi- notconsiderthatthisargumententitlestheUnitedStatesval-
monythe conclusionthatthe:conductof Statesprlrtiestothe idlyto derogatefromthe time-limitproviso includedin its
Statutehasconfirmedthe interpretationof IMcle 36, para- 1946declaration.Inthe Court's opiniont,henotionofreci-
graph5, oftheStatute,wherebytheprovisioinsofthisArticle procity is concernedwith the scope and substanceof the
coverthe caseofNicaragua. commitmentsenteredinto, including reservations,and not
extinction.Reciprocitycannot,beinvokedillordertoexcuser
Theconduct ofthe Itrrties deparhlrefromthe termsof a State'sown declaration.The
(paras.43-51) UnitedStatescannotrelyonreciprocitysincetheNicaraguan
Nicaragua also contends thatthe validityof Nicaragua's declarationcontainsnoexpressrestrictionatalOn thecon-
recognitionofthecompulso~y jurisdictioof theCourtfinds traryNicaraguacan invoke the sixmonths'noticeagainstit,
an independentbasis in the conductf theParties.It argues not on thebasisofreciprocity,butbecauseit isanundertak-
thatitsconductover 38years unequivocallyconstitutescon- ingwhichisanintegralpartoftheinstrumentthatcontainsit.
sentto bebound by thecoml?ulsoryjurisdicllonofthe Court The 1984notificationcannot thereforeovemde theobliga-
andthattheconductofthe Uls!itStatesoverthe sameperiod tionof the UnitedStatestosubpit to thejurisdictionof the
unequivocallyconstitutesits]recognitoftlnevalidityofthe Courtvis-cf-viNicaragua.
declarationof Nicaraguaof 1929 as an ac:ceptrmcof the
compulsoryjurisdiction of the Court. The United States, TheUnitedStatesmultilateraltreatyreservation
however,objects that theccententioof Nicaraguais incon- @ar;as 67-76)
sistent with the Statute, and1in particular thatcompulsory
jurisdictionmust be basedcsnthe clearestmanifestationf The questionremains to beresolvedwhetherthe United
theState'sintenttoacceptit:.After consideringNicaragua's States declarationof 1946constitutes thenecessaryconsent
particular circumstancesandlnotingthat Nicaragua'ssitua- of the UnitedStatesto the jurisdictionof the Court in the
tionhasbeen whollyunique,theCourt consi~derhat,having presentcase,takingintoaccountthereservationswhich were
regard tothesourceandgeneralityofstatementsI:Otheeffect had invoked proviso(c)to that declaration,whichprovides
thatNicaraguawasbound by its 1929declaration,it isright thattheUnitedStates acceptanceofthe Corut'scompulsory
toconclude thatthe constantacquiescenceof that Statein jurisdiction shallnotextendto
thoseaffirmationsconstitutesa validmodeofmanifestation
of its intentto recognizethe compulsoryjurisdictionof the "disputes arisingundera multilateraltreaty, unless(1)all
CourtunderArticle36, paragraph.2,oftheStatute. It further Wies tothetreatyaffectedbythedecision are alsoparties
considers thatthe estoppeltw whichthe U'nitedStateshas Americaspeciallyagreestojurisdiction".e UnitedStatesof
relied,andwhich would havebarred Nicaraguafrom institut-
ing proceedingsagainstit i,~he Court, cannot be said to Thisreservationwill bereferredtasthe"n~ultilateratlreaty
applytoit. nserv~tion".
Finding:theCourtthereforefindsthattheNicaraguan dec- TheUnitedStatesarguesthatNicaraguareliesinitsAppli-
larationof 1929isvalid and that Nicaragaccodingl was, cation on four multilateraltreaties, and that the Court, in
for the purposesof Article 136,paragraph:2,of the tatute view oftheabovereservation,mayexercisejurisdictiononlyif all treatyparties affectedby a prospectivedecisionof thesidered asa legal bar to at?:idicationor as "a matter
Courtarealsopartiesto thecase. requiringthe exerciseof prudentialdiscretioninthe interest
The Court notes that the States which, accordintgo theofthe integrityofthejudicial function".
UnitedStates,mightbeaffectedbythefuturedecisionofthe Thejrst groundofiMdmissibility(paras. 85-88)putfor-
Court,havemadedeclarationsofacceptanceofthe compul- wardbytheUnitetiStatesisthatNicaraguahasfailedtobring
soryjurisdictionof theCourt,andrefree,anytime,tocome before the Courtpartieswhosepresence andparticipationis
beforetheCourt withanapplicationinstitutingproceedings, nrxessaryfor the rightsof those partiesto be protected and
ortoresorttothe incidentalprocedureofintervention.These fortheadjudicationofthe issuesraisedintheApplication.In
States aretherefore not defenceless againstany conse- this connection. theCourtrecalls thatit deliversjudgments
quencesthatmayarise outof adjudicatiorby theCourt and withbindingforce asbetweenthe Partiesinaccordancewith
theydonot needtheprotectionofthemullilateraltreaty res- Article59oftheStatute,and thatStateswhichconsiderthey
ervation (insofarastheyrenot already protectbyArticle may be affectedby thedecisioarefreeto institute separate
59 of the Statute).The Court considers that obviously theroceedingsor to employ the procedure of intervention.
questionofwhatStatesmay beaffectedisriotajurisdictionalTinternational tribunals,of an "indispensable parties" rule
problemandthatithasnochoicebuttodec1:artehattheobjec- which would only be conceivablein parallel toa power,
sess,inthecircumstancesofthecase,aneelcclusiveprelim-s- whichthe Courtdoesnotpossess,todirect thata thirdState
inary character. bemadeapartyto ~~roceedingNs.one oftheStatesreferredto
can be regardedasbeingin a position suchthat its presence
~indi~~:the corn findsthat, despite,theunitestates wcjuldbetrulyindispensabletothepurSuanceoftheproceed-
notification of 1984, Nicaragua's Ap;p]icationis not ings.
Statesof thecompulsoryjurisdictionoftheCourt. Thetwod Thesecondgroundofinadmis (pirai.8i-90)relied
declarationsaffordabasisforitsjurisdiction. on by the United States is that Nicaragua is, in effect,
requesting that theCourt in this case determinesthe exist-
C. TheEeary of Friendship,Commerct! Navigation en" of a threatto peace, a matterfallingessentiallywithin
of21Januab 1956asa basisofjurisdiction the competenceof the Security Councilbecauseit is con-
(paras. 77-83) nec;tedwith Nicaragua'scomplaint involving theuse of
force.The Court examinesthis groundof inadmissibilityat
In its Memorial,Nicaraguaalso relies,s a "subsidiary thesametimeasthe:thirdground(paras.91-98)basedon the
basis" for the Court's jurisdiinthiscase,onthe Treaty position of the Court within theUnited Nations system.
of Friendship, Commerce and Navigationwhich it con- includingtheimpactofproceedingsbefore theCourton the
cluded at Managuawith the United States on 21 January exerciseofthe inherentrightofindividualorcollectiveself-
1956and whichentered intofm on24M.ay1958. Article defenceunderArticle51of the Charter.TheCourtis ofthe
XXIV,paragraph2, readsasfollows: opinionthatthefactthatamatterisbeforetheSecurityCoun-
"Any disputebetwan the Partiesas t~theinterprets- cil shouldnotpreventit frombeingdealtwithby the Court
tionor applicationof thepresent'Iteaty,:notsatisfactorilythatboth~roca:dingscouldbepursuedpariPassu.The
adjustedbydiplomacy,shallbelsubhtkd to theInkma- Cwhereas theCourtexercisespurelyjudicial functions.Both,
tiond court of Justice, unlessthe Partiesagreetosettleorganscantherefon:perform their separatebutcomplemen-
mentbysomeotherpacificmeans." tary functionswithrespecttothe sameevents.Inthepresent
Nicaraguasubmitsthat this has kn and is being - thecomplaintafNicsngua isnotabut anongoing ww
violated by the militaryand paramilitaryactivitiesof theofa.ed conflictbetweenit andtheUnitedStates,butabut
United as in the A~~lica~on' he United a &uationdemandingthepeacefulsettlementof disputes,a
'late' contends that*sincethe presents whichiscoveredbyChapter vl ofthe Charter.Hence,
of viohtiOnofthetnaty, there no it is broughtWOE the judicial of
erly before the Court for adjudicatiand UUt.since no theUnited Nationsforpeacefulsettlement.Thisisnotacase
attemptto adjustthe disputeby diplom=y has beenmade. wfich can only be dealt with by the SecurityCounciin
necessaryto satisfyitselfas tojurisdictionunderthe treaty thepmvisionsof ChapterVII oftheCharar.
inasmuchas it has foundthat the objectionbaseduponthe Withreferenceto 51 theCharter*theCourtnotes
multilateraltreaty in the United,states declara-thatthefactthat the inherentrightofself-defenceisreferred
tion doesnot&bar it from entertainingthe ApplicatioIn to in theCharterasii"right" is indicativeof a legaldimen-
theviewoftheCourt,thefactthata Stateh;~notexpressly sion*andfindsthatif, in thePresentproceedings,it became
referred,in negotiationswithanotherStates,to a particulanecesSar'YfortheCourttojudge in thisrespect betweenthe
treatyas havingbeen violatedby thecondc~cotf that other Pa-ties,it cannotbedebarredfromdoingsobythe existence
State,doesnotdebarthat Statefrominvokinga compromis- a procedurereqairingthat the matterbe reportedtthe
sory clausein thattreaty. Accordinglyt,heCourtfindsthatitecurity
hasjurisdiction undetrhe 1956'Iteatytoentertaintheclaims AfourthgroundqPinadmissibilit(yparas,99-101)putfor-
madebyNicaraguainitsApplication. wardbytheUnitedStatesisthe inabilityofthejudicialfunc-
tiontodealwithsitua.tioninvolvingongoingarmedconflict,
n. T&questionoftheadmissibilityofNicaraguaPM s li- Sincethe resol?to face duringan ongoingarmed conflict
cation lackstheattributes necessary for the applinf thejudi-
(paras.84-108) cia1process, namelya patternof legally relevantfacts dis-
cerniblebythemeansavailableto the adjudicatingtribunal.
TheCourtnowturns tothequestionoftheidmissibilityof TheCourtobservesthat anyjudgmentonthemeritsislimited
Nicaragua's Application. heUnitedStates'ontendedthatit toupholding suchsutbmissionsfthePartiesashas beensup-
is inadmissibleonfiveseparategrounds, eachofwhich,it is portedbysufficientpimf ofrelevantfactsandthatultimately
said, is sufficientto establishsuchmissi.bilit, hether itisthe litigantwhoearsthe burdenofproof.
144 Thejifrhgroundof inadmissibility(paras. 102-108) put SUMMARY OF OPINION SPPENDED TO THE
forwardbythe UnitedStatesisbased onthenon-exhaustion JUDGMENT OFTHE COURT
oftheestablishedprocessefortheresolutionoftheconflicts
occurringin CentralAmerica. It contends thate Nicara- Separate OpinionbyJudgeNagendraSingh
gum Application isincompatiblewiththeCoritadoraprocess WhileJudgeNagendraSinghhasvotedforthejurisdiction
towhichNicaraguaisaparty. of the Court on both counts, namely under the Optional
TheCourtrecalls its earlier decisionsthat snothing clause ofArticle36,pmgraphs 2and5, of*,e statutofthe
to compelitto totake ofOne ofa Court,aswellasunderArticle36,paragraph1,oftheStatute
disputemerelybecausethatdisputehasotherZSPts (United on thebasisof ArticleXXIV,paragraph2, theTreatyof
StatesDiplomaticandConsui'nS rtaflin Tehnzncase,I.C.J. Friendship,commer aceNavigationof 21Jmuary 1950,
RepHs 1980,p. 19,para.36),andthefacthat negotiations hehasft:ltallalonginthoseproceedingsthatthejurisdiction
are being activelypursueddllring the proccdings is not* oftheCourtrestinguponthelatter,namely1:he Treaty,pro-
legally,anyobstacletotheex.ercisebythe Courtof itsjudi- vides aclearer anda ground than be Jurisdiction
cial function (AegeanSea C:ontinental helfcase, I.C.J. basedo,ltheoptional ClauseofArticle36(2)and (5)ofthe
Reports1978,p. 12*para.29).The is toaccept Statute.Thedifficultieswhichconfrontthe Courtinrelation
either that thereis any requi~ementof prior exhaustionofto theimperfectacceptancof thejurisdictionby Nicaragua
regional negotiatingprocesse:sas a preconditionto seisinand the unwilling response from the United States,as
theCourt;orthattheexistenct:oftheContadora procecon- byitsdeclaratioof6April1984intendedtobarthe
stitutesin this casean obstacleto the exarriinationby thCourt*sjurisdictiinrelationtoanydisputewiththe
CourtofNicaragua's Application. AmericanStatesforaperiodoftwoyears. Inadditionthereis
The Court is thereforeunableto declarethe Application also the questionof reciprocityin relation to six months'
inadmissibleon any of the grounds theUnited States has noticeofterminationstipulatedintheUnitedStates&Clara-
advanced. tion of 14 August 1346.On the other hand, theTreaty of
Findings(paras. 109-111) 1956does providea clear jurisdictional base, although the
Statusoftheprovisionalmc?asurr(esara. 112) fieldof the jurisdictionis restrictedto disputes concerning
TheCourtstatesthatitsOrcferof 10May1984aid thepro- the inte~retationand of that Treaty.However*
visionalmeasures indicated thereremain operativeuntil the saidjurisdictionis not subjectto the multilateraltreaty
thedeliveryofthefinaljudgmentin&hecase. reservationof the UnitedStates, whichis applicableto the
Court's jurisdictionunder the Optional Clauseof Article
OPERATIV PEOVISIONSOF THE, 36(2)of the Statute.Another helpfulfeatureof thejurisdic-
COURT'.J SUDGMENT tionbasedontheTreatyof 1956isthatitwouldhelp tospec-
ify and legallychannelisethe issuesofthe dispute. ThePar-
THECOURT, tieswill havetocometotheCourtundertheTreaty,invoking
legal principlesand adopting legalprocedureswhich would
(1) (a) finds, by elevenvotesto five, thatit hasjuris-elpfully place legallimitstothepresentatioilofthissprawl-
dictionto entertain theApplicationfiledby theRepublicof ingdispute,whichcould otherwisetakea non-legalcharac-
Nicaraguaon9 April 1984, onthebasisofArticle36, para- ter,thus raisingtheproblemofsortingoutwhatisjusticiable
graphs2and5, oftheStatuteoftheCourt; as opposedto non-justiciablematters being brought before
k FAVOUR: president ~li~; vice-presidentseae-camara; the COUI~ ~e. concludes, therefore, thatthc:jurisdictionof
JudgesLachs,Morozov,N;lgenbSingh, El-Khani, able.Nicaraguawillnowhavetospelloutclearlyandspecif-
deLacharribre,~ b ~ ~B,e:-Jjaouij;udgehotdcol]iard. ically theviolationsoftheTreatyinvolvingits interpretation
AGAINST J: ges Mosler,Oda.Ago.SchwehelandSirRob- andapplicationwhentheCourtpmceals toconsiderthe
ertJennings; itsofthecase.
(b) finds,byfourteenvotestotwo, thatithasjlurisdiction
toentertainthe ApplicationfiledbytheRepr~blof Nicara- SeparateOpinio by JudgeRuda
gua on9 April 1984,insofarasthat Applicationrelatesto a
dispute concerningthe interpretationor applicationof the TheseparateopinionofJudgeRuda,who concurredinthe
TreatyofFriendship,Comme:~:candNavigationbetweenthe Court'sfinding that ithadjurisdictiontortaintheAppli-
United States of Americaand the Republicof Nicaragua cation,onthe basisof Article36,paragraphs2 and5, of the
signedat Managuaon21 Jani~ary1957,onthebasisofArti- Statuteof the Court, concerns threepoints: the Treatyof
cleXXIVofthatTreaty; Friendship,CommerceandNavigationof 1956asa basisof
k FAVOUR: president ~li~; ~i~~-l+~~id~ s~te-camara; theCourt's jurisdiction,reservationcontainedinproviso
Judges Laths,Morozov,Nagen&! Shgh, Mosler,O&, (c)oftheUnitedStatesdeclarationof 1946ad theconduct
A~O, El-Khani, Sir ~~b~. Jennings, (k Lacharribre, ofStatesasabasisfortheCourt'sjurisdiction.
Mbaye,Bedjaoui; JudgeadhocColliard; Inregardto thefirst point, JudgeRudamaintainsthat the
AGAINST: JudgesRudaandSchwebel; Partieshave notfulfilled the conditions set forthin Article
XXIVof theTreaty, whichtherefore cannot serveasa basis
entertainthecase;teenvotestoone,thatithasjurisdictionto forthejurisdiction court.
Inregard to the secopoint,heconsidersthatthereserva-
IN FAVOUR: PresidentElias; Vice-PresidentSet1:e-Camara; tioncolltainedinproviso(c)ofthedeclarationisnotapplica-
JudgesLachs,Morozov,lrTagendrS ain&, Rucla,Mosler~ bleindiepresentinstancebecausethereisnotonlyadispute
Oda,Ago,El-Khani,SirRobertJennings,deLacharribre, betweentheUnitedStatesand Nicaraguabutalsoa separate
Mbaye,Bedjaoui;JudgeadhocColliard; disputebetween, onthe one hand, Honduras,El Salvador
AGAINST: JudgeSchwebel; andCosta Ricaand,onthe otherhand, Nicaragua.
(2) finds, unanimously, thatthe said Applicationis In regard tothe thirdpoint,JudgeRudais of theopinion
admissible." that theconductof Statesdoesnotconstituteindependent
I 145 .basisfortheCourt's jurisdictioniftherehasbeennodeposit Inany eventthe letterof 6 April 1984from the United
of a declaration acceptingthe optional clause with the StatesSecretaro: Ftatebarsjurisdiction becausetherecent
!kcremy-GeneraloftheUnited Nations. practiceshowsthatStateshavetherighttowithdraworalter
JudgeRu&concursintheCourt'sinteqmtationofArticle theiroptionalclau:sedeclarationswith illlmediateeffect, at
36, paragraph5,of the Statute. any timebeforeanapplicationtotheCourtbased on theec-
laration.
SeparateOpinionbyJudgeMosler SirRobertconcnuswiththeCourt's decisioninrespectof
the United States multilateralaties reservation;and the
JudgeMoslerdoesnotagreewiththeopinionofthe Court 1956Wty ofFriendship,Commerce and Navigation.
tionof 1G29relating to the jurisdictionof th; Permanent
Court of International Justice.In his view the Courtpos- Dissenting OpiniobyJudgeSchwebel
sesses jurisdictiononly on the basis of the 1956ty of JudgeSchwebeldissentedfromthejudgmentoftheCourt,
Friendship,CommerceandNavigationbetweentheParties. whichhefoundto be"in errorOntheprincipalquestionsof
-iurisdiction" involved.However,if the Courtwerecorrect
Separate Opinionby JudgeOda in findingthat it hasjurisdiction, then the case would be
admissible.
Judge O& concursin the CO~C~US~O ~f the CourtSolely On the question of whether Nicaragua is party tothe
because the case can be sustainedunder the 1956lfeav Court's compulsoryjurisdictiounderits OptionalClause,
between Nicaragua andtheUnitedStates.Thusin his view thus has standlingto maintainsuit against the United
theScopeofthecaseshouldbe strictlylimitedto anyviola- States,JudgeSchwebelconcluded thatit is not a party and
tionofspecificprovisionsofthatTreaty. hencelacks standing. Nicaraguahas never adheredto this
However.Judge Odaholds the firm view that this case Court'scompulsoryjurisdiction under the OptionalClause.
cannotbeentertainedunderthe OptionalClauseofthe Stat- It claimedthatitneverthelesswas partybyreasonofits 1929
Ute,forthe followingtworeasons.First, thereis no ground declarationacceptingthe compulsoryjurisdictionofthePer-
for concluding thatNicaraguacan be held to have legal manentCourtofInternationalJustice.Ifthe 1929declaration
standinginthepresent proceedingsnthebasis of theaccept- had1come intoforcle,Nicaraguawould'bedeemedparty to
anceof the OptionalClause. Secondly, ss~lminthatNica- this Court's compulsoryjurisdictby operationof Article
ragua has legal standingin the present proceedings,the 36, paragraph5, of this Court's Statute.But Nicaragua's
United Stateby itsShultzlettero6 April 1984effectively 1929declarationhadnevercomeintoforce.Undertheterms
excluded,beforetheseisinofthecase,thetypeofdisputeat of Article36, paragraph5, accordinglyit has no periodin
issuefromitsobligationundertheOptionalClauseinitsrela- whichit stillruns, sinceitneverbegantorunat all.It hasno
tiontoNicaragua:whenit issoughttobringacasebefore the periodwhichhasnot yetexpired sinceits declarationnever
Courtunderthatclause,aprovision fixinacertainduration, was"inspired".
the rule of reciprocity,be hvoked by anotherPa%'whoseof Thatthis is thec~rrectinterpretationof Article36, para-
declarationisterminableoramendableatanytime. graph5, isdemonsaatednot onlybytheplain meaningofits
text,butbythedraftinghistoryofthearticleattheSanFran-
ciscoConferenceandbyfourcasesofthisCourt.All,clearly
Separate OpiniobyJudgeAgo anduniformly,construeArticle36,paragraph5, asreferring
Judge Ago concurredin the Court's findingthat it had manentiCourtby w:hichStates wereertheStatuteofthePer-
jurisdictionto entertainthe meritsofthecasebecauseofhis wereinforce. i.e., which
convictionthatavalidlinkofjurisdictionbetweentheParties
waspresentinArticle MW (2)oftheTwy ofFriendship, The fact that, for almo4t ears'N,icsraguahas ban
commer cne ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~nicud~edbemreenthe united listedin theYearboc~kfthisCourtandelsewhereasbound
state of~ ~ ~ r iand~i~~~~~~ on 21J~~~~~ 1956. nat conclusionorindependentlyto establishNicaragua'sstand-his
link, in his view, jurisdictionupc3nthcour to
considerNicaragua's claimismplyingbreachesofthatTreaty footnotewarning the reader thatNicaragua'sadherenceto
bytheUnitedStates. the Optional Clausewas in doubt. Moreover,Nicaragua's
JudgeAgodid not reachthe same as regards coduct hasbeenequivocal.Notonlyhasitfailedtomanifest
thebmadrjurisdictional linkpresented theJudgment as i$ inteto beboundbythisCourt'scompulsoryjurisdiction
from thefactsconcerningthe ==!ptance by both bydepositingadeclaration.It alsoevadedobviousoccasion
NicaraguaandtheUnited States the Court'scom~ulsory fordeclaringthatit~~ognid itselftobeboundunderArti-
jurisdiction by unilateral declaration, sincehe remained cle36,pmgraph 5, RsintheKing ofspa inse.
unconvincedof the existenceof that linkeitherin factor in .Even if, howeva,Nicaragu;hsd tomaintainsuit
law. under theOptional Clause, it may not do so against the
UnitedStates.AssunlingNicaragua'sdeclarationtbe bind-
SeparateOpinionbyJudgeSirRobertJennings ing,Nicaragua couldterminateit at anytimewithimmediate
The Court does not havejurisdictionunder Article 36, effect. By operationof the rule of reciprocity,the United
paragraph5,ofitsStatutebecauseNicaragua,neverbecamea States likewisecouldterminateits adherenceto theCourt's
partytotheStatuteofthePermanentcourt; mordingly, its compulsoryjurisdiction,vis-d-visNicaragua,withimmedi-
declarationmade under Article 36 of that court's State ateeffect.Thus, whilegenerallytheUnitedStatescouldnot
-ot,be one"stillinforce" inthesenseofArticle36,para- terminateormodify adherencetothecourt's co~pulS0rY
graph5, ofthepresentcourt's Statute,becauseitneverwas jurisdiction-asits notificationof April, 1984 purportsto
inforce.Toattemptto supportadifferentviewonentriesin do-on lessthansixmonths'notice,itcouldvalidlydo SOin
referencebookssuchasthe YearbooksoftheCourtiswrong relationshiptoNicm,gua.
inprincipleand unsupportedbythefactsrelie'don. In,myevent,eveni.fthe UnitedStatescouldnotterminate
146itsdeclarationvis-b-viNicaragua,bythetenns ofitsmulti- tohave]putoffthequestionof applicationof thereservation
lateratreatyreservationto itsdeclaration,thd:United States tothestageofthemerits.
isentitledtoexcludeNicaragua's reliancein itsApplication Finally, in JudgeSchwebel'sview, the Court does not
on four multilateraltreaties, includingthe IJnitedNations havejutisdiction over the claims made againstthe United
and OAS Charters, unlessall other partiesto thetreaties States by Nicaraguain its Applicationby reason of their
affected by the decision an: partiesto the case. Those being party to a bilateralTreatyof Friendship.Commerce
parties-as isdemonstrated b:ythepleadingsofNicaragua in and Navigation. Nicaraguahad failed to pursue the pro-
thecase-are Honduras,CostaRicaandEl Salvador. Since cedural prerequisitesfor invokingthattreatyas the basisof
those States arenot parties, Nicaraguanrelianceon those theCourt's jurisdiction. orethanthat, thispurelycornmer-
fourtreatiesshouldhavebeenbarredbytheCourt.However, cial treaty has no plausible relationshipto the chargesof
theCourt-erroneously inJud.geSchwebel'sview-has held aggression andinterventionmade in Nicaragua'sApplica-
thatthoseother Statescannotnow be identified andappears tion.
Summary of the Judgment of 26 November 1984