Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASECONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITAR AYCTIVITIES INAND
AGAINSTNICARAGU (NICAJtAGUA v.UNITED STATES OFAMERICA)(MERITS)
ForitsjudgmentonthemeritsinthecasecoiicerningMiliOPERATIVPERTOFTHECOURTJ UDGMENT
taryand ParamilitaryActivitiesin andagainstNicaragua
broughtbyNicaraguaagainsttheedStatesofAmerica, COURT
theCourtascomposedasfollows:
ResidentNagendraSingh;Vice-Residentdl:Lacharriare;yelevenvotestofour,
JudgesLachs,Ruda. Elias, Oda. Ago, Iiette-CamarDecides thatinadjudicatingthebrought beforeit
Schwebel,SirRobert Jennings, Mbaye, Bedjaoui,bythe Application by the Republicof Nicaraguaon
Evensen,JudadhoeColliard. April 1984, the Courtisrequiredto applythe "multilateral
of acceptanceofristlictionmadeunderA36,para-eclaration
graph2,oftheStatuteoCourtbythe Governmetfthe
UnitedStatesofAmericadepositedongust1946,
Continued on next pageLN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Vice-Presidend te State, notto intervenein its affairs,not to violate its sover-
Lacharriere;JudgesLacfns,Oda, Ago.,Schwebel, Sir eigntyand nottointerruptpeaceful maritimecommerce;
RobertJennings,Mbaye,Bedjaoui andEvensen;Judgead IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Vice-Presidend te
hocColliard; Lacharriere; Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-
AGAINST: JudgesRuda,Elias,Sette-CamaraandNi. Cannara,Mbaye,Bedjaoui,NiandEvensen;Judge ad hoc
Colliard;
(2) Bytwelvevotes tothree, AGAINST: JudgesOda,SchwebelandSir Robert Jennings.
Rejectsthejustificationof collective self-defencemain-
tainedbytheUnitedStateselfAmericainconnectionwiththe (7) Byfourteenvotesto one,
militaryand paramilitary:tivitiesinand againstNicaragua Decidesthat, by the acts referredto in subparag(6)h
thesubjectofthiscase; hereof,the UnitedStatesof Americahas acted,againstthe
IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Wce-Presidend te Reput~licof Nicaragua,in breach of its obligationsunder
Lacharribre;Judges Laths, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette- ArticleIX oftheTreatyofFriendship,CommerceandNav-
Camara,Mbaye, Bedjaoui,NiandEvenren;Judgeadhoc igationbetweentheUnitedStatesofAmericaandtheRepub-
Colliard; licofNicaraguasignedat Managuaon21 January 1956;
AGAINST: JudgesOda, SchvvebealndSirRsoberJtennings. IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Vice-Presidend te
(3) Bytwelve votestotlwee, Lacharribre;JudgesLachs,Ruda,Elias, Oda,Ago,Sette-
Decidesthat the UnitedStates of Arnica, by training, Camara, SirRobertJennings,Mbaye, Bedjaoui,Ni and
arming, equipping, financing and supplying thecontra Evensen;JudgeadhocColliard;
forcesorotherwiseencouraging,supportingandaidingmili- AGAINST: JudgeSchwebel.
taryandparamilitaryactiviliesinand against Nicaragua, has (8) Byfourteenvotestoone,
acted, against the Republicof Nicaragua, ineachof its
obligationundercustomaryjinternationallaw not tointervene Decidesthat the UnitedStatesof Ameiica, by failingto
inthe affairsofanotherState; make knowntheexistenceandlocation ofthemines laidby
IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendra Singh; Vice-presidentde it, referredtoinsubparagraph(6)hereof,has actedinbreach
Lacharritre; JudgesLaths, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette- of its obligationsundercustomaryinternationallaw in this
Camara, Mbaye,Bedjaoui, NiandEvensen;Judgeadhoc respect;
Colliard; IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Vice-Presidend te
Lacharribre;Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-
AGAINST: JudgesOda,SchwebelandSirRobert Jennings. Csumara,Schwebel, Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bed-
(4) Bytwelve votesto.three, jaoui, NiandEvensen;JudgeadhocColliard;
Decides that the United States of America, by certain AGAINST: JudgeOda.
attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely (9) Byfourteenvotesto one,
attackson Puerto Sandinoon 13Septemberanti 14October Fir& thattheUnitedStatesof America,byproducingin
1983;anattackonCorintoon 10October1.983;anattackon 1983a manualentitled"Operacionessicol6gicasen guerra
PotosiNavalBaseon415January1984;anattack onSanJuan de guerrillas", and disseminatingit to contraforces, has
del Sur on 7 March 1984;attackson patrol boatsat Puerto encouragedthe commissionbythemof actscontrarytogen-
Sandinoon28and 30March 1984;andanattack:onSanJuan eralprinciplesofhumanitarianlaw;butdoesnot findaabasis
delNorteon9April 1984;andfurtherbythoseactsof inter- forccwcludingthatanysuchactswhichmayhavebeencom-
vention referredtoinsubpruagraph(3)hereof whichinvolve mittedareimputableto the UnitedStatesci mericaasacts
the use of force, has acted, against thelicof Nicara- ofthe:UnitedStatesofAmerica;
gua,inbreachofitsobligationundercustomaryinternational
law notto useforceagainstanotherState; IN FAVOUR :residentNagendraSingh; Vice-Presidendte
LN FAVOUR: PresidentNegendraSingh; 'Vice-Presiden dte Lacharribre;Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-
Lachanibre; Judges Lnchs, Ruda, Ellias, Ago, Sette- Camara, Schwebel. Sir Robert Jennings, Mbaye, Bed-
Camara, Mbaye,BedjacbuiN , iandEvenoen;Judgead hoc jaoui, NiandEvensen;JudgeadhocColliard;
Colliard; AGAINST: JudgeOda.
AGAINST: JudgesOda,SchwebelandSirElobe~J -tnnings. (10) Bytwelve votes tothree,
(5) Bytwelve votesto three, DecidesthattheUnitedStatesof America,bytheattacks
DecidesthattheUnitedStatesofAmerica,bydirectingor on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph(4)
authorizing overflightsof Nicaraguanterritory,and by thehereof, and by declaringa generalbargoon trad weith
acts imputabletothe Uni.tedStatesrefenredto in subpara- Nicaraguaon 1May 1985,hascommittedactscalculatedto
graph(4)hereof,has acted,against theR~tpubXicf Nicara- depriveof its objectand purpose the%sty of Friendship,
gua,inbreachofitsobligationunderusto:maryinternational Commerceand Navigation betweenthe Parties signedat
lawnottoviolatethesovereigntyofanoth~aState; Managuaon21January 1956;
IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Vice-.Presiden dte INR~VOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Vice-president&
Lacharrihre;Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette- Ltnchanii?re;Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette-
Camara,Mbaye,Bedjac~uiN , iandEveiisen;Judgad hoc C'unara,Mbaye, Bedjaoui,NiandEvensen;Judge adhoc
Colliard; Colliard;
AGAINST: JudgesOda,SchwebelandSir Robert Jennings. AGAINST:JudgesOda,SchwebelandSirRobertJe~ingS.
(6) Bytwelve votestcthree, (11) Bytwelve votestothree,
Decidesthat, by layingminesintheinternalor territorial Decidesthatthe UnitedStatesof America,bytheattacks
watersof theRepublicof Nicaraguaduringthe firstmonths on Nicaraguan territory referred to in subparagraph(4)
of 1984,theUnitedStatesofAmericahas;acted,against the hereof, and by declaringa general embargootradewith
Republicof Nicaragua, in breachof its obligationsder Nicaraguaon 1May 1985,has actedinbteachof itsobliga-
customaryinternationallarwnotto usefo~wagainst another tions;underArticleIX of the Treatyof Friendship,Com-merceandNavigation betweentheRutiessignedatManagua Judgmentof 26 November1984on the jurisdiction ofthe
on21January1956; Courtand theadmussibilityof Nicaragua'sApplicatithe
IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; 'Vice-Presidendte the pmeedings. 'ifhishoweverdoes not preventthe Court
Lacharrihre;Judges hhs, RU&, E]ias, go, Sette- f~0mgivinga decisionin theCase,but it hasto do so while
Camara,Mbaye,Bedjaoui,NiandEvensen;Judgeadhw respecting the requirementsof Article 53 of the Statute,
Colliard; which providesforthe situationwhenoneofthepartiesdoes
AGAINST J: dgeOda, schweb anelSirR~~~ Jennings. not appear.TheColurt'sjurisdictionbeingestablished,ithas
(12) Bytwelve votestothree, inaccordancewithArticle53tosatisfyitselfthattheclaimof
DecidesthattheUnitedStatesofAmericais mder a duty the party appearingis wellfounded infact andlaw. In this
immediatelytoceaseandtorefrainfromallsuchactsasmay respect the Court recallscertain guiding principlesbrought
constitutebreachesoftheforegoinglegalbligations; outinanumberofpreviouscases,oneofwhichexcludesany
IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Vice-Presidendte possibilityofajudgmentautomaticallyinfavouroftheparty
Lacharribre;Judges Lachs, Ruda, Elias, Ago, Sette- appearing. ItalsoobservesthatitisvaluablefortheCourtto
Camara,Mbaye, Bedjaoui,Niand Evenrin;Judgeadhw know the views of the non-appearingparry,even if those
Colliard; views areexpressedin waysnot providedforinthe Rulesof
AGAINST: JudgesOda, SchwebelandSirRobertJennings. ~~QuT. The ~rinciplleof the equaliv of the parties has to
(13) Bytwelvevotestothree, remainthebasicprinciple,andthe Courthasto ensure that
DecidesthattheUnitedStatesofAmericaisunderanobli- thepartywhichdeclinestoappearshouldnotbe permittedto
gationtomakereparationtotheRepublicofNicaraguaforall profifrom itsabseclce.
injury caused to Nicaraguaby the breachesof obligations
undercustomaryinternationallawenumerard above; Iy. Jwticaility ofthe dispvre
IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Wce-Presidend t e (paras.32-35)
Lacharribre;Judges Lachs, Ruda, Eliiu. Ago, Sette- TheCourtconsidersit appropriateto dealwitha prelimi-
Camara, Mbaye, Bedjaoui,NiandEvensen;Judgeadhoc nary question.Ithasbeensuggestedthatthequestionsofthe
Colliard, useofforceandcollectiveself-defenceraisethecasefall
AGAINST J:udgesOda,SchwebelandSir~a,bertJennings. outsidethelimitsof the kindofquestiotheCourtcan&d
(14) Byfourteenvotes toone, withinotherwordsthattheyarenotjusticiable.However,in
DecidesthattheUnitedStatesofAmericaisunderanobli- the firstplacethePartieshave not arguedthatthepresentdis-
gation reparationtotheRepublicofNicm~a fordl ute inota -legal dispute- the meaningof~~l~
injurycausedto Nicaraguaby thebreachesof the'Ifeatyof b, paragraph2, oftheStatue, andsecondly,theCow con-
Friendship,COLMEIW and Navigationbetvveenthe Parties si&rs thatthecased,msnotnecessarilyinvolveit inevalua-
signedatManaguaon21January1956; tionofpoliticalormilitarymattem,whichwouldbetoover-
IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendra Singh;Vice-Presidendte stepproperjudicial bounds.Consequently,it is equippedto
Lachanibre;JudgesLachs, Ruda,Elias,Oda,Ago,Sette- detedne theseprok~lems.
~amara, sir ~obert Jennings,maye, BtAjaoui,Ni and
Evensen;Judgeadhw Colliard; V. Thesignifcameofthemultilateratlreatyresentation
AGAINST: JudgeSchwebel . (paras.36-56)
The United States declarationof acceptanceof the com-
(15) Byfourteenvotestoone, pulsoryjurisdictionheCourtunderArticle36 paragraph
Decidesthat theformandamountofsuchieparation,fail- 2,ofthestatut contined areservationexclud&gfrom the
Court, and reservesfor this purpose thesubsequentproce-Operatioofthedeclaration
dureinthe case; "disputesarisingundera multilateraltreaty, unless(1)all
partiestothetreatyaffectethedecisionarealsoparties
IN FAVOUR: PresidentNagendraSingh; Yice-Presidentde to th,, beforethe or (2) the UnitedSeatof
Camara, Sir Robert Jennings,Mbaye, Bedjaoui,Ni and America tojurisdiction,s.
Evensen;Judgeadhw Colliard; InitsJudgmentof26November1984theCourtfound,on
thebasisof Article79, paragraph7, of the Rulesof Court,
AGAINST: JudgeSchwebel. thattheobjectionto jurisdictionbased onthe reservation
(16) Unanimously, raised "a question concerning mattersof substancerelating
RecallstobothPartiestheirobligattoseek asolutionto tothemeritsofthecw;ewandthattheobjectiondid"not pas-
disputesbypeacefulmeansinac~0-m withintma- sess,inthecircumstancesofthecase,anexclusivelyprelim-
tionallaw. inarycharacter". Sinceitcontainedbothpreliminaryaspects
andotheraspectsrelatingtothemerits,ithadtobedealtwith
SUMMARY OF THEJUDGMENT atthe stageofthemerits.
Inordertoestablishwhetheritsjurisdictionwaslimitedby
I. (patas1sto 17) the effectof theeseinationin question, the Cohas to
ascertainwhether anythirdStates,partiesto thefouri-
11. Background tothedispute lateral treatiesinvoketiby Nicaragua,and notparttheto
(paras. 18-25) proceedings,wouldbe"affected"bytheJudgment.Ofthese
m. The nOn-appearanc oefthe RespondeG& Articl53 treaties,theCourtcontridersitsufficienttoexaminetheposi-
ofthe Statute tionundertheUnitedNationsCharterandtheCharterofthe
(para s6-31) OrganizationofAmericanStates.
The Courtexaminefrthe impactof the multilateraItreaty
The Court recalltha subsequent tothe deliveryof its reservationon Nicaragua's claim theUnitedStateshas
162used forceinbreachofthetvvoCharters.TheCowtexamines ness.Withregardinparticulartoaffidavitsandswornstate-
inparticularthecaseofElSalvador,forwhosebenefitprima- ments made by members of a Government, the Court
rilythe UnitedStatesclaimstobeexercisingtherightofcol- considlersthat it can certainly retainpartsof this evi-
lectiveself-defencewhich iregardsas ajustificationof its denceasmayberegardedascontrarytotheinterestsorcon-
own conduct towards Nicaragua.hat rightbeing endorsed tentionsofthe Stateto whichthe witnesshasallegiance;for
bythe United NationsChartr:r(Art.51)andtheOASCharter therestsuchevidencehastobetreatedwithgreat reserve.
(Art. 21). The disputeis to this extenta dispute "arising The;Court is aware of a publicationof the United
under"'multilateraltreaties.towhichtheUnitedStates,Nica- StatesState Departmententitled "RevolutionBeyond Our
Wua and El Salvadorare It appearsclear to the Borders, SandinistaInterventiinCentralAmerica"which
CourtthatEl Salvadorwot~ldbe "affected" by the Court's wasnotsubmittedto the Courtin anyformor mannercon-
decisionon the lawfulnessof resortby the UnitedStatesto templ;atebytheStatuteandRulesofCow. TheCourtcon-
collectiveself-defence. sidersthat, inviewof thespecial circumstancesofthiscase,
As to Nicaragua'sclaim that the UnitedStateshas inter- it may,withinlimits,makeuseof informationinthat publi-
vend inits affairscontrartotheOASCharter(Art. 18)the cation.
Courtobserves thatitismpossibletosay thatarulingonthe
alle edbreachofthe CharterbytheUnitedStateswould not VII. ThefactsimputabletotheUnitedStates
"dect" ElSalvador. (paras.75to 125)
Havingthus foundthatEl Salvadorwould b: "affected"
by the decision that the Court would have to take on the 1. TheCourtexamines theallegationsofNicaraguathat
claims of Nicaraguabasedon violationof the twoCharters theminingofNicaraguanporto srwaterswascarriedoutby
bytheUnitedStates,theCorutconcludesthatthe:jurisdiction Unid Statesmilitarypersonnelorpersonsofthenationality
~0nferredOnitbytheUnitedStatesdeclarationdoesnotper- Afterexaminingthefacts,theCourtfindsitestablishedthat,
IllitittoentertainthC~~~IIIItmakesitcllearthattheeffect on a date in late 1983or early 1984, the Presidentof the
of the reservation is confinedto barringthe applicabilityounitedStatesauthorizedaUnitedstatesGovernmentagency
thesetwomultilateraltreatiesasmultilaterdtreatylaw, and to lay minesin Nicaraguanports;that in early 1984mines
has M) further impact on the sources of internationallaw were laid in or close to the ports of ~1 luff, Corintoand
whichArticle38of the Statuterequiresthe Courtto apply* PuertoSandino,eitherinNicaraguanintennalwaters orinits
includingcustomaryinternational law. territorialseaorboth,bypersonsinthepayandactingonthe
instructionsof that agency, under thesupervisionand with
VI. Establishmentof thc facts: evidenceand methotls the logistic supportof United States agents; that neither
employed by theCourt before the laying of the mines, nor subsequently,did the
(paras.57-74) United States Government issue any public and official
warningto international shippingof the existenceandloca-
The Courthas had to determinethe factsrelevant tothe tiond the mines;andthatpersonalandmaterialinjurywas
dispute. The difficultyoiiptask derivedfrom the marked cauwd by the explosionof the mines, which also cTe8~
disapment between theMes, the non-appearancofthe riskscausinga riseinmarineinsurancerates.
Respondent,the secrecy s~moundingcertain conduct, and 2. Nicaragus amibutes to the direcmion of UniH
thefact thattheconflictiscontinuing.Onthislastpoint,the prsonnel, orprsons in itspay,opNions against oil
Cowt takes the view,inaccordancewiththe generalprinci- inn.llatiom,La base,etc.,lisa inparaaph 81 ofthe
pies as to thejudkial pr~ss, fhPtthe facu to *n into Court allthese *,
account be w'urring tothe ofthe to be establj&ed.Althoughit is not thatanyUnid
pooocdings On the meritsof the (end of Se~tembcr Sms militq momel taoka dimt pm inthe
1985). UnitedStatesagents participatedin the planning, direction
regartdotheproductionofevidence,theCourtindi- md support.The imputabilittothe United Statesofthese
cateshowthe requirementsofitsStatute- inpdcular Arti- attach appearsthereforetothecourt tobe established,
cle 53-and theRulesofCourthavetobe met inthecase,on 3. NicmgUa of infringe,,,of itair
thebasistha heCourthas1Wom inestimatingthe valueof by UnitedStsDsmilil.ry &raft. evi-
the various elementsofevidence. Ithasnotseenfitto order available,the court findtha the only violationof
anenquiryunderArticle50oftheStatute.'With regardtoear- Nicaraguan .irspscc imputable theunited onfhc
tain documentarymote~ial(pcss articles and various b.lisof theevidenea highaltitudereCOnnaiS-e flights
bmLs)*the has thesewith It regsrds and lowaltitudeflightson 7 to 11November1984causing
them notasevidencecapableofprovingfacts,butasmaterial ,,sonicbooms,,.
enceofaafactandbetakenintoaccountto showwhethercer-st- Withregardtojoint military~~~oeuvlres withHonduras
tain factm mattersof publicknowledge.Withregard to carriedout by the UnitedStateson Honduranterritorynear
statementsby representaldveosf States, sometimesat the the IIond-micaragua frontier*the Cburt considersthat
highestlevel, the Courttalcesthe viewthatsuchstatements theymaybetreatedas~ublicknowledgeandthussufficiently
are of particularprobativevalue when Theyacknowledge established.
factsorconductunfavomble totheStaterepresentedbythe 4. The Court then examinesthe genesis, development
personwhomadethem. FVit regardto the evidenceofwit- andactivitiesofthecontraforce, andthe roleoftheUnited
nessespresented by Nicaragua-five wi~tnessiegsave oral Statesin relation toit. Accordingto Nicaragua,the United
evidenceand anothera wtittenaftidavit--one consequence States"conceived, createdandorganizedamercenary army,
oftheabsenceofthe Respondentwasthat!theevidenceofthe thecontraforce". On thebasisoftheavailable information,
witnesseswas nottested by cross-examination.The Cowt theCourtisnotableto satisfyitself thattheRespondentState
has not treatedas evidenceanypartof the testimonywhich "cre!atedWthecoma fomein Nicaragua,butholdsit estab-
wasamereexpressionofopinion astotheprobabilityor0th- lishedthatit largely financtrained,equipped,armedand
erwiseoftheexistenceof afactnotdirectlyknownto thewit- organizedtheFDN,oneelementofthefome.
163 It isclaimedbyNicaraguathat theUni.tedStatesGovern- Havingexamiredvariousevidence,andtakingaccountof
ment &vised the strategyanddirectedthetacticsofthecon- a numberof concordant indications,many of which were
traforce,andprovideddirectcombatsupportforits military providedbyNicaraguaitself,from whichtheCourt cantea-
operations.In thelightoftheevidenceandmaterialavailable sonablyinfer theprovisionof a certainamountof aid from
toit,theCourtisnotsatisfiedthatalltheoperationslaunched Nicaraguanterritory,theCourtconcludesthatsupporftorhe
by the contraforce, atevery stage of thec:onflict,reflectedmedoppositionin El Salvadorfrom Nicaraguanterritory
strategyand tactics solely devisedby the UnitedStates. Itwasafactuptotheearlymonthsof 1981.Subsequently,evi-
therefore cannotupholdthe contentionof'Nicaragua this Qnce of military.aid from or through Nicaragua remains
ations were decided andplanned, if not actually by the theregionof extensive technicalmonitoringresources.The
UnitedStates advisers,then at least inose collaboration Courtcannothoweverconcludethatnotransportof or traffic
withthem, and on the basisof the intelligenceand logisticin arms existed.It merelytakesnote thatthe allegationsof
supportwhichthe UnitedStateswas ableto offer.It is also armstrafficarenotsolidlyestablished,andhasnot beenable
establishedintheCourt'sviewthatthesupportoftheUnited tosatisfyitselfthatanycontinuingflowonasignificantscale
Statesfortheactivitiesoftcontrastookvariousformsover tookplaceaftertheearlymonthsof 1981 .
the years, suchslogisticsupport, the supofinformation Evensupposingit wereestablished that militaryaid was
onthelocation and movemento sf the Sandinistatroops, thereachingthe armedoppositioninEl Salvadorfromthetem-
use of sophisticatedmethodsof communication, etc. The toryofNicaragua,itstillremainstobeproved thatsuchaidis
evidencedoesnothowever warranta findingthatthe United imputableto the authoritiesof Nicaragua, which has not
States gave directcombatsupport, if that.is taken tomean soughttoconcealthe possibilityof weaponscrossing its ter-
direct interventionbyUnitedStatesmbarforces. ritory,butdenies that thisis theresultof anydeliberateoffi-
TheCourthastodeterminewhether the :relationshipfthe ciapolicy onits ]part.Having regardto the circumstances
contrasto the United StatesGovernmentwas such that it characterizing thispart of CentralAmerica,the Court con-
wouldberighttoequatethecontras,forlegalpurposes,with sidersthatitisarcelypossibleforNicaragua's responsibil-
an organof the UnitedStates Government,or as actingon ity for arms traffic on its temtory to be automatically
behalfofthat Government.TheCourtconsidersthattheevi- assumed. The Co~lrtconsidersit more consistentwith the
dence availableto it is insufficientto~onstrattehe totalprobabilitiestorecognizethatanactivityofthatnature, ifon
dependenceof the contrason United States aid. A partial alimitedscale,a:yvery wellbepursuedunknowntotheter-
dependency, theexact extent of which the Court cannot ritorial government.Inanyeventtheevidenceisinsufficient
establish,maybeinferredfromthefactthat theleaderswere to satisfythe Court thatthe Governmentof Nicaragua was
selectedbytheUnitedStates,andfromotherfactors suchas responsibleforanyflowof arms ateitherperiod.
the organization, trainingandequippingof the force, plan- 2. The United States has also accused Nicaraguaof
ning of operations, the choosingof targets and the opera-Wig responsiblefor cross-bordermilitaryattach on Hon-
tional support provided. Thereis no clearevidencethat duras and CostaRka. While not as fully informedonthe
UnitedStatesactuallyexercisedsucadegreeofcontrolasto questionasitwould wishtobe,theCourtconsidersasestab-
justifytreatingthe.contras actingonitsbehalf. lishedhe fact that certaintrans-border military incursions
5. Havingreachedtheaboveconclusion,theCourttakes areimputabletotheGovernmentofNicaragua.
theviewthat thecontrasremainresponsiblefortheiractsin 3. The Judgmentrecallscertaineventswhich occurred
particular thealleged violationsby them of humanitarian atthetimeofthefd1ofPresidentSomoza,sincereliance has
law.For theUnitedStatestobelegallyresponsible,itwould beenplacedonthembytheUnitedStatestocontendthat the
haveto beprovedthat thatStatehadeffective controlof the presentGovemeut of Nicaraguais in violationof certain
operationsinthecourseofwhichthe allegedviolationswere allegedassurancesgivenbyitsimmediatepredecessor.The
committed. Judgmentrefersin particularto the "Plantoecurepeace"
6. Nicaraguahascomplainedof certainmeasuresofan sent on 12July 1979by the "Junta of the Governmentof
economic nature takenagainstit by the Gc~vernmentf the National Reconstni~ction"of Nicaraguatothe Semetary-
UnitedStates.which itregardsas an indirectformof inter- Generalof theOAS,mentioning,interalia,its "firm inten-
ventioninitsinternalffair. conomicaidwassuspendedin tiontoestablishfull observaof humanrightsinourcoun-
January 1981, and tenninated in April 1981;the United try" and "to call the firfre elections ourcounwyhas
StatesactedtoopposeorblockloanstoNictuaguabyinterna- knownin this century".The UnitedStatesconsiders thatit
tional financialbodies;the sugarimportquota fromNicara- hasa special responsibility regarthe implementationof
guawasreducedby 90percentinSeptember1983;andatotal thesecommitments.
trad ee bargoon Nicaragua wasdeclaredby an executive
orderofthePresidentoftheUnitedStateson 1May 1985. IX.The applicablelaw:customaryinternationlaalw
(pa. 172-182)
Vm. The conductofNicaragua The Court hasreachedthe conclusion (sectionV, inw)
(para s26-171) that it htoapply themultilateral treaty reservainthe
TheCourthastoascertain,sofaraspossilde,whetherthe United States declaration, the consequential excluofon
activitiesoftheUnitedStatescomplainedof,claimedtohave multilateral treatiesbeing withoutprejudiceeither to other
beentheexerciseofcollectiveself-defence,:maybejustified treatiesor otherurcesof lawenumeratedin Article38of
bycertainfactsattributabletoNicaragua. the Statute. In order to determine the law actually to be
1. TheUnitedStateshascontendedthatNicaraguawas appliedtothedispute,ithastoscert heinonsequencesof
activelysupportinarmedgroupsoperatingincertainofthe the exclusionof the applicabilityof the multilateraltreaties
neighbouringcountries,particularlyinElSalvador,andspe- for the definitionof the contentof the customaryema-
cificallyin the form of the supplyof am,, an accusation tiond law whichremainsapplicable.
whichNicaragua has repudiated. TheCow: firstexamines The Court, whichhas alreadycommentedbrieflyon this
theactivityofNicaragua with regartoEl Salvador. subject inthejurisdictionphase (I.C.J. Reports198pp.424 and425, para. 73). devr:lopsits initial.remarks.It doesmatterof customaryinternationallaw, agreeinholding that
notconsiderthatitcanbeclaimed,asthe UnitedStatesdoes, whetherthe responseto an attackis lawful dependson the
that all the customaryrules whichmay be invokedhave a observanceofthecriteriaofthenecessityand thepmportion-
contentexactlyidenticaltoBhatof therulescontainedinthe alityofthe measurestaken inself-defence.
treaties which cannot be applied by virtue of the United Whtstherself-defencebe individualor collective,it can
Statesreservation.Even if :atreaty norm rinda customary onlybe exercisedin responseto an "armed attack". In the
normrelevanttothe presentdisputeweretohave exactly the view ofthe Court, this is tobe understoodas meaningnot
samecontent,thiswould notbeareason fortheCourtto take merelyactionbyregulararmedforcesacrossaninternational
theviewthat the operationofthetreatyprocessmust neces- border,butalsothe sendingbya Stateof armedbandson to
sarily deprive thecustomaqrnormof its separateapplicabil- theterritoryofanotherState,ifsuchanoperation,becauseof
ity. Consequently, theCourt is in no way 'boundto uphold its scaleandeffects,would havebeenclassifiedasanarmed
customaryrulesonlyin so :Farastheydifferfromthe treaty attackhad it beencarriedout by regularumedforces. The
ruleswhichit is preventedbythe UnitedStatesreservation Courtquotesthedefinitionofaggression annexedto General
fromapplying. Assemblyresolution 3314 (XXIX) asexpressing customary
Inresponsetoanargumemo t fthe UnitedStates,the Court law inthisrespect.
considersthat thedivergencebetween thecontentofthecus- The C:ourt doesnot believe that the conceptof "armed
tomarynorms andthatof tht:treatylawnornlsisnotsuchthat attack" includesassistancetorebelsinthe formoftheprovi-
a judgmentconfined tothe fieldof customary international sionofweaponsor logisticalorothersupport.Furthermore.
law would notbe susceptibleof complianu:orexecutionby the Court findsthatincustomaryinternationallaw,whether
theparties. ofa gc:neralkindorthatparticulartotheinter-Americanlegal
system, thereis norule permitting theexerciseofcollective
X. Thecontentoftheapplicablelaw self-defenceinthe absenceofarequestbythe Statewhichis
(paras. 183to225) a victimof the allegedattack, this being additionalto the
requirementthat the Statein question should have declared
1. Introduction:genenzlobservations itselftohavebeenattacked.
(paras. 183-186)
The Courthasnextto cctnsider whaa tre:the rulesof cus- 3. Theprincipleofnon-intervention
tomarylaw applicableto thepresentdispute. For this pur- (paras. 202to209)
poseithasto considerwhetheracustomaryrule existsin the The principle of non-intervention involvesthe right of
opiniojurisofStates,andsatisfyitself that itisconfirxnedby every sovereignStateto conductits affairswithoutoutside
practice. interference.Expressionsofanopiniojurisof Statesregard-
ing theexistenceof this principlearenumerous.TheCourt
2. i?% erohibitionof theuseofforce, am?therightof notes thatthis principle, statedin itsownjurisprudence,has
self-defence been refiected in numerous declarations and resolutions
(paras. 187to201) adoptedby internationalorganizationsand conferences in
which the United States and Nicaraguahave participated.
The Court finds thatbalthPartiestake the view that the The text thereof testifiesto the acceptanceby the United
principles as tothe useof force incorporatedin the United StatesandNicaraguaofacustomaryprinciplewhich has uni-
NationsCharter correspond,inessentials, tothose foundin versalapplichtion.Asto the contentof the principleincus-
customaryintemationallaw. Theytherefore acceptatreaty- tomary law, the Court definesthe constitutive elements
lawobligationtorefrainin,their internationaln:lationsfrom whichappear relevant inthk case:a prohibited intervention
the threator use of force~gainstthe territorialintegrory must beonebearingonmattersinwhicheachStateispermit-
inconsistentwiththepurposesoftheUnitedNationsher(Art.2, ted,t~ytheprincipleofStatesovereignty,todecidefreely(for
para.4, of theCharter).TheCourt hashowever tobe satas- example thechoiceof a political, economic,socialandcul-
fiedthatthereexistsincustomarylawanopinio,jurisastothe turalsystem,and formulationof foreignpolicy). Interven-
bindingcharacterof such abstention.It considersthat this tion is wrongfulwhen it uses, in regard to suchchoices,
opiniojuris maybededuoed from,interalia, theattitudeof methodsof coercion,particularlyforce, eitherin theiit
the Partiesandof StatestowardscertainGeneralAssembly formof militaryactionorinthe indirect formof supportfor
resolutions,andparticularly resoluti2625(YXV)entitled subversiveactivitiesinanotherState.
"Declarationon Principlesof IntanationillLawconcerning Withregardto thepracticeof States, the Courtnotesthat
FriendlyRelationsandCo-i~peratioanmongStaks in Accord- therehavebeeninrecent yearsa numberof instancesoffor-
ance with the Charterof the UnitedNations". Consentto eign interventionin one State for the benefit of forces
such resolutions isone of the formsof expressionof an opposedtothegovernmentofthatState.Itconcludesthat the
opiniojuris withregardtc~theprincipleofnon-useof force, practiceof Statesdoesnotjustifythe viewthat anygeneral
regardedasaprincipleof ~:ustomaryintennationallaw,inde- right of intervention in supportof an opposition within
pendentlyof the provisiotls,especiallythoseof an institu- another State existsin contemporarynternationallaw;and
tionalkind, to whichit is subjecton the treaty-law planeof this is in fact not asserted eitherby theIJnitedStates orby
the Charter. Nicaragua.
The generalrule~rohit~itingforceestablishedin custom- Collectivecounter-measures in responseto conduct
ary law allowsfor certainexceptions. The exceptioof the 4, notamountingtoarmedattack
right of individuaor colbctive self-defenceis also, in the (paras.210 and 211)
viewof States.establishetlincustomarvlaw. as is avvarent
for example f;om the terms of ~rticie 51.of the-Onited The Court then considers the question whether, if one
NationsCharter, which n:fers to an "inherentright", and Stateacts towards anotherinbreachof the principleof non-
from thedeclarationinresolution2625(2aV). TheParties, intervention,athirdStatemaylawfullytake actionbywayof
whoconsidertheexistenceofthisrightto be establisheas a counter-measureswhichwouldamounttoan intervention inthe firstState's internal aff. hiswoulldbe analogousto XI. Application!fthelawtothefacts
the rightof self-defenceinthecaseofanned attack,butthe (paras. 226to 282)
act giving rise to the reaction would te less grave, not
amountingto armedattack.Inthe view oftheCourt,under Havingsetoutthefactsof the caseand therulesofintema-
internationallaw inforcetoday,Statesdonothavearightof tionallaw whichappearto be in issue asa resultof those
"collective" armed responsetoactswhichdonotconstitute facts,theCourthasnowtoappraisethefactsinrelationtothe
an "armedattack". legal rules applicable,and determine whether there are
present any circu~mstanceesxcluding theunlawfulnessof
5. Statesovereignty particular acts.
(paras.212to 214)
1. Theprohibition ofthe useofforce and the rightof
'hrning to the principle ofrespectfor State sovereignty, self-defence
the Court recallsthat the concept of sovereignty,both in (paras.227'to238)
treaty-law andincustomaryinternationallaw,extendstothe Appraisingthefactsfirstinthelightoftheprincipleof the
internalwatersandtemtorialseaofevery Statandtotheair- non-useofforce,theCourtconsidersthatthelaying ofmines
spaceaboveitsterritory.Itnotesthatthehying ofminesnec- in early 1984and certain attackson Nicaraguanports, oil
essarily affectsthesovereigntyof thecoasltalState,andthat installationsandnavalbases, imputabletotheUnitedStates,
if the rightof accessto ports is hinderedlby the layingof constitute infringemenofthis principle,unless justifiedby
minesby anotherState, whatis infringedis the freedomof circumstanceswhichexcludetheirunlawfulnessI.talsocon-
communicationsandofmaritime commerce. sidersthattheUnitedStateshas committedaprimafacievio-
lationof the principleby armingand training thecontras,
6. Humanitarian law unless thiscanbejustifiedasanexerciseoftherightof self-
(paras.215 to 220) defence.
TheCourt observesthatthelayingof minesinthe waters On the other hand, it does not consider that military
only an unlawfulact but also a breachof the principlesof borders,or thesupplyof fundsto thecontras,amountsto a
humanitarianlaw underlying the Hague ConventionNo. useofforce.
WII of 1907. ThisconsiderationleadstheCouro tn toexam-
inationof the international humanitarian.awapplicableto TheCourthastoconsiderwhethertheactswhichitregards
the dispute.Nicaraguahasnotexpresslyixlvokedtheprovi- as breachesof theprinciplemaybejustifiedbythe exercise
sionsofinternationalhumanitarianlawassuch,but hascom- of the right of collective self-defence,and hastherefore
plainedofactscommittedonitsterritorywhich wouldappear establishwhetherthecircumstancesrequiredarepresent. For
to bebreachesthereof.In its submissionsit hasaccusedthe this, itwouldfirst haveto findthatNicaragua engagedinan
UnitedStatesofhavingkilled,woundedand kidnappedciti- arnnedattackagainstEl Salvador, Hondurasor CostaRica,
zens of Nicaragua.Since the evidenceavidlableis insuffi- sinceonlysuchan a&tackcouldjustifyrelianceontherightof
cient for the purposeof attributingto the UnitedStatesthe self defence. As re:gardsEl Salvador, the Court considers
actscommittedbythe contras,theCourtrejiectsthis submis- thatincustomary internationallawtheprovisionof armsto
sion. theoppositionin anotherStatedoesnotconstitutean armed
attackonthat State.AsregardsHondurasandCostaRica, the
Thequestionhoweverremainsofthelawapplicable tothe Court statesthat,inthe absenceof sufficientinfinmationas
actsof the UnitedStates in relationto the activitiesof the StatesfromNicaragua,it is difficultto decide whether they
the four GenevaConventionsof 12Augus~1.fr:949,to which amount,singlyorcollectively,toanarmedattackbyNicara-
Nicaragua andthe UnitedStates are parties;,the Court con- gua. The Courtfindsthat neither these incursions northe
siders that the rules statedin Articlehichiscommonto alleged supplyof arms may be relied on as justifyingthe
thefourConventions,applyingto armedccwflictsof a non- exerciseoftherightofcollectiveself-defence.
internationalcharacter,shouldbeapplied.TheUnitedStates
isunderanobligationto "respect" theConventionsandeven Secondly,inordertodeterminewhethertheUnitedStates
to"ensurerespect" forthem,andthusnottoencourageper- was justified in exercisingself-defence, the Court hasto
son srgroupsengagedinthe conflictinNi1:araguato actin ascertainwhetherthecircumstancesrequiredfortheexercise
violation of the provisionsof Article 3. This obligation of this right of collective self-defencewere present, and
derivesfrom the general principlesof humanitarianlaw to therefore considerswhetherthe Statesin questionbelieved
whichtheConventionsmerelygive specificexpression. thattheywerethe viictimsof ananned attackbyNicaragua,
andrequestedthe assistanceoftheUnitedStatesintheexer-
cise of collectiveselfdefence. The Court hasseen noevi-
7. The 1956treaty dencethat the conductof those Stateswas consistentwith
(paras.221to 225) sucha situation.
In its Judgmentof 26 November1984, the Courtcon- Finally, appraisingtheUnitedStatesactivityinrelation
cludedthatit hadjurisdictiontoentertainclaimsconcerning thecriteriaofnecessityandproportionality,theCourtcannot
theexistenceofadisputebetweentheUnitedStatesandNic- findthattheactivitiesinquestionwereundertakeninthelight
araguaaS to the interpretationor applicationof a numberof ofnecessity, andindsthatsomeofthemcannotberegarded
articlesof the treatyof Friendship,Commerce and Naviga- as satisfyingthecriterionofproportionality.
tion signedatManagua on 21January 1956.Ithasto deter- Since the pleaof collectiveself-defenceadvancedbythe
minethemeaningof the variousrelevant provisions,andin UnitedStatescannotbe upheld, it follows that theUnited
particularof ArticleXXI, paragraphs 1 (c) and 1(4, by Stateshas violatedthe principle prohibiting recouto the
which theparties reserved the power toderogatefrom the threator useof forcebytheactsreferredto inthefirst para-
otherprovisions. graphofthissection. 2. The principleofnon-i,?~tervention Ithasalsofoundthat, undergeneralprinciplesofhumani-
(paras.239to245) tarian law, the United States was bound to refrain from
TheCourtfindsitclearlyestablishedthattheUnitedStates encouragementof personsor groupsengagedin the conflict
intended,byitssupportof thecontras,to ccerceNicaragua in Nicaraguato commitviolationsof commonArticle3 of
in respect of matters in which each State is permittedto thefourGenevaConventionsof 12August 1949.Theman-
decidefreely, andthattheintentionofthecontrasthemselves ualon "PsychologicalOperationsinGuemllaWarfare",for
was to overthrow thepresent:Governmentof Nicaragua.It thepublication anddisseminationofwhich the UnitedStates
considersthat if one State, with a view to the coercionof regardedascontrarytothatarticle.actsich1cannot but be
anotherState,supportsandassistsarmed bands imthat State
whosepurposeistooverthrowitsgovernment, that amounts 6. Othergrounds mentioned injustifcation of theacts
toaninterventioninitsinternalaffairs,whateverthepolitical oftheUnitedStates
objective ofthe Stategiving support. It thereforefindsthat (paras.257 to269)
the supportgiven by the UnitedStatesto the militaryand
paramilitaryactivitiesoftheontrasinNicaragua,byfinan- TheUnitedStates haslinkeditssupporttothecontraswith
cial support,training, supplyof weapons, intelligenceand allegedbreachesbytheGovernmentof Nicaraguaofcertain
logistic support, constitntclearbreachoftheprincipleof solemncommitmentsto the Nicaraguanpeople, the United
non-intervention.umanimiianaidontheotherhandcannot Statesand the OAS. The Court considerswhetherthere is
be regarded as unlawful intervention.With effect from 1 anythi~tgin the conductof Nicaraguawhich mightlegally
October 1984,the UnitedStates Congress h~asestricted the warrantcounter-measuresbytheUnitedStatesinresponseto
use of funds to "humanitarian assistance"to the contras. the alleged violations.Withreferenceto the"Planosecure
The Court recalls thatif the provision of "humanitarian peace" putforward by the Junta of theGovernmentof
assistance"is to escapeconclemnationasa11interventionin NationalReconstruction(12July1979).the Courtis unable
the internal affairsof anotherState, itbeslimitedtothe tofindanythinginthe documentsandcommunication sans-
aboveallbegiven withoutdiscrimination.e Red Cross, and mittingtheplanfromwhichit canbe inferredthatanylegal
undertakingwasintendedtoexist.TheCourtcannotcontem-
W~th regard totheformofindirectinterventionwhichNic- platethecreationofanewruleopeninguparightofinterven-
aragua sees in the takingof certain actiona11economic tionbyoneStateagainstanotheronthegroundthat the latter
nature againstit bytheUnitedStates,theCourtis unableto has optedfor someparticularideologyor political system.
regardsuch actioninthe pre::senctaasa breachofthecus- FurthermoretheRespondenthasnot advanceda legalargu-
tomary lawprincipleofnomintemention. ment basedonanallegednewprincipleof "ideologicalinter-
vention".
3. not amountingutoarmedattackin responseto conduct W~th regard morespecificallyto alleged violations of
(paras.246to249) humanrightsrelied onby theUnitedStates,the Court con-
siders that theuseof forcebytheUnitedStatescould notbe
Havingfound thatinterventionin the internalaffairsof the appropriatemethodtomonitororensurerespectforsuch
anotherStatedoesnotproduceanentitlementtotake collec- rights,normally providedforintheapplicableconventions.
tive counter-measuresinvolvingtheuseof force, theCourt W~thregard to the allegemilitarizationof Nicaragua,also
finds that the actsof which Nicaragua is accused, even referredto by the UnitedStatestojustify itsactivities,the
assumingthem to havebeen establishedand imputable to Courtobsems that in internationallaw thereare no rules,
thatState,couldnotjustify counter-measuretsakenbyathird other than such rulesas may be acceptedby the Statecon-
State, the UnitedStates, and particularly couldnotjustify cerned, by treatyor otherwise,wherebythe levelofarma-
interventioninvolvingtheuseofforce. mentsofa sovereignStatecanbelimited,andthis principle
isvalidfor allStateswithoutexception.
4. Statesovereignty 7. TheI956 Treaty
(paras250 to253) (paras2. 70to282)
The Court finds that the assistanceto the contras, the
direct attacksonNicaragua1ports,oilinstallations,etc., the The:Court turnsto theclaimsof Nicaragua basedon the
miningoperationsinNicaraguanports,andltheiictsof inter- 7keatyof Friendship,Commerce and Navigationof 1956,
ventioninvolvingthe use 13fforce referredto in the Judg- andthe claim that theUnitedStates has deprivedthe'Ifeaty
ment,which arealreadyabreachofthe principleofnon-use of its objectand purpose and emptiedtf realcontent.The
of force,arealsoan infringementofthe principleofrespect Courtcannothoweverentertaintheseclaimsunlessthe con-
for temtorial sovereignty.This principle is also directly ductcomplainedof is not"measures ... necessaryto pro-
infringedbythe unauthorized overflighotfNicaraguantem- tect the essential security interests"of United States,
tory.Theseactscannot bejustifiedbytheactivitiesinElSal- sinceArticleXXIofthe'Ifeatyprovidesthat the'Ifeatyshall
vadorattributedto Nicaragua; assumingthat suchactivities notprecludetheapplicationofsuchmeasures.Withregard to
did in fact occur,theydo not bring into effect any right the questionwhatactivitiesof the UnitedStatesmight have
belonging to theUnited States. The Court also concludes beensuch asto deprivethe'Ifeatyof its objectandpurpose,
that, inthe contextof theEsentproceedi~ngs , e layingof theCwrt makesa distinction. Itis unableto regardall the
mines in or near Nicaraguanports constitutesan infringe- actscomplainedof in that light,butconsiders that thare
cationsandofmaritimecoInmerce.tf,thefreetiomofcommuni- certain activitieswhich underminethe whole spirit of the
agreement.These arethe miningof Nicaraguanports, the
5. Humanitarian law directattacksonports, oilinstallations,,andthe general
(paras254to256) tradeembargo.
The Court alsoupholdsthe contentionahattheminingof
The CourthasfoundtheUnitedStatesnzsponsibleforthe the ports is in manifestcontradictionwith the freedomof
failuretogivenoticeoftheminingof Nicaraguanports. navigation andcommerce guaranteebdy ArticleXIX of the Treaty.It alsoconcludes thatthetradeembargoproclaimed adoptedunanimouslyby the Court whichenjoins partiesto
on 1May 1985iscontrary tothat article. seek apeacefulsollutionoftheir disputesinaccordancewith
The Court thereforefindsthat theUnitedStatess prima internationallaw reallyrests on the due observanceof two
facieinbreachofanobligationnottodeprivethe1956'Iieaty basic principles:namely that of non-useof force in inter-
ofitsobjectandpurpose@actasuntservatrda)a,ndhascom- Staterelationsand thatof non-interventionin the affairsof
mittedactsincontmdictionwiththe termsoftheTreaty.The otherStates.ThisInthePresident'sviewisthemainthrustof
Courthashowever toconsiderwhethertheexceptioninArti- theJudgmentof the Courtrenderedwithutmostsincerityto
cleXXIconcerning"measures ... necessarytoprotectthe servethebestinterestsofthecommunity.
essentialsecurityinterests"ofaPartymaybe invokedtojus- Infact, thecard,inalprincipleof non-useof forceininter-
tify the acts complainedof. Afterexamining the available national relations hasbeen the pivotal pointof a time-
material, particularly the ExecutiveOIder of President honoured legal philosophthathasevolvedparticularlyafter
Reaganof 1May 1985,the Court finds that theminingof thetwoworldwarsofthecurrentcentury.TheCharterprovi-
Nicaraguanports, and thedirect attackson ports and oil sionsas wellas theLatinAmericanTreatySystemhavenot
installations,andthe generaltradeembargoof 1May 1985, onlydevelopedtht:conceptbutstrengthenedit totheextent
cannotbejustifiedas necessaryto protecttheessentialsecu- that it wouldstandon its own, even ifhe Charter and the
rity interestsoftheUnitedStates. Treatybasiswere heldinapplicableinthiscase.Theobvious
explanationis that theoriginal customary aspectwhichhas
XII. Thecluimfor reparation evolvedwith the treatylaw developmenthas come nowto
(paras.283to285) stayand survive as;theexistingmodern conceptof interna-
TheCourt isrequestedo adjudge anddeclarethatcompen- tionallaw, whethercustomary, becauseof itsorigins,or "a
sationis dueto Nicaragua, thequantumthereofto be fixed generalprincipleo12intemationllwrecognizedbycivilized
subsequently,and to award to Nicaraguathe sumof 370.2 nations". Thecontributionof theCourt hasbeento empha-
millionUSdollars asaninterimaward.Aftersatisfyingitself size the principle non-useof force as one belongingto
thatit hasjurisdictionto order reparation,l.heCourt consid-erealmof jus cogensandhence as thevery cornerstoneof
ers appropriate the requestof Nicaraguafor the natureand strife. Force begetsforce and aggravates conflicts, embit-
amountof the reparationto be determinedin a subsequent ters relationsand endangers peaceful resolutionof the dis-
phase of the proceedings.It also considers that thereis npute.
provision in the Statuteof the Court either specifically
empoweringitordebarringit from making aninterimaward There is alsothe keydoctrineof non-interventionin the
of the kindrequested.In a case in which one Party is not affairs ofStates which is equally vitalfor the peace and
appearing,theCourtshouldrefrainfromanyunnecessaryact progressofhumanitybeingessentiallyneededtopromote the
which might provean obstacleto a negotiated settlement. healthy existenceof the community.The principleof non-
The Courttherefore doesnot consider thatit canaccedeat interventionis toe mated as a sanctified absolute ruleof
thisstagetothisrequestbyNicaragua. law.
Statesmustobserveboththese principlesnamely thatof
XIII. Theprovisional measures non-useofforceand'thatofnon-interventioninthebest inter-
(paras.286to289) ests of peace andc&r in the community.The Court has
After recalling certainpassagesin its Orderof 10 May rightlyheld them both as principlesof customary interna-
1984,the Courtconcludesthatitisincumbentoneach Party tionallawalthoughsanctifiedbytreatylaw,butapplicablein
' nottodirectitsconductsolelybyreferencetotwhatitbelieves thiscaseinthe formercustomarymanifestationhavinb geen
tobe its rights. Particularlyis thisso in a situationof armedvigoratedby beingfurther strengthenedby the expfess
conflictwherenoreparationcaneffacethe re:sultsofconduct consentofStatesparticularlythePartiesindispuhere.This
whichthe Court mayrule tohavebeencontraryto interna- mustindeedhaveallthe weightthatlawcouldevercommand
tionallaw. inanycase.
The decisionof tireCourt is in the resultof a collegiate
XIV. Aacefulsettlementofdisputes;theContadorapro- exercise reached after prolonged deliberation and a full
cess exchangeofviews ofnoless than fifteenJudgeswho, work-
(paras.290to291) ing accordingto the!Statuteand Rules of the Court, have
examinedthe legal argumentsand all the evideneeforeit.
Inthe presentcasetheCourt has alreadylkennoteofthe In this, asin all other cases, every carehas been taken to
Contadoraprocess, andof thefactthat itadlbeenendorsed stricltlyobservetheproceduresprescribedandthedecisionis
bytheUnited NationsSecurityCouncilandGeneralAssem- upheldbyaclearmajority. What is more, theindingcharac-
to bothPartiestothepresentcasetheneedtoco-operatewith terofthe Judgment under theStatute(Art.59)ismadesacro-
theContadoraeffortsinseekingadefinitiveaid lastingpeace sanctby a provisionof theUN Charter (Art.94): allMem-
inCentralAmerica,inaccordancewiththe principleof cus- bersof theUnitedNationshaveundertakenan obligationto
tomaryinternationallawthat prescribes theeacefulsettle- complywiththeCourt's decisionsaddressedto themandto
mentofinternationaldisputes,alsoendorsedI>Article33of alwaysrespectthevalidityoftheJudgment.
theUnited NationsCharter.
Separate OpinioonfJudgeLachs
SUMMARY OF THEOPINIONA SPPENDED TO
THEJUDGMEN OTFTHE COURT JudgeLachsbeginsby drawing attentionto the require-
mentsof the Statutein respectof the personalqualitiesand
Separate Opinioo nfJudgeNagendraSingh, diversityof originthat must characterizeMembersof the
President Cow, and deprecatesany aspersion upon their in&pen-
denco.
The operativepartofparagraph 292(16)ofthe Judgment On thesubstanceofthe Judgmenthewouldhaveprefernd
168moreattentiontobe giventoforeignassistancetotheopposi- SeparateOpinionofJudgeElias
tion forces in El Salvador,and differentf~rmulaeto have
beenused invariousplaces. Judge considemthat, followingthe Court,s Judg-
Judgehchs returnsto solneaspectsofjurisdiction, con- vation attachedto the United States declarationaccepting-
sideringthatinsufficientweighthadpreviouslybexngivento jurisdictionundertheOptionalClausewasleft in abeyance
thefortyyearsthathadela~lsedbeforeanypublicobjection and hadnofurtherrelevanceunlessElSalvador,Hondurasor
had been raisedagainst thevalidityof Nicaragua'saccept- costa Rita intervenedinthephaseonmeritsandreparation.
oftheCourt'sjurisdiction.Whenthat validity hadbeen FortheCourtto haveappliedit wasthereforeincorrectand
privatelyquestionedin ~0nne~ti0nwith a case in the mid- tantamountto invokinga power torevise its &cision on
1950's,actionshouldhavebeentakenbythe:UnitedNations: jurisdictionandadmissibilityonbehalfof ~~on-parties the
Nicaragua should havebeenaskedtocompleteanynecessary case.
formalities and, if it faileto do so, would have been
removed fromthe listof States subjectto the compulsory Separate OpinionofJudgeAgo
jurisdictionof the Court. TheUnited Nations having taken
noaction,itwaslegitimatetoviewtheimperfectionascured WhilesubscribingtotheJudgmentasawholeandaPProv-
byacquiescenceovera very longperiod.Thejurisdictionof ingin particularthepositionadoptedby theCourtCOncern-
theCourtbasedontheFCNTreatyof 1956I;avenocausefor ing theUnitedStates' multilateratlreatyreservation, Judge
doubt. Agoremainshesitantaboutcertain points.Forexample,he
JudgeLachsalsodealswiiththequestionof thejusticiabil- the quasi-identityofadea sombetweencustomaryintema-to
ity ofthecase:thecloserelationshipbetween legal andpolit- tionallawandthelawenshrinedincertainmajormultilateral
ical disputes, asbetweenlaw andpolitics.:lnter~~atioalw maties of universalcharacter,and was also somewhattoo
todaycovers suchwideareasof international relations that rcsdytosee theendorsementofcertainprinciplesby UN and
Only very few domains--f0r the problem of OASresolutionsasproofof the presenceof thoseprinciples
disarmament,or others, s~ecificallyexcludedby States- inthe opiniojuris of membersof the internationalcornmu-
are not justiciable. He spe~:ificinstances thecase con- nity.JudgeAgoalsofeelsobligedto drawattentiontowhat
ceming United StatesDip10maticand ConsularStas in he views as some con~adictory of the
Tehran. Court'sassessmentofthefactualandlegalsituation.Hefur-
RefemngtotheCourt'srefusaltograntahearingtoElSal- ther considers thatsome passagesof the jludgnientshowa
vadorat the jurisdictionalsmge,JudgeLa~hsstatesthathe paucityoflegalreasoningtosupporttheCourt'sconclusions
hascometo viewit asajudlicialerror whichda:~not, how- as to the imputabilityof certainactsto the:Respondentqua
ever,justify anyunrelatedconclusions. acts giving riseto internationalsponsil~ilit,nd would
The broad confrontationbetween the mes should, in have preferredtoseetheCourtincludeamoreexplicitconfir-
JudgeLachs'sview, be settledwithintheframc:workof the mationofitscase-lawonthissubject.
ContadoraPlan,inco-operationwithallStatesoftheregion.
The area, tom by conflicts,sufferingfrornuntler-develop- Separate Opinion ofJudgeSette-Camara
mentforalongtime,requim anewapproachbasedonequal ~~d~~ sette-cama fralyconcurs with the ~~d~~~~~
considerationof the interestsofallconcernedinthe spiritof becausehefirmlybelievesthat"the non-useofforceaswell
good-neighburly relations. asnon-interventio- thelatter asa corollaryof equality of
Statesand self-determination-are notonlycardinalprinci-
SeparateOpiluionofJudgeRuda plesd customaryinternationallaw butcouldin additionbe
recognizedas peremptoryrules of customary international
TheSeparateOpinionof Judgehda deidswithfourSub- law whichimposeobligationson all States". His separate
jects.Inthefirstplace,JudgeRudadoesnotacC(3ptthereser- opinion dealsonly with subpara&raph(1) of the operative
vationexpressedby the UnitedStatesin the letter dated18 part,againstwhichhehasvoted.Hemaintainsthatthemulti-
January 1985 "in respect of any decisi13nby the Court lateraltreatyreservation,appendedtotheIJnitedStates 1946
regardingNicaragua's clainns".InJudgeEhda'sview,pur- Decimationof Acceptanceof the Jurisdictionof the Court
suanttoArticle94, paragral?h1,oftheCharteroftheUnited accordingto Article36, paragraph2, of theStatute,cannot
Nations,the MemberStater;of theUnitedNations havefor- be appliedto the presentcase, sincnone:of the &cisions
rnally accepted the obligationto comply withthe Court's taken in the operativepart can in any way "affect" third
decisions. States, and in particularEl Salvador.The case is between
s hesecondpart of the (:)pinionrefersto the Vandenberg NicaraguaandtheUnitedStatesandthe bindingforceofthe
Amendment.JudgeRudavotedagainsttheapplicationofthe Court's decision is confinedtothese mV0 Parties. Judge
Amendment,for the reasorlsstatedin the separateOpinion Sette.~~amarraecognizestherightofanyStatemaking Dee-
whichhesubmittedin 1984. larationsofAcceptancetoappendtothemwhatever reserva-
Inthe third part, JudgeRudadeals with the questionof tions it deems fit. However,he contends thatheCourt is
self-defence.Heexplainsthathisconclusic~nasrethesameas free,and indeedbound, to interpretthosereservations.He
those reachedbytheCourt,butinhisviewitisnot necessary regretthattheapplicationof themultilateraltreatreserva-
to enter into all the factualdetails, because assistanceto tiondebarredthecour romrestingthe~~d~~~~~ onthe pro-
rebelsis notper se a pretext for self-defencefromthe legal vithe organizationroffAmerican~~states ,nd forced itto
pointofview. resortonlyto principlesof customary internationallawand
Thefourthpartis devotedtothereasonswhyJudgeRuda, thebilateralaty ofFriendship,Comme~ce andNavigation
despitehaving votedin 1984against theTreatyof Friend- of 1956.He submits thatthe law appliedby the Judgment
ship, Commerce and Navigationas a basis of the Court's wouldbeclearerandmorepreciseiftheCourthad=sorted to
jurisdiction,believeshe is boundto voteon the substantive the specificprovisionsof the relevant multilateralconven-
issuessubmittedtothe Courtonthis subject. tions.
169 Separate Opinion ofJudge IA DissentingOpinionofJudgeSchwebel
Judge Ni'sprimaryconcern,asexpres5e.d in his separate JudgeSchwebel dissented from theCourt'sJudgment on
opinion, is withrespectto the "multilaters~tlreatyreserva- factualand legal gmunds. He agreedwith the Court in its
tion" invokedbytheUnitedStates.Inhis view,anyaccept- holdingsagainst the United States for its failure to make
ance of its applicability entailed (1) the exclusion of theknown theexistenceandlocationof mines laidby it andits
Court from exercising jurisdiction insofaras Nicaragua's causingthepublicationofamanualadvocatingactsinviola-
claims were based on the multilateral treatiesin question, tion of the lawof war. ButJudgeSchwebelconcluded that
and (2)thepreclusion,ifthecasewasonother groundsstill theUnitedStatesessentiallyactedlawfullyinexertingarmed
intheCourt for adjudicatioofthe merits,adthe application pressuresagainstNicaragua,both directly and throughits
UnitedStates,while invokingthemultilatenaltreatyreserva- supportof the conpas, becauseNicaragua's prior and sus-
tion to challengethe exerciseof jurisdictialnby the Court, tainedsupportofarmedinsurgencyinElSalvadorwasmta-
hadinthe meantimepersistentlyclaimed thatthemultilateral mounttoanarmedattackuponElSalvadoragainstwhichthe
treaties, whichconstitutethe very basis of'its reservation,vador'ssupport.ldreactincollectiveself-defenceinElSal-
Shoulddone be appliedto the Casein dispute.That claim
amountedineffectto a negationof itsown:reservationand, Judge Schwebelfound that, since 1979, Nicaraguahad
takingintoaccountall the relevantcircumshnces, to assistedandpersistt:din providinglarge-scale,vitalassist-
have beenconsideredas a waiverof the IIlultilat~l treaty anceto the insurgentsin El Salvador. The delictual actsof
reservation.Suchbeing thecase,JudgeNidifferedfromthe NicaraguahadnotbeenconfinedtoprovidingtheSalvadoran
majorityoftheCourtinthatheconsideredthattheIUleSCon- which wofthemselvesarguablymight be seen as not mta-s,
tainedin multilateral treaties,as wellas cus.tomaryinterna-mountto -4 attack.~i~~~~~~had alsojoined withthe
tional law,should,whereappropriate,havebeenappliedto
thecase. for their actsof insurgency, andhad provided them with
command-and-contnoflacilities,bases,communicationsand
DissentingOpinionofJudgeOtda sanctuarywhich enitbledthe leadershipof the Salvadoran
Judge Oda agrees with the Court's reclognitionof the rebels to operatefrom Nicaraguantemtory. That scaleof
applicabilityofthe multilateraltreatyprovisoattachedtothe assismce, in Judge:Schwebel'sview, was legally mta-
UnitedStates* 1946 declarationbut consi&rs that, having mounttoanarmedattack.NotonlywasElSalvadorentitled
thus decidedthat the disputehad arisenundera multilateral todefenditselfagirist thatarmedattack,it hadcalledupon
treaty,it shouldhave ceasedto entertainthtapplicationof theIJnitedStatestoassistitintheexerciseofcollectiveself-
Nicaraguaon the basis of that declaration.The Court had defence.The United StatesWasentitledto do SO, through
beenwrong tointerprettheexclusionof the disputeby that measuresovertor cC1vertT .hosen~easurescouldbe exerted
proviso as merelyplacingrestrictionsupon the sourcesof not onlyinElSalvadorbutagainstNicaragua onitsownter-
lawtowhichitwasentitledto refer. ritory.
JudgeOdafurtherbelievesthat, to theextentthattheNica- InJudgeSchwebell's view, theCourt'sconclusionthatthe
raguan claims presupposedthe Court'sjurisdiction under NicaraguanGovernnlentwasnot "responsiblefor any flow
declarationsmadepursuantto Article36 (2)of the Statute, of arms" to the hlviadoraninsurgentswasnot sustainedby
which refers to "legal disputes", they shcluldhave been "judicial or judicious" considerations. The Court had
declarednon-justiciable,sincethe disputewas not "legal" "excluded, discountedand excused the unanswerable evi-
withinthemeaningandintentionofthatclauseor,evenif it denceof Nicaragua's major and maintainedintervention in
were,it wasnotonethattheCourtcouldpro;perlyentertain: the Salvadoraninsurgency". Nicaragua's interventio inEl
as a political dispute,it wasmoresuitablefcr resolutionby Salvadorinsupportofthe&lvadoraninsurgentswas,Judge
other organsand procedures. Moreover, thfeacts the Court Schwebel held, admitted by the Resident of Nicaragua,
couldelicitbyexaminingtheevidenceinthe absenceofthe affirmedbyNicaragua'sleadingwitnessinthecase,andcon-
Respondentfellfarshortofwhat wasneededtoshowacom- finned bya "comuc~piaofco~boration".
plete picture. Evenif, contrary to hisview, Nicaragua's actionin sup-
JudgeOdathusconsidersthat,insofaras theCourtcould port of thealvadomninsurgencywerenotviewedastanta-
properlyentertainthecase,itcoulddosoonthebasisofArti- mourltto an armed attack, JudgeSchwebelconcluded that
cle36(1)oftheStatute,wheretheterm"allmattersspecially they undeniablyconstitutedunlawfulintervention.But the
providedfor in .. .treaties.. . in force" gave nosuch Court, "remarkably enough", while finding the United
groundsfor questioningthe "legal" natureof the dispute. States responsiblefor intervention inNicaragua, failed to
The Courtcouldthereforelegitimatelyexamineany breach recognize Nicaragua's priorand continuing interventionin
oftheconcretetermsofthe 1956TreatyofFri~endshipC ,om- El Salvador.
merceandNavigation. InJudgeOda'sview, theminingof ForUnitedStatesnleasuresincollectiveself-defence tobe
the NicaraguanPorts had ~onstitutedsuch a breach, for lawful,they mustbe necessary andproportionate.InJudge
whichtheUnitedStateshadincurredresponsibility. Schwebel'sview, it wasdoubtfulwhetherthe questionof
Judge Oda emphasizesthat his negative votes on many necessityinthiscase.wasjusticiable, becausethefactswere
countsof theJudgmentmustnot be interpretedasimplying so indeterminate, depending asthey did on whethermeas-
that he is opposedto therulesof law concerningthe useof ures not involvingthe use offorcecould succeedin termi-
force or intervention,of whoseviolationthe UnitedStates natingNicaragua'sinterventionin El Salvador.But itcould
hasbeenaccused,butaremerelyalogicalconsequence ofhis reasonably be heldthatthe necessityof thosemeasws was
convictionson thesubjectofjurisdictionunder Article6(2) indicated by"persistentNicaraguanfailureto cease armed
oftheStatute. subversionofElSalvador".
Finally, JudgeOdaregrets that the Courth~asbeenneed- JudgeSchwebelheldthat "the actionsoftheUnitedStates
lessly precipitatein giving its views on c~ollectiveself- are strikinglyproportiionate.The Salvadoranrebels,vitally
defenceinitsfirst Judgment tobroachthatsubject. supportedby Nicaragoa,conducta rebellioninEl Salvador;
170in collective self-defent,eUnitedStatessymmetrically withcleanhands. Judgmein ntitsfavouristhusunwarranted,
supports rebelswhoconducta rebellion inNicruapa. The and wouldbe unwarranted evenifitshouldbeconcluded-
rebelsinElSalvadorpervasivelyattackeccmomic targetsof asitshouldnot be-thattheresponsiveactiono sftheUnited
importancein El Salvado~.t;he UnitedStates selectively Stateswereunnecessary ordisproportionate."
attackseconomictargetsofmilitaryimportance"inNicara-
gua. DissentingOpinionofJudgeSirRobertJennings
JudgeSchwebelmaintainetd hat,inontempoiary interna- JudgeSirRobertJennings agreed withthe Court thathe
tional law, the Stae hichfirst intervener;htheuseof UnitedStatesmultilateratlreatyreservationisvalid must
forceinanotherState-as t~ysubstantialinvo1vt:meit the be respected.Hewas unable to accept the Court's decision
sendingof irregularsontoitsterritory-isprim facie,the thatitcould, nevertheless,exercisejurisdiction overhee
aggressor.Nicaragua'sstatusas primafacie aggressorcan byapplyingcustomarly awinlieuoftherelevantmultilateral
over", JudgeSchwebelcc~~nclude"donN,iciiraguahas com- ofthe Court's findings,efeltcompelled1.0voteagainstits
poundedits delictualbehaviourbypressing falsetestimony decisionson the useof force,on intervention,and onthe
ontheCourtinadeliberate efforttoconcealit.Accordingly, questionofself-defenceb, ecauseinhisviewthe Court was
on bothgrounds,Nicaraguadoesnot come before thC eourt lackingjurisdictiontodecidethosematters.
Summary of the Judgment of 27 June 1986