CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY …

1 INTERNATIONAL COURT O F JUSTICE. REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS. ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS. CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND. PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND. AGAINST NICARAGUA. (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA). M ERITS. JUDGMENT OF 27 JUNE 1986. COUR INTERNATIONALE D E JUSTICE. RECUEIL DES ARR TS. AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES. AFFAIRE DES ACTIVIT S MILITAIRES. ET PARAMILITAIRES AU NICARAGUA. ET CONTRE CELUI-CI. (NICARAGUA c. TATS-UNIS D'AM RIQUE). FOND. ARR T DC' 27 JUIN 1986. Official citation : Militarv and Puramilitary Activities in und aguinst Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. Reports 1986, p. 14. Mode officiel de citation : Activit s militaires et parumilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c.)

2 Etats-Unis d'Am rique), fond, urr r. Recueil 1986, p. 14. Sales nuniber No de veiite : 27 JUNE 1986. JUDGMENT. CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY . ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA. (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA). MERITS. AFFAIRE DES ACTIVIT SMILITAIRES ET PARAMILITAIRES. AU NICARAGUA ET CONTRE CELUI-CI. FOND. 27 JUIN 1986. ARR T. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. 1986 Y EAR 1986. 27 June General List No. 70 27 June 1986. CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND. PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST. NICARAGUA. (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA). MERITS. Failure of Respondent to appear - Statute of the Court, Article 53 - Equality of the parties. Jurisdiction of the Court - Effect of application of multilateral treaty reservation to United States declaration of acceptance ofjurisdiction under Statute, Article 36, paragraph 2 - Third State "affected" by decision of the Court on dispute arising under a multilateral treaty - Character of objection to jurisdiction not exclusively preliminary - Rules of Court, Article 79.

3 Jwticiability of the dispute - "Legal dispute" (Statute, Article 36 paragraph 2). Establishment offacts - Relevantperiod - Powers of the Court - Press informa- tion and matters of public knowledge - Statements by representatives of States - Evidence of witnesses - Implicit admissions - Material not presented in accordance with Rules of Court. Acts imputable to respondent Srate - Mining ofports - Attacks on oil installa- tions and other objectives - Overflights - Support ofarmed bands opposed to Gov- ernment of applicant State - Encouragement of conduct contrary to principles of humanitarian law - Economic pressure - Circumstances precluding international responsibility - Possiblejustification of imputed acts - Conduct of Applicant during relevant period.

4 Applicable law - Customary international law - Opinio juris and Statepractice - Significance of concordant views of Parties - Relationship hetween customary international law and treaty law - United Nations Charter - Significunce of Reso- lutions of United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States General Assembly. Principle prohibiting recourse to the threat or use of force in international rela- tions - Inherent right of self-defence - Conditions for exercise - Individual and collectiveseif-defence - Response to armed attack - Declarn tion of having been the object of armed attack and request for measures in the exercise of collective self- defence. Principle of non-intewention - Content of theprinciple - Opinio juris -+State practice - Question of collective counter-measures in response to conduct not &ounting toarmed at ack.

5 State sovereignty - Territory - Airspace - Interna1 and territorial waters - Right of access of foreign vessels. Principles of humanitarian law - 1949 Geneva Conventions - Minimum rules applicable - Duty of States not to encourage disrespect for humanitarian law - Notification of existence and location of mines. Respect for human rights - Right of States to choose political system, ideology and alliances. 1956 Treaty of Frienhhip, Commerceand Navigation - Jurisdiction of the Court - Obligation under customary international law not to commit acts calculated to defeat object andpurpose of a treaty - Review of relevant treaty provisions. Claim for reparation. Peaceful settlement of disputes. JUDGMENT.

6 Present :President NAGENDRA SINGH; Vice-President DE LACHARRI RE ;. Judges LACHS,RUDA,ELIAS,ODA,AGO, SETTE-CAMARA, SCHWEBEL, Sir Robert JENNINGS, MBAYE,BEDJAOUI,NI, EVENSEN; Judge ad hoc COLLIARD ; Registrar TORRESBERNARDEZ. In the case CONCERNING MILITARY and PARAMILITARY activities in and against Nicaragua, between the Republic of Nicaragua, represented by Mr. Carlos Arg ello Gomez, Ambassador, as Agent and Counsel, Mr. Ian Brownlie, , , Chichele Professor of Public International Law in the University of Oxford ; Fellow of Ail Souls College, Oxford, Hon. Abram Chayes, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School ; Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris-Nord and the Institut d' tudes politiques de Paris, 16 MILITARY AND PARAMILlTARY ACTIVITIES (JUDGMENT).

7 Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Reichler and Appelbaum, Washington, ; Member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court ; Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia, as Counsel and Advocates, Mr. Augusto Zamora Rodriguez, Legal Adviser to the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Nicaragua, Miss Judith C. Appelbaum, Reichler and Appelbaum, Washington, ;. Member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and the State of Califor- nia, Mr. David Wippman, Reichler and Appelbaum, Washington, , as Counsel, and the United States of America, composed as above, delivers the following Judgment : 1. On 9 Apnl 1984 the Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Netherlands filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting pro- ceedings against the United States of America in respect of a dispute CONCERNING responsibility for MILITARY and PARAMILITARY activities in and against Nicaragua.

8 In order to found the jurisdiction of the Court the Application relied on declara- tions made by the Parties accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 of the Statute. 2. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Application was at once communicated to the Government of the United States of America. In accordance with paragraph 3 of that Article, al1 other States entitled to appear before the Court were notified of the Application. 3. At the same time as the Application was filed, the Republic of Nicaragua also filed a request for the indication of provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute. By an Order dated 10 May 1984, the Court rejected a request made by the United States for removal of the case from the list, indicated, pending its final decision in the proceedings, certain provisional measures, and decided that, until the Court delivers its final judgment in the case, it would keep the matters covered by the Order continuously under review.

9 4. By the said Order of 10 May 1984, the Court further decided that the wntten proceedings in the case should first be addressed to the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the dispute and of the admissibility of the Application. By an Order dated 14 May 1984, the President of the Court fixed 30 June 1984 as time-limit for the filing of a Memorial by the Republic of Nica- ragua and 17 August 1984 as time-limit for the filing of a Counter-Memonal by the United States of America on the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility and these pleadings were duly filed within the time-limits fixed. 5. In its Memorial on jurisdiction and admissibility, the Republic of Nicara- gua contended that, in addition to the basis of jurisdiction relied on in the Appli- cation, a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed by the Parties in 1956 provides an independent basis for jurisdiction under Article 36, para- graph 1, of the Statute of the Court.

10 6. Since the Court did not include upon the bench a judge of Nicaraguan nationality, Nicaragua, by a letter dated 3 August 1984, exercised its right under Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court to choose ajudge adhoc to sit in the case. The person so designated was Professor Claude-Albert Colliard. 7. On 15 August 1984, two days before the closure of the written proceedings on the questions of jurisdiction and adrnissibility, the Republic of El Salvador filed a Declaration of Intervention in the case under Article 63 of the Statute. Having been supplied with the written observations of the Parties on the Decla- ration pursuant to Article 83 of the Rules of Court, the Court, by an Order dated 4 October 1984,decided not to hold a hearing on the Declaration of Intervention, and decided that that Declaration was inadmissible inasrnuch as it related to the phase of the proceedings then current.