Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    Nicaragua Case (1986)

    Uploaded by

    Kheo
    The United States challenged the jurisdiction of the ICJ when Nicaragua brought suit against it in 1984 for illegal military activities. While the US had accepted ICJ jurisdiction in 1946, it claimed its declaration did not apply to Central American states. Nicaragua argued its 1929 declaration accepting the Permanent Court's jurisdiction still applied. The ICJ held that it had jurisdiction over disputes where both states accepted its authority. It also ruled Nicaragua's application was admissible as the US provided no valid grounds for exclusion. However, the US refused to abide by the ruling, pay reparations, or participate in further proceedings, highlighting the weakness of international law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nicaragua Case (1986)

    Uploaded by

    Kheo
    62 views1 page
    The United States challenged the jurisdiction of the ICJ when Nicaragua brought suit against it in 1984 for illegal military activities. While the US had accepted ICJ jurisdiction in 1946, it claimed its declaration did not apply to Central American states. Nicaragua argued its 1929 declaration accepting the Permanent Court's jurisdiction still applied. The ICJ held that it had jurisdiction over disputes where both states accepted its authority. It also ruled Nicaragua's application was admissible as the US provided no valid grounds for exclusion. However, the US refused to abide by the ruling, pay reparations, or participate in further proceedings, highlighting the weakness of international law.

    Original Title

    Nicaragua case (1986)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States challenged the jurisdiction of the ICJ when Nicaragua brought suit against it in 1984 for illegal military activities. While the US had accepted ICJ jurisdiction in 1946, it claimed its declaration did not apply to Central American states. Nicaragua argued its 1929 declaration accepting the Permanent Court's jurisdiction still applied. The ICJ held that it had jurisdiction over disputes where both states accepted its authority. It also ruled Nicaragua's application was admissible as the US provided no valid grounds for exclusion. However, the US refused to abide by the ruling, pay reparations, or participate in further proceedings, highlighting the weakness of international law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views1 page

    Nicaragua Case (1986)

    Uploaded by

    Kheo
    The United States challenged the jurisdiction of the ICJ when Nicaragua brought suit against it in 1984 for illegal military activities. While the US had accepted ICJ jurisdiction in 1946, it claimed its declaration did not apply to Central American states. Nicaragua argued its 1929 declaration accepting the Permanent Court's jurisdiction still applied. The ICJ held that it had jurisdiction over disputes where both states accepted its authority. It also ruled Nicaragua's application was admissible as the US provided no valid grounds for exclusion. However, the US refused to abide by the ruling, pay reparations, or participate in further proceedings, highlighting the weakness of international law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Facts:

    The United States challenged the jurisdiction of the I.C.J when it was held responsible for illegal military
    and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua in the suit the plaintiff brought against the defendant
    in 1984. Though a declaration accepting the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court was deposited by the
    United States in a 1946, it tried to justify the declaration in a 1984 notification by referring to the 1946
    declaration and stating in part that the declaration “shall not apply to disputes with any Central American
    State….”
    Apart from maintaining the ground that the I.C.J lacked jurisdiction, the States also argued that Nicaragua
    failed to deposit a similar declaration to the Court. On the other hand, Nicaragua based its argument on
    its reliance on the 1946 declaration made by the United States due to the fact that it was a “state
    accepting the same obligation” as the United States when it filed charges in the I.C.J. against the United
    States.  Also, the plaintiff intent to submit to the compulsory jurisdiction of the I.C.J. was pointed out by
    the valid declaration it made in 1929 with the I.C.J’s predecessor, which was the Permanent Court of
    International Justice, even though Nicaragua had failed to deposit it with that court. The admissibility of
    Nicaragua’s application to the I.C.J. was also challenged by the United States.
    Issues:

    a. Whether or not the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between two states, if they both accept the
    Court’s jurisdiction, within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?
    b. Whether or not there is no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state, is the application of
    such a state to the International Court of Justice admissible?

    Held:

    a. Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a dispute between two states if each of the States
    accepted the Court’s jurisdiction is within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Even though
    Nicaragua declaration of 1929 was not deposited with the Permanent Court, because of the potential
    effect it had that it would last for many years, it was valid. Thus, it maintained its effect when Nicaragua
    became a party to the Statute of the I.C.J because the declaration was made unconditionally and was
    valid for an unlimited period. The intention of the current drafters of the current Statute was to maintain
    the greatest possible continuity between it and the Permanent Court. Thus, when Nicaragua accepted the
    Statute, this would have been deemed that the plaintiff had given its consent to the transfer of its
    declaration to the I.C.J.

    b. Yes. When no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state, the application of such a state to the
    International Court of Justice is admissible. The five grounds upon which the United States challenged the
    admissibility of Nicaragua’s application were that the plaintiff failed because there is no “indispensable
    parties” rule when it could not bring forth necessary parties, Nicaragua’s request of the Court to consider
    the possibility of a threat to peace which is the exclusive province of the Security Council, failed due to the
    fact that I.C.J. can exercise jurisdiction  which is concurrent with that of the Security Council, that the
    I.C.J. is unable to deal with situations involving ongoing armed conflict and that there is nothing
    compelling the I.C.J. to decline to consider one aspect of a dispute just because the dispute has other
    aspects due to the fact that the case is incompatible with the Contadora process to which Nicaragua is a
    party.

    When the court decided to apply customary law in its decision, the burden fell upon the court itself to
    make sure that the rules of customary law were relevant to the present case. To conclude that it was in
    fact a customary law, opinio juris and state practice had to be established. Where the judgment was
    celebrated by many, it was barely an achievement. This case also highlights the weakness of
    international law as after the judgment was passed by the United States refused to pay the reparations to
    Nicaragua and withdrew its declaration of compulsory jurisdiction. The United States also blocked
    Nicaragua’s appeal to the UN Security Council.  On 18 January 1985, the United States even announced
    that it had no intention to participate in any further proceedings relating to this case. 

    You might also like