Authored By: Shumail Tariq Kiani
Fatima Jinnah Women University
Case Title and Citation
Case Name: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits.
Citation: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
Court Name and Bench
The dispute was adjudicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The Court sat in The Hague as a full bench, reflecting its authority to hear politically and legally significant cases. The bench at the time of judgment consisted of fourteen judges:
- President: Nagendra Singh (India)
- Vice-President: de Lacharrière (France)
- Judges: Ago (Italy), Elias (Nigeria), Lachs (Poland), Mbaye (Senegal), Ni (China), Oda (Japan), Ruda (Argentina), Schwebel (United States), Sette-Camara (Brazil), Jennings (United Kingdom), Bedjaoui (Algeria).
- Judge ad hoc Colliard (France), sat on behalf of Nicaragua.
This diverse bench reflected the Court’s mission to represent major legal systems of the world, lending authority to its ruling in a politically sensitive Cold War case.1
Date of Judgment
The ICJ delivered its decision on June 27, 1986 after nearly two years of proceedings. 4. Parties Involved
The Following parties were involved:
Applicant (Petitioner): The Republic of Nicaragua
1) Represented by Ambassador Carlos Argüello Gómez (Agent and Counsel), and
2) Professor Ian Brownlie, Q.C. of Oxford University as Co-Agent. Nicaragua’s team relied heavily on public international law scholarship to frame the dispute in legal rather than purely political terms.
Respondent (Defendant): The United States of America, initially represented by legal teams from the U.S. Department of State. However, after challenging the Court’s jurisdiction, the United States refused to participate further in the merits phase, boycotting oral arguments but filing some procedural submissions.2
This partial absence was notable: The U.S. continued to submit certain procedural documents but boycotted oral arguments on the substance.
Facts of the Case
The case arose against the backdrop of the Cold War and the ideological confrontation between the U.S. and the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
a. Nicaragua alleged that the United States:
1) Supported Contra Forces: The U.S. organized, trained, armed, and financed the “Contras,” anti-government insurgents attempting to overthrow the Sandinistas.3
2) Direct Military Action: The U.S. Navy mined Nicaraguan harbors (1984) and carried out attacks on oil installations and other targets.
3) Imposed an Economic Embargo: In May 1985, the U.S. imposed a comprehensive trade embargo against Nicaragua, curtailing access to vital goods and services, thus intensifying the country’s economic vulnerability.
4) Fostered Civil Strife: The U.S. encouraged insurgent activities and propaganda campaigns, destabilizing Nicaragua internally.
5) Conducted Threatening Maneuvers: Large-scale U.S. military exercises near Nicaragua’s borders created a continuing threat of force.
Nicaragua argued these actions violated:
1) the prohibition on the use of force under U.N. Charter art. 2(4);
2) the principle of non-interventionin the internal affairs of states;
3) Nicaragua’s sovereignty;
4) and the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the two states.4
Issues Raised
Jurisdiction: Did the ICJ have jurisdiction despite U.S. objections and withdrawal?
Customary International Law: Did U.S. actions violate the prohibition on the use of force and non-intervention?
Treaty Obligations: Did the U.S. breach the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation?
Attribution of Acts: Could the actions of the Contras be legally attributed to the U.S.?
Remedies: What reparations, if any, were due to Nicaragua?
Arguments of the Parties
Nicaragua (Petitioner). Nicaragua asserted that:
1) The United States had directly contravened international law through its unlawful use of force, including the mining of Nicaraguan harbors, direct attacks, and ongoing threats.5
2) By providing financing, training, and logistical support to the Contras, the United States bore indirect responsibility for violations of humanitarian law committed by those groups.
3) The economic embargo imposed by the United States was inconsistent with both
4) General International Law and the 1956 bilateral treaty.
5) The principle of non-intervention was fundamentally violated, as U.S. policy actively sought to destabilize and replace the Nicaraguan government.
6) Nicaragua underscored that the prohibition on the use of force, grounded in customary international law, binds all states independently of treaty commitments.6
United States (Respondent)
Prior to withdrawing its participation, the United States advanced the following arguments:
1) The International Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction on account of the Vandenberg Reservation limiting U.S. acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction.7
2) American actions were lawful measures of collective self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, allegedly in response to Nicaragua’s interference in El Salvador.8
3) The Contras operated as independent actors, and thus their conduct could not legally be attributed to the United States.
Judgment / Final Decision
The Court issued its landmark judgment on 27 June 1986. 9
Jurisdiction: The ICJ confirmed jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of its Statute, rejecting U.S. objections. The unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the proceedings did not affect the Court’s authority.
Violations of International Law: The Court determined that the United States had breached:
1) The prohibition on the use of force (U.N. Charter Article 2(4));
2) the principle of non-intervention;
3) Nicaragua’s sovereignty.
Treaty Obligations: The Court concluded that U.S. conduct violated Article XIX of the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation.
1) Attribution of Contra Acts: Although U.S. assistance was deemed “crucial,” the Court found the Contras maintained sufficient autonomy such that their specific acts could not be attributed entirely to the United States.
2) Remedies: The Court ordered the United States to terminate unlawful activities and to provide reparations to Nicaragua, with the precise amount left to be determined.
The United States ultimately refused to comply and vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for enforcement.10
Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
The Court’s reasoning was structured around several key principles:
- Jurisdiction: The ICJ reaffirmed that jurisdiction rests on consent; U.S. reliance on reservations rejected. 11
- Customary International Law: Prohibition on force and non-intervention are customary law. 12
- Collective Self-Defense: Conditions under Article 51 not met; U.S. failed.13 d. Attribution of Contra Acts: Direct control not proven; U.S. responsible for aiding/abetting. Id. at 91–95.14
- Treaty Violations: Article XIX breached. 15
- Remedies: Reparations recognized; quantification deferred. 16
Observations
The Nicaragua judgment is widely regarded as one of the most important in ICJ history.
- Contribution to Customary Law: The Court confirmed that fundamental norms such as the prohibition on force and non-intervention are binding as customary law. This has been cited extensively in later cases and scholarship.
- Limits on Self-Defense: The ruling set clear boundaries on Article 51, ensuring that states cannot abuse the doctrine to justify intervention.
- Sovereignty and Non-Intervention: The case reaffirmed sovereignty for weaker states, symbolically curbing great power interference.
- Weakness in Enforcement: Despite the strong ruling, U.S. refusal to comply exposed the limitations of ICJ authority where great powers are concerned. e. Legacy: The decision continues to influence jurisprudence on state responsibility, attribution, and use of force, including debates on proxy warfare, drone strikes, and cyber operations.
Conclusion
Thus, while Nicaragua’s legal victory was not matched by practical enforcement, the case remains a cornerstone of international law, shaping doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. It reminds us that even powerful nations are bound by legal norms and treaties, and it continues to guide both scholars and states in questions of self-defense and state responsibility. At the same time, it highlights the challenges of enforcing international judgments when political interests intervene. Ultimately, the Nicaragua case remains a vital reference point for anyone studying the limits and possibilities of international law.
Reference(S):
Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force 245–47 (3d ed. 2008), https://academic.oup.com/book/35473 (last visited Aug. 17, 2025).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶¶ 1–15 (June 27), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments (last visited Aug. 20, 2025).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶¶ 31–40 (June 27), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments (last visited Aug. 21, 2025).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶¶ 60–85 (June 27), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments (last visited Aug. 18,
2025).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶¶ 190–200 (June 27), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments (last visited Aug. 22, 2025).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶¶ 227–52 (June 27), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments (last visited Aug. 19, 2025).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶¶ 250–52 (June 27), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments (last visited Aug. 16, 2025).
Thomas M. Franck, Some Observations on the ICJ’s Procedural and Substantive Innovations in the Nicaragua Case, 81 Am. J. Int’l L. 116, 118–19 (1987), https://www.jstor.org/stable/2202142 (last visited Aug. 19, 2025).
Oscar Schachter, The Nicaragua Case and the Future of the Law of Force and Self-Defense, 81 Am. J. Int’l L. 259, 260–62 (1987), https://www.jstor.org/stable/2202135 (last visited Aug. 18, 2025).
1 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶¶ 1– 15 (June 27), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments (last visited Aug. 20, 2025).
2 Thomas M. Franck, Some Observations on the ICJ’s Procedural and Substantive Innovations in the Nicaragua Case, 81 Am. J. Int’l L. 116, 118–19 (1987), https://www.jstor.org/stable/2202142 (last visited Aug. 19, 2025).
3 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, supra note 1, ¶¶ 190–200.
4 Oscar Schachter, The Nicaragua Case and the Future of the Law of Force and Self-Defense, 81 Am. J. Int’l L. 259, 260–61 (1987), https://www.jstor.org/stable/2202135 (last visited Aug. 18, 2025).
5 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, supra note 1, ¶¶ 227–252.
6 Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force 245–46 (3d ed. 2008),
https://academic.oup.com/book/35473 (last visited Aug. 17, 2025).
7 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, supra note 1, ¶¶ 60–85.
8 Schachter, supra note 4, at 261.
9 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, supra note 5, ¶¶ 227–252.
10 Franck, supra note 2, at 119–20.
11 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, supra note 1, ¶¶ 31–40.
12 Schachter, supra note 4, at 262.
13 Id.
14 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, supra note 5, ¶¶ 250–252.
15 Gray, supra note 6, at 246–47.
16 Franck, supra note 2, at 120.
