Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)

Case Title and Citation 

• Title: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.  United States of America) 
• Year: 1986 
• Citation: ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14 

This case is one of the most famous and widely cited decisions of the International Court of  Justice (ICJ). It is often referred to simply as the Nicaragua Case and is regarded as a  landmark judgment in the field of public international law. It directly addressed the limits of  state conduct under international law, especially concerning the prohibition on the use of  force, the principle of non-intervention, and the doctrine of collective self-defence. 

Court Name and Bench 

The case was adjudicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial  organ of the United Nations, located at The Hague. 

• Bench: The judgment was delivered by the full bench of 15 judges, including  President Nagendra Singh (India) and Vice-President de Lacharrière (France). The  composition reflected diverse legal traditions, ensuring that the decision carried  significant weight in the development of international jurisprudence. 

This was not a chamber or special bench decision but a plenary ruling, reflecting the  seriousness and complexity of the dispute. The case attracted attention not only for its legal  substance but also for its political implications, since it pitted a small developing nation against  a global superpower in the midst of the Cold War. 

Date of Judgment 

• The ICJ delivered its final merits judgment on 27 June 1986. 

This judgment followed preliminary objections by the U.S. on jurisdiction and admissibility,  which the ICJ had dismissed earlier in 1984.

Parties Involved 

• Applicant (Petitioner): Republic of Nicaragua – A small Central American nation  governed by the Sandinista government, which had come to power in 1979 after  overthrowing the Somoza dictatorship. The Sandinistas introduced socialist policies  and aligned with leftist movements in the region. 
• Respondent (Defendant): United States of America – At the time, the U.S.  administration under President Ronald Reagan viewed the Sandinista government as a  threat in the context of the Cold War. The U.S. supported the Contras a counter revolutionary rebel group seeking to overthrow the Sandinista regime. 

The dispute thus arose in a broader geopolitical setting, where U.S. foreign policy in Latin  America often clashed with the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention promoted in  international law. 

Facts of the Case 

After 1979, relations between the U.S. and Nicaragua soured as the Sandinistas developed  closer ties with the Soviet Union and Cuba. 

The U.S. engaged in the following activities against Nicaragua: 

1. Support for the Contras: The U.S. provided substantial financial assistance,  weapons, training, and intelligence to the Contra rebels. 
2. Direct Military Operations: The U.S. was involved in aerial surveillance, naval  operations, and the mining of Nicaraguan harbors in 1984, disrupting trade and  causing environmental and economic harm. 
3. Diplomatic Pressure: The U.S. sought to isolate Nicaragua internationally and  justified its actions as part of a broader campaign to counter communism. 

In response, Nicaragua filed a case before the ICJ in April 1984, claiming that the U.S. had: 

• Violated the prohibition on the use of force (UN Charter, Article 2(4)). • Breached the principle of non-intervention. 
• Infringed upon Nicaragua’s sovereignty and political independence. 

The United States, however, refused to accept the Court’s jurisdiction, citing reservations in its  declaration under the ICJ Statute. After losing on preliminary objections, the U.S. withdrew  from active participation in the merits stage, although the Court continued proceedings in its  absence. 

U.S. Response – The U.S. challenged the jurisdiction of the ICJ, citing its 1984 reservation to  the ICJ’s optional clause declaration. This reservation excluded disputes under multilateral  treaties unless all parties to the treaty were before the Court. When the Court dismissed its  objections and accepted jurisdiction (based on customary international law claims), the U.S.  withdrew from the merits stage, refusing to participate further.

Issues Raised 

The ICJ was called upon to decide: 

• Whether the U.S. had violated Nicaragua’s sovereignty by supporting the Contras and  conducting military operations. 
• Whether such conduct breached Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary  international law prohibiting the use of force. 
• Whether the principle of non-intervention formed part of binding customary  international law. 
• Whether the U.S. could justify its actions as collective self-defence on behalf of El  Salvador and other neighbouring states. 
• Whether the ICJ had jurisdiction in light of U.S. objections. 
• What remedies were owed to Nicaragua if violations were established. 

Arguments of the Parties 

Nicaragua’s Arguments: 

• The U.S. had directly violated international law by mining harbours and attacking  Nicaraguan facilities. 
• Its indirect actions — arming, training, and financing the Contras — also amounted to  use of force and unlawful intervention. 
• Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force, and this prohibition  also exists in customary international law, binding the U.S. even if it denied treaty  jurisdiction. 
• No armed attack had been carried out by Nicaragua against El Salvador that could  justify self-defence. 

United States’ Arguments: 

• The ICJ lacked jurisdiction, as the U.S. had excluded disputes under multilateral  treaties (like the UN Charter) from its optional clause declaration. 
• U.S. actions were legitimate collective self-defence, claiming Nicaragua supported  insurgents in El Salvador. 
• Political and security matters of such magnitude were not suitable for judicial  settlement. 
• The U.S. withdrew from merits proceedings, questioning the Court’s authority. 

Judgment / Final Decision 

The ICJ ruled in favour of Nicaragua on almost all points.

• The U.S. had violated international law by: 

Using force against Nicaragua. 

Mining its harbors. 

Supporting and financing the Contras. 

• The Court rejected U.S. claims of collective self-defense, noting: 

No conclusive evidence of an armed attack by Nicaragua. 

El Salvador did not make a formal request for U.S. assistance. 

Article 51 conditions were not satisfied. 

• The ICJ ordered the U.S. to cease its unlawful actions and pay reparations to  Nicaragua. The amount was left for later determination. 

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

1. Customary International Law: 

Even though the U.S. excluded treaty obligations, customary rules remained  binding. 

The ICJ emphasized that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter reflects a  customary norm prohibiting force. 

2. Use of Force and Intervention: 

The Court held that arming and training rebels constitutes unlawful  intervention. 

Direct actions like mining harbors amount to the use of force. 

3. Collective Self-Defense: 

Conditions under Article 51, UN Charter are strict: 

▪ Existence of an armed attack. 

▪ A formal request for assistance by the victim state. 

▪ Immediate reporting to the UN Security Council. 

The U.S. failed on all counts. 

4. Non-Intervention Principle: 

The Court reaffirmed that political independence and sovereignty of states  must not be undermined. 

Interference in another state’s internal affairs, whether direct or indirect,  violates customary international law. 

5. Jurisdiction: 

ICJ held it was competent to adjudicate based on Nicaragua’s application,  since customary law claims were not excluded by U.S. reservations. 

Conclusion and Observations 

The Nicaragua Case is widely regarded as a cornerstone in international law, with long-term  significance: 

• It strengthened recognition of customary international law as an independent and  binding source.
• It clarified the doctrine of collective self-defense, preventing its misuse as a  justification for intervention. 
• It reinforced the principle of non-intervention as a bedrock of international relations. • However, the case also exposed the limitations of the ICJ: the U.S. rejected the ruling  and blocked enforcement through its veto in the Security Council. 

Despite non-compliance, the case remains one of the most influential precedents in  international law. For students and scholars, it illustrates the tension between legal principles  and political power in international relations.