Evidence, the Court, and the Nicaragua Case

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Highet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Counter Measures ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Multilateral Treaty

The decision in the Nicaragua case is one of the most important judgments ever delivered by the International Court. It is by far the “heaviest” case, in the parlance of the English barrister, ever decided by the Court in the absence of a party. It has broken new ground for the application of Article 53 of the Statute. It deals in detail with the multilateral treaty reservation of the United States (the “Vandenberg amendment”). It contains provocative reasoning about the genesis and maintenance of rules of customary international law, separate from treaties such as the United Nations Charter. It contains seminal findings on the use of force and the exercise of the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. It presents fresh and doubtless controversial interpretations of the principle of nonintervention. It prescribes limits to “collective counter-measures” in response to conduct not deemed to amount to “armed attacks.”

The World Court and Jus Cogens

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon A. Christenson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
United Nations Charter

In the merits phase of decision in the case brought by Nicaragua against the United States, the World Court briefly mentions references by states or publicists to the concept of jus cogens. These expressions are used to buttress the Court’s conclusion that the principle prohibiting the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is also a rule of customary international law.

scholarly journals Violation on State Sovereignty by Military and Paramilitary Activities on Nicaragua vs United States Case

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 05001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Zainab ◽  
Dewa Nyoman Agung Noviardi ◽  
Fadilla Farhan Eka Buana ZK
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Study Materials ◽  
Self Defense

The Sovereignty of the State provides the rights of protection responsibility for the sovereignty of its people, respecting and fulfilling its citizens’ rights and cooperate on the international community. However, in certain dispute, the Sovereignty of the State was violated by the internal member of the state, particularly by a military and paramilitary member on the case of Nicaragua vs. the United States. This study examines the use of force by military and paramilitary members as a mean of self-defense. The use of force has violated the state sovereignty and international law on the relation of both countries. The study was conducted by researching relevant decisions and facts of International Law, customary international law, general principles of law, international treaties, conventions, declarations and decisions of international organizations. By using the study materials, in the end, it can be seen how the concept of Sovereignty of the State in International Law.

“Secret Wars,” Self-Defense and the Charter—A Reply to Professor Moore

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 568-583
Author(s):  
James P. Rowles
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Arguments ◽  
Secret War

In a recent article entitled The Secret War in Central America and the Future of World Order, Professor John Norton Moore, a staunch defender of United States actions toward Nicaragua, sets forth a comprehensive array of factual assertions and legal arguments to support his conclusions that support by the United States of Nicaraguan counterrevolutionaries or “contras” and its own actions against Nicaragua are justified as collective self-defense under international law. He also presents arguments to support his conclusion that the International Court of Justice has so exceeded its authority in exercising jurisdiction in the case of Nicaragua v. United States that its decisions are void, and consequently may be ignored by the United States—or, for that matter, Nicaragua. Professor Moore’s analysis and conclusions differ sharply from those of the present writer. It should therefore be useful to identify the main points of disagreement, and to suggest the policy implications of the different legal arguments and conclusions.

The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction

1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 699-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis O. Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Senate ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
One Year ◽  
United Nations Charter

On August 2, 1946, the United States Senate approved the Morse resolution by the overwhelming vote of 62-2, thereby giving its advice and consent to the acceptance on the part of the United States of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It was the same Senate which, just one year and one week earlier, had cast a vote of 89-2 in favor of the United Nations Charter. On August 26 Herschel Johnson, acting United States representative on the Security Council, deposited President Truman’s declaration of adherence with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At long last the United States assumed far-reaching obligations to submit its legal disputes to an international court.

scholarly journals The True Meaning of Force

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 141-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ellen O’Connell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Central Thesis ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
True Meaning

Tom Ruys’s article in the latest issue of the American Journal of International Law is an erudite study of the prohibition on the use of force in UN Charter Article 2(4). Ruys makes many points with which I wholeheartedly agree. In note 241, he says that the case for cross-border drone attacks by the United States “verges on stretching criteria for necessity, proportionality, and armed attack to the point of absurdity . . . .” He is also right to reject emerging claims that the defense of necessity provides a basis for the lawful resort to force. Indeed, there is much that is truly excellent about the article—just not, unfortunately, its central thesis.

A Lack of Language – Waging War or Combatting Crime? The Blurred Rule of International Law in the Face of the Attacks of September 11, 2001

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Binder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Face ◽  
The United Nations

After the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of war rhetoric came out of the public and private sphere within the United States of America. On October 7, 2001, however, the rhetoric turned into reality as President George W. Bush countered the terrorist attacks and the threat of future terrorism with military means. While waging that new war U.S. governmental officials constantly make one important point, and that is that the United States are just exercising their right of self-defense. Moreover, on the day after the attacks, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed the inherent right of self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Does that mean that international law is just that clear?

Jurisdiction and Applicable Law

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 471-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES R. CRAWFORD
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Related Question ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Multilateral Treaty

AbstractThis article provides a reappraisal of the International Court of Justice's approach to jurisdiction and applicable law inNicaragua, 25 years later. In the first phase of the proceedings arising from the US support of the activities of the Contras against the Sandinista government, the Court robustly asserted its jurisdiction despite the US reliance on its multilateral treaty reservation and the subsequent attempted modification of its Optional Clause declaration. At the same time, the Court approached the related question of applicable law with a wide, if not effusive, reliance on multilateral customary international law operating conjunctively with treaty law. The Court's dismissal of negotiations as a procedural precondition for invoking its jurisdiction inNicaraguais contrasted with its recent findings inGeorgiav.Russia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document