Legal Issues in the Nicaragua Opinion

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-166
Author(s):  
Fred L. Morrison
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
United States Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Subject

The opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case will be of interest primarily because of its general pronouncements on questions of international law. Its impact on the immediate controversy appears slight; the United States Government has strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy, has vetoed subsequent proposed Security Council resolutions on the subject, and is appropriating additional funds for the contested activities, without apparent reference to the Court’s decision. This Comment is limited to the general theoretical and legal issues and will not treat the underlying factual issues, the Court’s disposition of the immediate case or the implications of the opinion for the evolution of the dispute.

Introduction

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold G. Maier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
States Government

The ultimate authority of the International Court of Justice flows from the same source as the ultimate authority of all other judicial bodies. Every court’s decisions are an authoritative source of law in a realistic sense only because they are accepted as such by the community whose controversies the court is charged to resolve. In the case of the World Court, it is the community of nations that confers that authority and under the Court’s Statute, its jurisdiction is conferred solely by the consent of the nations whose disputes it is called to adjudicate. It is for this reason that the case Nicaragua v. United States and the actions of both the Court and the United States Government in connection with it are of special importance to those who are concerned with international law.

Determining U.S. Responsibility for Contra Operations Under International Law

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis A. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Operational Control ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Significant Point

The only significant point of disagreement this author might have with the June 27, 1986 decision on the merits by the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America concerns its failure to hold the United States Government fully responsible for the violations of the laws and customs of warfare committed by the contra forces in Nicaragua. The Court carefully premised this result on the finding that it had insufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion on such a delicate matter. Nevertheless, the Court held it established that the U.S. Government largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized the contras. Somewhat questionably, in the Court’s estimation, it remained to be proven that the Reagan administration actually exercised operational control over the contra forces.

scholarly journals Mandatory Multilateralism

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan J. Criddle ◽  
Evan Fox-Decent
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
International Court ◽  
Multilateral Regimes

AbstractThis Article challenges the conventional wisdom that states are always free to choose whether to participate in multilateral regimes. International law often mandates multilateralism to ensure that state laws and practices are compatible with sovereign equality and joint stewardship. The Article maps mandatory multilateralism's domain, defines its requirements, and examines its application to three controversies: the South China Sea dispute, the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement, and Bolivia's case against Chile in the International Court of Justice.

The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for Closing the Clause

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary L. Scott ◽  
Craig L. Carr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Evolving System ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Ideal

The refusal of the United States to consider itself bound by the recent decision in the Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, coupled with the earlier termination of its adherence to Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, has sparked a small storm of controversy and concern. Part of this concern involves how the United States, presumably a law-abiding and law-respecting nation, could possibly bring itself to snub the International Court of Justice and, by extension, the ideal of international law. Another part of this concern involves the likely consequences of the United States move on the vitality of the Court as the focal institution of a slowly evolving system of international law. A less obvious concern, but arguably one of paramount importance, calls into question the wisdom of insisting that the ICJ retain its optional compulsory jurisdiction. It is this less obvious concern that we propose to discuss here.

Some Questions of International Law in the European War

1916 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 749-797
Author(s):  
James W. Garner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
General Proposition ◽  
The Press ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Special Circumstances

The policy of the United States Government in permitting the exportation of arms, munitions, and other war supplies for the use of belligerents during the present war has been the subject of much discussion in Congress and in the press and has provoked diplomatic remonstrances from the Governments of Germany and Austria-Hungary. As a general proposition, it has been admitted by those who complain of the extensive traffic which has gone on between American manufacturers and certain of the belligerents, that neutral governments are not by the existing rules of international law bound to prevent their nationals from engaging in such traffic; but it has been argued that special circumstances to which the present war has given rise give a “new conception to the aspect of neutrality” and that an abnormal and unprecedented situation has been created which makes the continued furnishing of arms and munitions to the belligerents on one side, when their adversaries are unable to avail themselves of the American markets, a violation of the spirit of strict neutrality.

I. Lagrand Case (Germany v United States of America)

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm D. Evans ◽  
Martin Mennecke ◽  
Christian J. Tams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

In the LaGrand case, the United States found themselves for the second time within three years before the International Court of Justice dealing with the death penalty imposed on foreign nationals in the United States.1 In contrast to the earlier case filed by Paraguay, the German-sponsored LaGrand case survived the provisional measures phase and went on to the merits stage. In its judgment of 27 June 2001, the Court largely affirmed all four German submissions and ruled that the United States had violated international law.

Applying Kosovo: Looking to Russia, China, Spain and Beyond After the International Court of Justice Opinion on Unilateral Declarations of Independence

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 913-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Jamar ◽  
Mary Katherine Vigness
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
Separatist Movements

When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released its advisory opinion regarding the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) on 22 July 2010, Serbia was not the only State to express its dissatisfaction with the outcome. The broader significance of the ICJ's finding that Kosovo's UDI in 2008 did not violate international law has profound relevance for other States. The United States and its allies claim that Kosovo's situation is unique and does not serve as precedent, but other nations facing separatist movements within their own borders may have reason to be concerned.

Security Council

1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-230
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
States Government

The Security Council discussed this question at its 1022nd–1025th meetings, on October 23–25, 1962. It had before it a letter dated October 22, 1962, from the permanent representative of the United States, in which it was stated that the establishment of missile bases in Cuba constituted a grave threat to the peace and security of the world; a letter of the same date from the permanent representative of Cuba, claiming that the United States naval blockade of Cuba constituted an act of war; and a letter also dated October 22 from the deputy permanent representative of the Soviet Union, emphasizing that Soviet assistance to Cuba was exclusively designed to improve Cuba's defensive capacity and that the United States government had committed a provocative act and an unprecedented violation of international law in its blockade.

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.

Some Observations on the ICJ’s Procedural and Substantive Innovations

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Franck
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Future

The decision of the International Court of Justice in the case between Nicaragua and the United States brims with important procedural and substantive implications for the future of law and adjudication in disputes between states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document