Endrinal, Jeffrey C.

Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua vs United States)
FACTS: In July 1979, the Government of President Somoza was replaced by a government
installed by Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN). Supporters of the former Somoza
Government and former members of the National Guard opposed the new government. The US
– initially supportive of the new government – changed its attitude when, according to the United
States, it found that Nicaragua was providing logistical support and weapons to guerrillas in El
Salvador. In April 1981 the United States stopped its aid to Nicaragua and in September 1981,
according to Nicaragua, the United States “decided to plan and undertake activities directed
against Nicaragua”.
The armed activities against the new Government was carried out mainly by (1) Fuerza
Democratica Nicaragüense (FDN), which operated along the border with Honduras, and (2)
Alianza Revolucionaria Democratica (ARDE), which operated along the border with Costa Rica.
Initial US support to these groups fighting against the Nicaraguan Government (called “contras”)
was covert. Later, the United States officially acknowledged its support (for example: In 1983
budgetary legislation enacted by the United States Congress made specific provision for funds
to be used by United States intelligence agencies for supporting “directly or indirectly military or
paramilitary operations in Nicaragua”).
Nicaragua contended that the United States, in recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing,
supplying and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding, and directing military and paramilitary
actions in and against Nicaragua, had violated its treaty obligations to Nicaragua under: 1.
Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter; 2. Articles 18 and 20 of the Charter of the
Organization of American States; 3. Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights and Duties of
States; 4. Article I, Third, of the Convention concerning the Duties and Rights of States in the
Event of Civil Strife.
It also added that the United States had breached customary international law by: 1. violating
the sovereignty of Nicaragua by: armed attacks against Nicaragua by air, land and sea;
incursions into Nicaraguan territorial waters; aerial trespass into Nicaraguan airspace; efforts by
direct and indirect means to coerce and intimidate the Government of Nicaragua.; 2. using force
and the threat of force against Nicaragua.; 3. intervening in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.; 4.
infringing upon the freedom of the high seas and interrupting peaceful maritime commerce.; 5.
killing, wounding and kidnapping citizens of Nicaragua.
Nicaragua demanded that all such actions cease and that the United States had an obligation to
pay reparations to the government for damage to their people, property, and economy.
Nicaragua also alleged that the United States is effectively in control of the contras, the United
States devised their strategy and directed their tactics, and that the contras were paid for and
directly controlled by the United States. Nicaragua also alleged that some attacks against
Nicaragua were carried out, directly, by the United States military – with the aim to overthrow
the Government of Nicaragua. Attacks against Nicaragua included the mining of Nicaraguan
ports, and other attacks on ports, oil installations, and a naval base. Nicaragua alleged that
aircrafts belonging to the United States flew over Nicaraguan territory to gather intelligence,
supply to the contras in the field, and to intimidate the population.
The United States did not appear before the ICJ at the merit stages, after refusing to accept the
ICJ’s jurisdiction to decide the case. The United States at the jurisdictional phase of the hearing,
however, stated that it relied on an inherent right of collective self-defense guaranteed in A. 51
of the UN Charter when it provided “upon request proportionate and appropriate assistance…”
to Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador in response to Nicaragua’s acts of aggression against
those countries.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the US violate its customary international law obligation not to intervene
in the affairs of another State, when it trained, armed, equipped, and financed the contra
forces or when it encouraged, supported, and aided the military and paramilitary
activities against Nicaragua?
2. Whether or not the US violate its customary international law obligation not to use force
against another State, when it directly attacked Nicaragua in 1983 and 1984 and when
its activities in point (1) above resulted in the use of force?
3. Whether or not the military and paramilitary activities that the US undertook in and
against Nicaragua be justified as collective self-defense?
4. Whether or not the US breach its customary international law obligation not to violate the
sovereignty of another State, when it directed or authorized its aircrafts to fly over the
territory of Nicaragua and because of acts referred to in (2) above?
5. Whether or not the US’s breach its customary international law obligations not to violate
the sovereignty of another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to use force against
another State and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce, when it laid mines in the
internal waters and in the territorial sea of Nicaragua?

RULING:
1. Yes. The Court held that the United States violated its customary international law
obligation not to use force against another State when its activities with the contras
resulted in the threat or use of force.
The Court held that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and
supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and
paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in
breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of
another State;
2. Yes. The Court held that the United States violated its customary international law
obligation not to use force against another State when it directly attacked Nicaragua in
1983 and 1984
The Court decided that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory
in 1983–1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an
attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an
attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28
and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those
acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has
acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary
international law not to use force against another State;
3. Yes. The Court held that the United States could not justify its military and paramilitary
activities on the basis of collective self-defence.
The Court rejected the justification of collective self-defense maintained by the United States of
America in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the
subject of this case;
4. Yes. The Court held that the United States breached its CIL obligation not to intervene in
the affairs of another State, when it trained, armed, equipped and financed the contra
forces or encouraged, supported and aided the military and paramilitary activities against
Nicaragua.
The Court held that:
The principle of non-intervention requires that every State has a right to conduct its affairs
without outside interference. In other words, the principle “…forbids States or groups of States
to intervene directly or indirectly in internal or external affairs of other States.” This is a corollary
of the principle of sovereign equality of States.
The Court stated that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing overflights of
Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph
(4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under
customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;
5. Yes. The United States violated its customary international law obligation not to violate
the sovereignty of another State, when it directed or authorized its aircrafts to fly over
Nicaraguan territory and when it laid mines in the internal waters of Nicaragua and its
territorial sea.
The Court examined evidence and found that in early 1984 mines were laid in or close to ports
of the territorial sea or internal waters of Nicaragua “by persons in the pay or acting ion the
instructions” of the United States and acting under its supervision with its logistical support. The
United States did not issue any warning on the location or existence of mines and this resulted
in injuries and increases in maritime insurance rates.
The Court further held that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of
Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the
Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use
force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to
interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;