Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Force in the Nicaraguan Cases

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice

  • 919 Accesses

Abstract

The 1986 judgment in Nicaragua v. United States is of seminal importance in the development of international law governing the use of force, crowning a process of legal development that began in the first decades of the century. The case concerned various forms of material and logistical support provided by the United States to contra rebels in Nicaragua who were directly responsible for armed attacks. After unsuccessfully challenging Nicaragua’s request for provisional measures and failing at the jurisdiction and admissibility stage, the United States boycotted subsequent proceedings. The Court relied upon customary international law, given the multilateral treaty reservation to jurisdiction of the United States. It distinguished the most grave forms of the use of force (those constituting an armed attack) from other less grave forms. The Court rejected the idea that collective self-defence might have justified the use of force. The judgment has been considered in several subsequent cases before the Court and its holdings on the use of force continue to influence the broader debate, in particular with respect to the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as amended by the Kampala Review Conference, governing the crime of aggression.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hobsbawm (1994).

  2. 2.

    Treaty of London, 19 April 1939, Art. 1.

  3. 3.

    Adatci (1920), p. 98.

  4. 4.

    Ibid., p. 118.

  5. 5.

    Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (‘Treaty of Versailles’), (1919) LN TS 4, Art. 227.

  6. 6.

    Mevis and Reijntjes (2014), p. 216.

  7. 7.

    France et al. v. Göring et al., (1946) 22 IMT 411, p. 427.

  8. 8.

    Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 35.

  9. 9.

    Paragraph 1 of the Commentary on Draft Article 50 on the Law of Treaties, YbILC 1966, Vol. II, p. 247 (cited by Judge Sette-Camara in his Separate Opinion appended to Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 189 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. United States (Merits)’)).

  10. 10.

    Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 32, para 34.

  11. 11.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), Separate Opinion of Judge Singh, p. 141.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., p. 142.

  13. 13.

    Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Order of 19 August 1987, ICJ Reports 1987, p. 182; Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Order of 27 May 1992, ICJ Reports 1992, p. 222.

  14. 14.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Order of 26 September 1991, ICJ Reports 1991, p. 47.

  15. 15.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Application instituting proceedings, 9 April 1984, para 1.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., para 4.

  17. 17.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 10 May 1984, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 173.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., p. 187.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., Separate Opinion of Judges Mosler and Jennings, p. 189.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, p. 196.

  21. 21.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392, paras 89–91.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., para 91.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., pp. 434–435, para 95.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., p. 436, para 98.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., pp. 436–437, para 99.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., pp. 437–438, para 101.

  27. 27.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, p. 48, para 80 and p. 118, para 227.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., p. 48, para 81, pp. 50–51, para 86 and p. 118, para 227. In the dispositive it referred specifically to 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.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para 227.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p. 123, para 238.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., p. 61, para 106.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., p. 123, para 238.

  33. 33.

    Ibid.

  34. 34.

    UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV), ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’, 24 October 1970.

  35. 35.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, pp. 118–119, para 228.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p. 17, para 10.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 22, para 24.

  38. 38.

    See e.g. Moore (1986) and Rostow (1986).

  39. 39.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, p. 92, para 172.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., pp. 92–93, para 173.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., p. 93, para 174.

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., p. 94, para 176.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., pp. 96–97, para 181.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., p. 138, para 227.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., pp. 99–100, para 188 and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Jennings, p. 520.

  48. 48.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, p. 96, para 180.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., p. 100, para 189.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., pp. 100–101, para 190.

  51. 51.

    Crawford (2012), p. 178.

  52. 52.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, pp. 126–127, para 247 and p. 127, para 249.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., pp. 101–102, para 191.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    For discussion of the travaux préparatoires of article 51, see ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda, pp. 253–258, paras 91–96.

  56. 56.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, pp. 102–103, para 193.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., p. 103, para 194.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., pp. 122-123, para 237.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., pp. 27–28, para 35.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., pp. 71–72, para 128.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., p. 86, para. 160 and p. 119, paras 229–230.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., pp. 87–88, paras 164–166 and pp. 119–121, paras 231–234.

  63. 63.

    UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), ‘Definition of Aggression’, 14 December 1974.

  64. 64.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, pp. 103–104, para 195.

  65. 65.

    For discussion of the drafting of the Declaration on Aggression, see ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, pp. 340–347, paras 162–171.

  66. 66.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, pp. 103–104, para 195 and p. 119, para 230.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Jennings, p. 533.

  68. 68.

    Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 9, pp. 103–104, para 195.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., pp. 110–111, para 211.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., pp. 122–123, para 237.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., p. 105, para 199.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., para 200.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., pp. 121–122, para 235.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., citing UN Doc. S/PV.2187.

  75. 75.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 245, para 41 (hereinafter ‘Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’); see also ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Higgins, p. 583, paras 4–5.

  76. 76.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra n. 75, p. 245, para 42.

  77. 77.

    Ibid., p. 263, para 97.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma, p. 561.

  79. 79.

    See Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 161 (hereinafter ‘Oil Platforms (Merits)’).

  80. 80.

    Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Elaraby, p. 292.

  81. 81.

    Ibid.

  82. 82.

    Oil Platforms (Merits), supra n. 79, Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, p. 251, para 17 and Separate Opinion of Judge Owada, pp. 315–316, para 32 and p. 318, para 37.

  83. 83.

    Oil Platforms (Merits), supra n. 79, p. 183, para 43, pp. 196-197, para 74 and p. 198, para 76.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., pp. 186–187, para 51 and pp. 191–192, para 64.

  85. 85.

    Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 194, para 139 (hereinafter ‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall’).

  86. 86.

    Ibid., Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, p. 215, para 33.

  87. 87.

    Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall, supra n. 85, p. 171, para 87.

  88. 88.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi), Order of 30 January 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 3; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Order of 30 January 2001.

  89. 89.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 222, para 143 (hereinafter ‘Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Judgment)’).

  90. 90.

    Ibid., p. 223, para 147.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, p. 313, para 26.

  92. 92.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Judgment), supra n. 89, Separate Opinion of Judge Elaraby, p. 331, para 16.

  93. 93.

    Ibid., p. 332, para 18.

  94. 94.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Judgment), supra n. 89, Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, pp. 334–335, para 2.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., p. 336, para 9.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., p. 337, para 11.

  97. 97.

    Res. RC/Res.6, ‘The crime of aggression’, 11 June 2010.

  98. 98.

    Zimmermann and Freiberg (2015), p. 583.

  99. 99.

    For example, Historical Review of Developments Relating to the Crime of Aggression, UN Doc. PCNICC/2002/WGCA/L.1, 24 January 2002, paras 448–449.

  100. 100.

    Statements by Observer States after the adoption of resolution RC/Res.6 on the crime of aggression, RC/11, p. 125.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., p. 126.

  102. 102.

    Ibid.

  103. 103.

    UNGA Res. 60/1, ‘2005 World Summit Outcome’, 24 October 2005, para 139.

  104. 104.

    See Kreβ et al. (2011).

  105. 105.

    9th plenary meeting, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/SR.9, para 51 (United Kingdom).

  106. 106.

    Historical Review of Developments Relating to the Crime of Aggression, supra n. 99, paras 435–437.

  107. 107.

    Statements by States Parties in explanation of position after the adoption of resolution RC/Res.6 on the crime of aggression, RC/11, Annex VIII, pp. 122–124.

  108. 108.

    Oil Platforms (Merits), supra n. 79, Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, pp. 238–239, para 50.

  109. 109.

    A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, annexed to UN Doc. A/59/565, 2 December 2004, para 186 (references omitted). One authority indicated by the Panel was Franck (1987).

  110. 110.

    Ibid., para 11.

References

  • Adatci M (1920) Commission on the responsibility of the authors of the war and on enforcement of penalties. AJIL 14:95–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford JR (2012) Military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua case (Nicaragua v United States of America). In: Woflrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, vol VII. OUP, Oxford, pp 173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (1987) Some observations on the I.C.J.’s procedural and substantive innovations. AJIL 81:116–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobsbawm E (1994) The age of extremes: the short twentieth century, 1914–1991. Michael Joseph, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreβ C, Barriga S, Grover L, von Holtzendorff L (2011) Negotiating the understandings on the crime of aggression. In: Barriga S, Kreβ C (eds) The Travaux Préparatoires of the crime of aggression. CUP, Cambridge, pp 81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevis P, Reijntjes J (2014) Hang Kaiser Wilhelm! But for what? A criminal law perspective. In: Bergsmo M, Ling CW, Song T, Yi P (eds) Historical origins of international criminal law, vol 1. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, Brussels, pp 213–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore JN (1986) The secret war in Central America and the future of world order. AJIL 80:43–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostow N (1986) Nicaragua and the law of self-defense revisited. Yale JIL 11:437–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann A, Freiberg E (2015) Article 8 bis. Crime of aggression. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Observers’ Notes, Article by Article, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck/Nomos/Hart, Munich/Baden-Baden/Oxford, pp 568–606

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Middlesex University London, London, UK

    William Schabas OC MRIA

  2. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    William Schabas OC MRIA

  3. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    William Schabas OC MRIA

Authors
  1. William Schabas OC MRIA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Schabas OC MRIA .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Embassy of Nicaragua in The Hague, Den Haag, The Netherlands

    Edgardo Sobenes Obregon

  2. University Paris Nanterre, Paris, France

    Benjamin Samson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schabas, W. (2018). The Use of Force in the Nicaraguan Cases. In: Sobenes Obregon, E., Samson, B. (eds) Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62961-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62962-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation