This article is written by Shourya Singh during his internship with Le Droit India.
Introduction
The 1986 International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua was a milestone in the evolution of contemporary international law. For the first time ever, the ICJ made a superpower liable for violation of basic principles including non-intervention, non-use of force, and sovereign equality of states. Nicaragua brought a case against the United States in 1984, and the case reached a historic decision which continues to resound in legal and political commentary today. The ICJ ruling raised the profile of customary international law and finally established legal boundaries to the conduct of great powers in international relations.
This case note discusses the facts, jurisdictional components, rules of law established, and the legacy of the ruling in international law.
Facts
The early 1980s were a time of upheaval in politics in Central America. Following the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) revolution against the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua in 1979, Nicaragua turned socialist. The United States government, seeing the new government as a threat to its interest and potential Soviet ally in the Cold War era, set out to finance anti-Sandinista elements, otherwise referred to as the Contras. The Contras used armed force against the Nicaraguan government, seeking to weaken it and remove it from power.
The Contras were supported by the United States in terms of weapons, training, money, intelligence, and logistical assistance. American agents also directly took part in armed operations, i.e., mining the ports of Nicaragua and attacks on oil facilities, without going to war or previous Congressional approval.
Nicaragua had brought the case before the ICJ in April 1984 based on purported violations of international law by the United States in the guise of illegal use of force, invasion of its territorial sovereignty, interference in its internal life, and violation of several bilateral agreements. The U.S. had sought to counter this by opposing the jurisdiction of the ICJ and subsequently had pulled out of the case. Apart from the U.S. participation on the merits stage, the Court proceeded with judgment, asserting its adherence to the doctrine of justice and binding nature of international law.
Issues
The Court was asked to rule on a variety of intricate and extensive legal issues:
Jurisdiction and Consent: Whether or not the ICJ had jurisdiction to decide the case, specifically in view of the U.S. withdrawal from proceedings and its reservation to Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute.
Customary International Law and Treaty Law: Whether customary international law rules against intervention and use of force were binding regardless of treaties, especially regarding U.S. opposition to treaty application.
Collective Self-Defense: Whether the actions of the United States were justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter as collective self-defense in favor of El Salvador and other states in the region.
Use of Unlawful Force and Intervention: Whether or not the United States’ action, including Contra assistance and direct military interventions, constituted a breach of international law.
Reparations and Accountability: What were the United States’ responsibilities as a result of its conduct, and whether or not it was obligated to make reparations to Nicaragua.
These questions not only resolved the present controversy but also had implications for the future of the international law system, namely on enforcement, compliance, and the intersection of power and law.
Arguments of the Parties
Nicaragua ‘s Submissions: Nicaragua filed a general case on the basis of documentary documentation, affidavits, and oral testimony. It alleged that the United States had committed several international law violations in approving armed attacks, invading Nicaraguan sovereignty, intervening in its internal affairs, and supporting illegal paramilitary activities. Nicaragua claimed that the U.S. activities amounted to an illegal use of force under UN Charter and customary international law. It further contended that the U.S. had no right to invoke the collective right of self-defense because there had not been any armed attack upon El Salvador, and no request had been made for such defense.
Defense of United States: United States initially protested against the jurisdiction of the ICJ by claiming that the Court was not competent to resolve disputes relating to armed conflicts in Central America, raising a reservation it had made to its Article 36(2) declaration. Subsequently, the U.S. withdrew itself from the case on the pretext that the case had become too political. In its initial filings, the U.S. alleged to have acted within its law in response to Nicaragua’s backing of Salvadoran armed insurgents and more broadly, and exercising collective right of self-defense. But it did not produce formal notice or international law required evidence, thus undermining its argument to the Court.
Judgment
Jurisdiction and Admissibility
The ICJ affirmatively reaffirmed its jurisdiction, ruling that the United States’s amendment of its jurisdictional declaration could not retroactively annul a case already pending. The Court interpreted Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute as compelling states to act in good faith and accept the Court’s jurisdiction consistently. It further grounded its ruling on the presence of pertinent treaty and customary law obligations between and binding both states.
Michael J. Glennon (1985) rebuked this move, condemning fears regarding the constitutional appropriateness of Executive unilateral modifications to international legal obligations. Glennon contended that the Executive’s effort to restrict judicial review without Congressional approval negated U.S. treaty obligations and rule of law in foreign policy.
Violation of International Law
The ICJ ruled that the United States had breached both the UN Charter and customary international law in its military intervention against Nicaragua, assistance to armed insurrection, and intervention in Nicaraguan domestic affairs. The Court emphasized that the prohibition of the use of force is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) and reaffirmed its binding character outside treaty regimes.
In the Court’s view, port bombing, installation sabotage, and support to rebels were not political acts—these were violations of basic international commitments. It held America accountable for its violation of Nicaragua’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Right of Self-Defense and Its Limits
The ICJ firmly dismissed the United States claim of collective self-defense. It reiterated three key legal requirements for exercising self-defense:
The existence of an armed attack;
A notification or appeal by the attacked state in a formal way;
A showing of necessity and proportionality to react.
The Court ruled none of these prerequisites were met. The Court’s ruling exercised restraint on law in sanctioning the use of force, precluding great powers from founding intervention on unsubstantiated threats, noted Leigh (1985).
Customary Law as a Legal Basis
Perhaps the most important part of the ruling was that of the Court’s resort to customary international law per se, not depending on treaties. The Court believed that the very substance of the UN Charter principles—sovereign equality, non-intervention, and non-use of force—constituted customary law as well and bind all states.
Though this argument was attacked, most notably by Glennon (1985), who argued illegitimacy in imposing obligations from changing customs where there has been no clear consent, the position of the Court affirming universality and consistency of fundamental international norms.
Remedies and Reparations
The ICJ ordered the United States to stop its unlawful actions and pay reparations to Nicaragua for the losses suffered. It recognized material and moral damages caused on the Nicaraguan state and people. The Court decreed that reparations should be paid in full, with a focus on the legal doctrine of restitutio in integrum (restoration to original form).
Enforcement of this decision was nevertheless rendered impossible. The United States objected to the judgment and frustrated attempts at enforcement in the United Nations Security Council by means of its veto. Nicaragua then abandoned its call for reparations in 1991, after a regime change and a general improvement in bilateral relations.
The case proved the insufficiency of the international system of law enforcement and judicial remedies against powerful states.
Legacy
The Nicaragua ruling is still a foundation in the ICJ and international law jurisprudence. It gave a significant boost to the subsequent legal advancements:
Acceptance of Customary International Law: The ruling proved that essential rules in the global legal order are viable regardless of treaty commitment.
Strengthening the Norm of Non-Intervention: It reiterated that regime-change interventions, even on humanitarian rationales, are illegal except if supported by the Security Council specifically.
Clarification of the Law on Self-Defense: The ICJ elaborated the norm of collective self-defense and imposed strict conditions for the legal application thereof.
Introduction of the “Effective Control” Test: This case established the precedent for the effective control doctrine of state responsibility, as later applied in Bosnia v. Serbia (2007).
Despite non-enforcement, however, the judgment is a strong normative standard. As Leigh (1985) implies, it reaffirmed the place of law in limiting the actions of even great powers, and cemented the ICJ as a court of justice and accountability.
Conclusion
The 1986 ICJ decision in Nicaragua v. United States is a cornerstone of contemporary international legal order. It revived the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and proved that even dominant states are not exempt from the principles of international law. Although the decision was resisted and eventually not implemented, its juristic certainty, moral legitimacy, and doctrinal accuracy left a lasting impact on international jurisprudence.
In declaring and upholding the very essence of non-use and non-intervention, the Court asserted once again the unbreachable sovereignty of states and broadened judicial safeguards for fragile states. The decision’s legacy endures—not only as a deterrent against noncompliance, but as an ideal exemplar of legal integrity and judicial autonomy in a system all too frequently strained by geopolitics.
Sources
International Court of Justice
United Nations Charter
Leigh, M., 1985. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). 1984 ICJ Reports 392. American Journal of International Law, pp.442–446.
Glennon, M.J., 1985. Nicaragua v. United States: Constitutional-ity of US Modification of ICJ Jurisdiction. American Journal of International Law, 79(3), pp.682–689.
