SUMMARY NICARAGUA CASE

International court of Justice affirmed the traditional definition of self defence by

Nicaragua case1 the right wing Samoza Government in Nicaragua was overthrown in revolution
by left wing Sandinista Government. For more detail In July 1979 the government of president
Samoza was replaced by government by FSLN, and the supporter of Samoza government and the
former member national guard opposed the new government. In the beginning U.S support the
new government but attitude already change that found the Nicaragua was providing the logistical
support and weapon for the guerillas in El Savador. President U.S Reagan halt the economic aid
to Nicaragua by reason they have been aided guerrillas fighting against the El Salvador
Government and enjoyed good relation with United states and also allowed USSR arms to pass
the port and territority to en the route to El Salvador. United State “decided to plan and undertake
activities direct against Nicaragua”. Nicaragua claimed that United States had contrary action to
costomary international law. As mention above U.S. use the direct armed force and put down the
mines in Nicaraguan internal and territorial water that causing damage to Nicaraguan and also
foreign merchant ships, and attacking cause damaging the Nicaraguan port, oil installation and
naval base. Second is given assistance to the contras, Nicaraguean gurrillas fighting to overthrown
the Sandanista government. Base on claimed that Nicaragua established that United States had
breach bilateral treaty 1956 U.S.-Nicaragua treaty of friendship, commerce and Navigation.

The armed activities against the new government was exercise by

Fuerza Democratica Nicaragüense (FDN) which operated along the border of Honduras and the
Aliaza Revolucionaria Democratiza (ARDE) which operated along the border of Costa Rica. U.S
initially supported for the group fighting called contras to against Nicaragua Government was
covert, as time goes by United States as official admit its support, such as in 1983 budgertary
legislation enacted by United States Congress was made spessific provision for funds to use by
intelligence agencies of U.S for directly or indirectly military or paramilitary operation in
Nicaragua. Nicaragua alleged that United Stated is effectively in control of the contras, and
planned strategy and direct tactic, and contras were paid by United States. Niacaragua were carried
out as directly by United States military which aimed to oberthrown the government of Nicaragua.

1
2 Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14, 103 (June 27)
Niacague also alleged that aircraft flew over the Niacarague belonging to United States to gather
intelligence and supply to contras field, and aldo to intimidate the population. The Nicarague
application to ICJ to settle the dispute that indicated Nicarague intended to rely on the compulsory
jurisdiction on ICJ under article 36 (2) of the statue of the court2 to exercise the court jurisdiction
theboth parties must accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ, but United States refuse the ICJ’s
Jurisdiction to decide the case and it was not contested that United States had accepted the
jurisdiction of the ICJ by virtue of the U.S. Declaration of consent of 19463. The court agreed with
Nicaragua that not conceded the declaration of consent the jurisdiction of the ICJ and assert the
valid jurisdiction is form article 36 (5), and stated that inherent right of collective self defence
listed in Article 51 UN. The International Court of Justice found that United States provided
logistical assistance, weapon and finance to guerilla force to attack the Nicaraguan armed forces
and the civilian in Niacaragua.

The court expressed the Unites States have a legal responsibility under international law
for the attack and it must have effective control over the group exercise the attack, nevertheless
the court did not provide any real guidance on what constitute the lower limits of effective control4

2
Judgment. supra note 1. at 8.
3
See supra note 2
4
This failure attracted some criticism by academic writers: see for example T.D.Gill, 'The law of armed attack in the
Nicaragua case', Hague Yearbook of International Law 1988, at pp 50- 52