Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.

United States of
America)
Facts:
Nicaragua (P) brought a suit against the United States (D) on the ground that the United States (D) was
responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.
In July 1979, the Government of President Somoza (Former President of Nicaragua) 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”.
US Empowered Local Resistance
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 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.

Case Proceedings in the ICJ

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-defence guaranteed in Article 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 (paras
126, 128). (Defense of US)
Issues
WON the United States violated 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?
Held
The prohibition on the use of force is found both in Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations (UN
Charter) and in customary international law.
In a controversial finding the Court sub-classified the use of force as:
(1) “most grave forms of the use of force” (i.e. those that constitute an armed attack); and
(2) “other less grave forms” of the use of force (i.e. organizing, instigating, assisting, or participating in
acts of civil strife and terrorist acts in another State – when the acts referred to involve a threat or use of
force, but not amounting to an armed attack). (Para 191),
The United States violated the customary international law prohibition on the use of force when
it laid mines in Nicaraguan ports. It also violated this prohibition when it attacked Nicaraguan ports, oil
installations, and a naval base (see below). The United States could only justify its action on the basis of
collective self-defence, if certain criteria were met (these criteria are discussed below).
The United States violated the customary international law prohibition on the use of force when it
assisted the contras by “organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces and armed
bands… for incursion into the territory of another state” and participated “in acts of civil strife…in another
State” and when these acts involved the threat or use of force.
The supply of funds to the contras did not violate the prohibition on the use of force. On the contrary,
Nicaragua had previously argued before the Court that the United States determined the timing of
offensives against Nicaragua when it provided funds to the contras.
The Court held that “…it does not follow that each provision of funds by the United States was
made to set in motion a particular offensive, and that that offensive was planned by the United
States.” The Court held further that the arming and training of the contras and the supply of funds, in
itself, only amounted to acts of intervention in the internal affairs of Nicaragua and did not violate the
prohibition on the use of force (para 227) (again, this aspect will be discussed in detail below).
1. The US participation, even if only preponderant or decisive based on evidence in the possession
of the courts, in the provision of funds, training, supervision, supplying of equipment and planning
of operations for military and paramilitary activities to armed rebels against Nicarague. (Is not
conclusive proof that US directed the rebellion and the following acts which resulted to human
rights violations as alleged by Nicarague, as it could be directed to the acts of the contras alone).
It would have to be proved that the US had EFFECTIVE CONTROL over the operations.
2. The liability of the US was only with regard its own conduct in relation to the unlawful acts which it
may be responsible directly in connection with the activities of the contras. (Different from the
violations of humanitarian law which the contras may or may not have been guilty) The court does
not have to determine the alleged violations against the contras, or whether those acts were
ordered by the US.
3. Nicarague produced evidence of 2 publications claiming to be by the CIA in training guerillas to
overthrow the Nicaraguan government.
Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones
sicológicas en guerra de guerillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the
commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law: but does not find a basis
for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of
America as acts of the United States of America; [...]
Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the
mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under
customary international law in this respect.

Court Decisions
12 – 3 Rejects the justification of collective self defense
12 – 3 US by Training contra forces has acted in breach of its customary obligation in
international law not to intervene in internal affairs of a state.
12 – 3 US by certain attacks to Nicaraguan territories breach its customary obligation not to use
force against another state.
12 – 3 US violated sovereignty of Nicaragua
12- 3 US by laying mines use of force, usurping sovereignty, intervening in internal affairs
14 – 1 US did not instigate military rebellion by publishing a contra operations manual
12 -3 US should make reparations for all the injuries caused by the breaches of obligations in
customary international law.