İçindekiler Tablosu
a.Statute of International Court of Justice 14
b.Structure of Statute of International Court of Justice15
a.American Protectorate from 1913 to 193339
b.Nicaraguan Revolution39
c.Recent History between Nicaragua and United States of America40
a.Facts of the Case42
Letter from Secretary General
Distinguished delegates and participants of MUNZ’25,
First and foremost I welcome all of you to the second annual edition of MUNZ. My name is Ferhat Deniz Kale and I am currently a junior student studying at Zafer College, it is my utmost pleasure to welcome all of you as the Secretary General of this conference.
It certainly was not easy to prepare this conference but I wholeheartedly believe that all of you will enjoy what we will be offering for the next 3 days both academically and organizationally, to me MUN conferences are both extremely entertaining and improve one’s ability to critically think and speaking skills and one of the main reasons why I am still attending conferences for the past 2-3 years.
I believe that the study guides of your respective committee will have extensive information and shall help you research on the agenda items. With that being said I want to thank my first Deputy Secretary General Boran Alabay for assisting me on certain matters. Additionally I want to thank my Deputy Secretary General Volkan for being an amazing friend and helper throughout my mun journey. He is essentially like a brother to me and I couldn’t be more thankful for that, additionally I want to thank my Head of Crisis Ulaşcan Tunçinan for being one of, if not, the greatest person I have ever met, without him I would not be here writing this letter, also I especially thank my Academic Advisor Görkem Can Coşkun for always being with me and helping me with academic and general matters. I could not have asked for a more loyal and trustworthy person, without him this conference wouldn’t be the same. With that being said I lastly want to thank the whole academic team for their efforts, they are some of the greatest people I have ever met and definitely some of the most hardworking people out there.
I hope that MUNZ’25 will be an enjoyable conference to all of you, I wish you the best of luck during the committees. Looking forward to see all of you!
Yours sincerely
Ferhat Deniz Kale
Secretary General of MUNZ’25
Letter from Under-Secretary General
Esteemed Judges and Advocates of MUNZ’25,
My name is Ipeksu Kaya. I am a sophomore student at Hacettepe University studying English Language Teaching. I will be serving as your Under-Secretary General for this year’s MUNZ Conference in International Court of Justice. I would love to start as my letter with my gratitude towards my beloved Judges and Advocates who will do everything that is necessary within the committee. These days cannot be possible without you. I am really glad that all of you are here today.
Secondly, our beloved Secretary General Deniz and his Academic and Organization Teams; with your tremendous amount of hard work, we are able to stand here today as participants of this incredible conference. I am more than proud to see Deniz in such a demanding role as Secretary General, I believe there is no one more capable than Deniz to pull this role off. I am grateful to see you in such a position, and I am more than thankful that you gave me a chance to create such a committee. I would also love to thank to my incredible HUMUN family who has been always there for me throughout my MUN journey.
Last but not least, our amazing MUNZ delegates, honorable judges, and advocates. With you participation we will be able to pull off such an amazing and prestigious conference. I hope you enjoy your every second during this year’s MUNZ.
If you have any questions, never hesitate to contact me.
Justice for all.
e-mail: ipeksuky4545@gmail.com
The International Court of Justice is an international court located in The Hague, Netherlands. International courts are established through treaties between states or by international organizations like the United Nations. These courts encompass both ad hoc tribunals and permanent institutions, excluding any courts that operate solely under national jurisdiction. The International Court of Justice is the sole international tribunal that resolves general disputes between nations and provides advisory opinions on matters of international law. The International Court of Justice is one of the six organs of the United Nations and also serves as its primary judicial organ.
The establishment of the Court marked the culmination of a lengthy evolution in methods for the peaceful resolution of international disputes, a process with roots extending back to classical antiquity.
Historically, mediation and arbitration preceded judicial settlement. Mediation was practiced in ancient India and the Islamic world, while examples of arbitration can be traced back to ancient Greece, China, Arabian tribal customs, medieval European maritime law, and the practices of the Papacy.
Article 33 of the United Nations Charter outlines several approaches to peacefully settling disputes between states, including negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and the use of regional agencies or arrangements. Additionally, the concept of “good offices” is often included. Some of these methods rely on the involvement of third parties. For instance, mediation facilitates a resolution by enabling the disputing parties to reach an agreement with the assistance of a neutral intermediary. Arbitration, on the other hand, requires the parties to submit their dispute to an impartial third party for a binding decision or award. Similarly, judicial settlement, as practiced by the International Court of Justice, involves adjudication by a court, which operates under stricter procedural rules compared to arbitral tribunals.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), established during the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, was the first permanent institution dedicated to resolving international disputes. Initiated by Russian Tsar Nicholas II, the conference brought together the world’s major powers and several smaller states, culminating in the first multilateral treaties addressing the conduct of warfare. The primary goal of the Conference was to deliberate on issues of peace and disarmament. The Conference included participation from smaller European states, certain Asian nations, and Mexico, which was a notable departure from the norms of the time. One of the outcomes of the aforementioned treaties was the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which established the institutional and procedural framework for arbitration proceedings to be conducted in The Hague, Netherlands.
The Conference itself ultimately concluded with the adoption of a Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which addressed not only arbitration but also other peaceful dispute resolution methods, such as good offices and mediation. The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in 1900 and began proceedings in 1902.
The second Hague Peace Conference, held in 1907 with participation from most of the world’s sovereign states, revised the original convention and improved the rules governing arbitral proceedings under the PCA. During this conference, the United States, Great Britain, and Germany jointly proposed the establishment of a permanent court with full-time judges. However, due to a lack of consensus among delegates on the method of selecting judges, the proposal was postponed for consideration at a future convention.
The devastation and destruction of the First World War prompted the establishment of the League of Nations during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, marking the creation of the first global intergovernmental organization dedicated to preserving peace and ensuring collective security. Article 14 of the League’s Covenant called for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), tasked with resolving international disputes submitted by the parties involved and providing advisory opinions on questions referred to it by the League of Nations.
In December 1920, after extensive drafting and debate, the League’s Assembly unanimously adopted the statute of the PCIJ, which was signed and ratified the following year by a majority of member states. The statute addressed the contentious issue of judicial selection by stipulating that judges would be elected concurrently but independently by both the League’s Council and Assembly. The composition of the PCIJ was designed to reflect the “main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world.” The court was permanently housed in the Peace Palace in The Hague, alongside the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The establishment of the PCIJ marked a significant advancement in the history of international legal proceedings, as evidenced by the following:
Unlike the ICJ, the PCIJ was not a part of the League of Nations, and membership in the League did not automatically make states parties to its Statute. Notably, the United States, which played a significant role in both the second Hague Peace Conference and the Paris Peace Conference, was not a member of the League. Despite this, several U.S. nationals served as judges on the Court.
From its inaugural session in 1922 until 1940, the PCIJ adjudicated 29 interstate disputes and issued 27 advisory opinions. The Court’s widespread recognition was evidenced by the fact that numerous international treaties and agreements granted it jurisdiction over specific categories of disputes. Beyond resolving several major international conflicts, the PCIJ also helped clarify ambiguities in international law, significantly contributing to its development.
The outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, marked by the invasion of Poland by German forces, had significant consequences for the PCIJ, which had already been experiencing a decline in its activities in preceding years. After its final public sitting on 4 December 1939 and its last order on 26 February 1940, the Court ceased to conduct any judicial business, and no further elections for judges were held. In 1940, the Court relocated to Geneva, leaving one judge in The Hague along with a few Registry officials of Dutch nationality. Despite the ongoing conflict, discussions about the Court’s future and the establishment of a new international political order were still necessary.
In 1942, both the United States Secretary of State and the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary expressed support for the creation or re-establishment of an international court following the war, while the Inter-American Juridical Committee recommended an expansion of the PCIJ’s jurisdiction. Early in 1943, the United Kingdom government took the lead in inviting experts to London to form an informal Inter-Allied Committee to address this issue. This Committee, chaired by Sir William Malkin of the United Kingdom, convened 19 meetings, attended by jurists from 11 different countries.
The Committee proposed the following recommendations for the Statute of any new international court:
On 30 October 1943, following a conference, the major world powers at the time, (China, the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the United States) issued a joint declaration acknowledging the necessity “of establishing as soon as practicable a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.
At the subsequent Allied conference at Dumbarton Oaks in the United States, a proposal was published in October 1944 calling for the creation of an intergovernmental organization that would include an international court. In April 1945, a meeting of 44 jurists from around the world was convened in Washington, D.C., to draft a statute for the proposed court. The draft statute closely mirrored that of the PCIJ, raising questions about whether a new court should even be established.
During the San Francisco Conference, held from 25 April to 26 June 1945 with the participation of 50 countries, it was decided that an entirely new court should be created as a principal organ of the newly formed United Nations. The statute of this new court would be an integral part of the United Nations Charter, which, in order to preserve continuity, explicitly stated that the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was based on that of the PCIJ.
The PCIJ convened for the final time in October 1945 and decided to transfer its archives and materials to the newly established International Court of Justice (ICJ), which, like its predecessor, would have its seat at the Peace Palace. All judges of the PCIJ resigned on 31 January 1946, and the election of the first members of the ICJ occurred on 6 February 1946, during the First Session of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council.
In April 1946, the PCIJ was formally dissolved, and the ICJ, at its inaugural meeting, elected Judge José Gustavo Guerrero (El Salvador), the last President of the PCIJ, as its first President. The Court appointed members of its Registry, largely selecting former PCIJ officials, and held its first public sitting on 18 April 1946. The first case was submitted in May 1947, concerning incidents in the Corfu Channel, and was brought by the United Kingdom against Albania.
Established in 1945 by the United Nations Charter, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began operations in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, largely modeled on that of its predecessor, serves as the primary constitutional document defining and regulating the Court’s functions.
The ICJ’s workload encompasses a broad spectrum of judicial activities. In a landmark case, Nicaragua v. United States, the Court determined that the United States’ covert war against Nicaragua violated international law. Following this ruling, the United States withdrew from the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, limiting its acceptance of jurisdiction to a discretionary basis.
Under Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter, the UN Security Council is authorized to enforce the Court’s decisions. However, enforcement is contingent upon the agreement of the five permanent members of the Council, each of whom holds veto power. In the Nicaragua case, the United States exercised this veto to block enforcement.
The Statute of the International Court of Justice is incorporated into the United Nations Charter as an integral component, as outlined in Chapter XIV of the Charter. This chapter formally established the International Court of Justice, succeeding the Permanent Court of International Justice.
All 193 United Nations member states are parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice by virtue of their ratification of the UN Charter. According to Article 93(2) of the UN Charter, states that are not UN members may become parties to the Statute if recommended by the United Nations Security Council and approved by the United Nations General Assembly.
As of 2025, neither of the UN General Assembly non-member observer states, the State of Palestine and the Holy See, nor any other non-member states, have become parties to the Statute under these provisions. Historically, several states—Switzerland (1948–2002), Liechtenstein (1950–1990), San Marino (1954–1992), Japan (1954–1956), and Nauru (1988–1999)—were parties to the Statute before attaining UN membership.
Furthermore, states not party to the Statute can utilize the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 35(2) of the Statute, provided they issue a declaration accepting the Court’s jurisdiction and committing to abide by its rulings. As of 2025, Palestine has made two such declarations in connection with specific disputes.
The Statute is divided into 5 chapters and consists of 70 articles. The 70 Articles are grouped in 5 Chapters:
The primary role of the International Court of Justice is to resolve legal disputes between states in accordance with international law. Additionally, the International Court of Justice provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The International Court of Justice is the sole international court authorized to adjudicate disputes between the 193 United Nations member states. By offering a legal mechanism for the resolution of conflicts, the International Court of Justice plays a pivotal role in promoting global peace and security, enabling nations to address disagreements without resorting to violence or war.
The International Court of Justice was established in the aftermath of World War II to encourage nations to resolve disputes through legal frameworks and institutional mechanisms rather than through hostility and conflict. As the most prominent international tribunal, the International Court of Justice serves as a cornerstone in the pursuit of global peace and the rule of law. All United Nations member states are parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing cases involving states, as it does not address matters concerning individuals. The prosecution of individuals is instead handled by domestic courts and other international judicial bodies, such as the International Criminal Court.
It is also important to differentiate between the purposes of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court since there is frequent confusion between the two. The distinction between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court lies in their focus and jurisdiction. The International Court of Justice addresses disputes between states, while the International Criminal Court is a criminal tribunal that prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The International Court of Justice operates as a principal organ of the United Nations, whereas the International Criminal Court is legally independent of the UN, although it is endorsed by the UN General Assembly. Unlike the International Court of Justice, not all 193 UN member states are parties to the International Criminal Court. However, the International Criminal Court can initiate investigations and prosecute cases involving alleged crimes committed within the territory or by nationals of a state party to the International Criminal Court or of a state that has accepted its jurisdiction.
The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, which vote simultaneously but independently. A candidate must secure an absolute majority in both bodies to be elected, often requiring multiple voting rounds. To maintain continuity, one-third of the Court is elected every three years, and judges are eligible for re-election. If a judge resigns or passes away, a special election is held to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.
Elections take place during the General Assembly’s annual autumn session in New York, and the newly elected judges begin their terms on February 6 of the following year. Following their inauguration, the Court holds a secret ballot to elect its President and Vice-President for three-year terms.
All States party to the ICJ Statute may propose candidates, but these nominations are not submitted by governments. Instead, they are made by a group of four jurists from each state’s members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), as established under the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. States not in the PCA follow a similar nomination process. Each group can nominate up to four candidates, with a maximum of two from its own country, and the remainder from any other nation, irrespective of its status as a party to the ICJ Statute. Candidates’ names are submitted to the UN Secretary-General within a specified deadline.
Judges must be individuals of high moral character, qualified for the highest judicial offices in their countries, or internationally recognized legal experts in international law. The Court must include no more than one judge of any nationality and must reflect the principal legal systems and civilizations globally.
Once elected, judges serve as independent adjudicators, not as representatives of their governments or any state. Before assuming office, judges make a solemn public declaration to perform their duties impartially and conscientiously. Judges cannot be dismissed unless all other members unanimously determine that the judge no longer meets the necessary qualifications—a situation that has never occurred.
The President and Vice-President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are elected by the Members of the Court every three years through a secret ballot. The election takes place on the day newly elected judges commence their terms or shortly thereafter. An absolute majority is required to secure election, and there are no nationality restrictions. Both the President and Vice-President are eligible for re-election.
The President oversees all Court meetings, manages its work, and supervises its administrative functions. This is done with support from a Budgetary and Administrative Committee and other committees, all composed of Members of the Court. During judicial deliberations, the President holds the authority to cast a deciding vote if there is a tie.
The International Court of Justice generally conducts its work as a full court, with a quorum of nine judges (excluding judges ad hoc) sufficient for deliberations. However, it can also establish permanent or temporary chambers to handle specific matters. Different types of Chambers are as follows:
The Court may hear two types of cases: legal disputes between states that are brought before it by the states themselves (contentious cases), and requests for advisory opinions on legal matters referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies (advisory proceedings).
Only States (those that are Members of the United Nations, other States that have become parties to the Statute of the Court, or those that have accepted its jurisdiction under specific conditions) can be parties in contentious cases. The Court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute only if the involved States have accepted its jurisdiction in one of the following ways:
States do not have permanent representatives accredited to the Court. They typically communicate with the Registrar through their Minister for Foreign Affairs or their ambassador to the Netherlands. When involved in a case before the Court, they are represented by an agent. An agent holds the same role, rights, and obligations as a solicitor or avoué in a national court. However, since international relations are involved, the agent also functions as the head of a special diplomatic mission, possessing authority to bind a sovereign State. The agent receives communications from the Registrar regarding the case and forwards all signed or certified correspondence and pleadings.
During public hearings, the agent presents the case on behalf of the government they represent and submits formal requests. In general, any official action required by the represented government is executed by the agent. Agents may be supported by co-agents, deputy agents, or assistant agents, and always work with counsel or advocates, whom they coordinate in preparing pleadings and delivering oral arguments. Since there is no specific International Court of Justice Bar, counsel or advocates are not required to meet specific qualifications to plead before the Court, other than being appointed by a government.
Advisory proceedings before the Court are limited to five United Nations organs and 16 specialized agencies or affiliated organizations within the UN system.
The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council are entitled to request advisory opinions on any legal question. Other UN organs and specialized agencies authorized to request advisory opinions can only do so concerning legal questions within the scope of their specific activities.
When the Court receives a request for an advisory opinion, it must gather all relevant facts and may conduct both written and oral proceedings, similar to those in contentious cases. While the Court could technically proceed without such hearings, it has never fully dispensed with them.
Shortly after a request is submitted, the Court compiles a list of States and international organizations that might be able to provide relevant information on the matter at hand. These States are not considered parties to the advisory proceedings, and their representatives are not termed “agents.” Additionally, the Court’s opinion is not binding on them. Typically, the States listed are members of the organization that requested the opinion. Any State not consulted by the Court may request to be included.
Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the main medium for foreign policy which represents broader goals and strategies that guide a state’s interactions with the rest of the world. There are international treaties, conventions, agreements, alliances, and other manifestations of international relations to better the diplomacy of the world and processes.
Diplomats
Diplomatic Immunity
Diplomatic immunity is one of the oldest practices of international law and diplomacy; most civilizations since antiquity practiced this status for their diplomatic personnel abroad. It is designed to reserve diplomatic personnel a freedom while performing their duties in the host countries without the fear of freedom. It not only has benefits for sending country but for receiving state as well in the means of diplomatic arena.
Military activities as a term refers to operations, exercises, and practices undertaken by a state’s official armed forces either within its borders or outside of the territory. These activities can be performed for several purposes such as national defense, internal security, peacekeeping, or offensive operations. Domestically performed, military activities refer to protecting the sovereignty, maintaining internal order, or responding to emergencies such as natural disasters. According to Clausewitz, the military’s role within a state is foundational to the “continuation of policy by other means” and serves as a vital tool for preserving state authority and stability.
When military activities occur inside the borders of a nation, the United Nations or any other upper governmental organization cannot always be able to intervene within the activity. The action of the armed forces must use unfair overpowering to the civilians in order for upper governmental organizations to be eligible to intervene. Nevertheless, when military activities occur outside of a state’s border by their official armed forces; they often take the form of foreign intervention, peacekeeping missions, or participation in alliances. Such operations are justified under self-defense in the Article 51 of the United Nations Charter or through mandates provided by international organizations like the United Nations Security Council. For an armed force of a state to operate outside of the territory, there should be either a severe national security alert, or internal order crossing. Otherwise, the receiving state may have a right to use its self-defense armed conflict to the other state
Because of the differences made about peacekeeping operations since 1988, it is not easy in today’s world to determine the activities or generalize them as it is with classical missions. The former Secretary-General of the United nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, described peacekeeping activities as “the supervision of cease-fires, the regrouping and demobilization of forces, their reintegration into civilian life and the destruction of their weapons; the designing and implementation of de-mining programs; the return of refugees and displaced persons; the provision of humanitarian assistance; the supervision of existing administrative structures; the establishment of new police forces; the verification of respect for human rights; the design and supervision of constitutional, judicial and electoral reforms; the observation, supervision and even organization and conduct of elections; and the co-ordination of support for economic rehabilitation and reconstruction.” Other missions not included in peacekeeping activities are concentrated on humanitarian activities such as in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania; whether delivering or protecting humanitarian aid.
The primary mission of military activities as in peacekeeping in complex operations is to “maintain a secure local environment for peacebuilding.” Also, it is up to civilian peace builders to support the political, social and economic changes that create a secure environment which is self-sustaining. The civilian peace-builders are also to tolerate recurrence of conflict according to United Nations negotiations for military activities. There are tasks that are established by United Nations that enables us to determine a military activities eligibility:
3. Maintain buffer zones.
6. Prevent infiltration.
14. Restoration of law and order.
16. Establishment of safe areas.
18. Enforcement of sanctions.
Besides the more traditional tasks such as the tasks mentioned above, there are other activities that centered around humanitarian support. The tasks of humanitarian aids by military activities may include:
One of the dividing factors of humanitarian aid activities taken over by military forces is they might have spontaneous initiative by soldiers rather than being mandate; however, to avoid any misconduct in international scale, the humanitarian aids have been always a part of the mandatory activities decided by the states.
Military activities apart from the borders of the registered armed forces’ state can also include covert operations, paramilitary operations, or support for non-state factors. Military activities often blur lines between conventional warfare, respecting the sovereignty rights and other forms of conflict. As stated in the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (1986), the International Court of Justice emphasizes that such military actions across the borders could easily violate principles of non-intervention and sovereignty.
Paramilitary activities as a term used to refer to operations conducted by armed groups that are organized exactly as military forces however not officially recognized or registered as part of state’s regular armed forces. The activities made by paramilitary groups often include unconventional warfare, internal suppression, and support for insurgencies or proxy wars.
Within the borders of the country, they are operating under, paramilitary activities are often used to maintain internal security, reshape political agendas, or suppress opposition. In many cases, the governments employ paramilitary groups for missions that regular official armed forces of the country cannot take under without facing legal or public scrutiny. In the means of this, paramilitary activities often used as a scape goat by governments to avoid legal problems that normal military forces may create. Depending on the definitions, “paramilitaries” may include:
In the means of both international contexts, paramilitary activities pose significant problems global security and legal order since they are not registered as official armed forces to the country they are operating within, the state may easily escape the legal burden of carrying a military operation. This also allows the state to escape the traditional frameworks of accountability, operating in the gaps between state and non-state actors. The rise of paramilitary forces reflects the complexities of modern warfare, where states and non-state actors increasingly rely on irregular means to achieve their objectives. These activities undertaken by the paramilitary groups also create major gap for human rights violations.
State Sovereignty
The concept of sovereignty was solidified in the 1648 treaty of Westphalia first, which established the modern state system and decided the characteristics of a sovereign state. The sovereignty, according to the treaty, has two key dimensions: internal and external. Internal sovereignty refers to a state’s authority to enact internal laws, maintain order, and control its resources as it wishes within its borders. This sovereignty cannot be broken under any circumstances and must be respected full-fledged by the other states. Under the circumstances where the internal sovereignty is not respected and violated, the sovereign state has a full right to defend itself and its territory within all of its power. This sovereignty also allows to regulate economic, social, and political affairs without interference from other states or entities.
External sovereignty, on the other hand, is the recognition that given by other states and international organizations of a state’s independence and its equal status in the international community. The United Nations Charter Article 2(1) states that the organization of United Nations is based on the sovereign equality of all its Members.
Westphalian Sovereignty
Westphalian sovereignty is named after the treaty of Westphalia, with the description of Westphalian system of state sovereignty, we made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognized the right of princes to confessionalize the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms.
Constitutive Theory
Declarative Theory
A defined territory
A government
According to this theory, if the sovereign state falls into every criteria without exception mentioned above, it must be recognized as a sovereign state by any other international community, and is bounded by the international law; whether it is recognized by any other state or not.
The case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) is one of the many cases that benefited from several international treaties and conventions. The following headlines will be explaining the main treaties, charters, and conventions that are mostly used by both sides during this case.
Charter of United Nations (1945)
The United Nations Charter creates a mandatory ruling system for its member states to maintain their international relations accordingly. All of the member states that are signatories for United Nations, are strictly bound to this Charter for every of their international actions and relations with every other member state.
For the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) the following articles are relevant because of the involvement of military and paramilitary activities across the border:
Article 2(4):
“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of United Nations.”
Article 51:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay; by the president of United States of America, Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the time, establishing a Good Neighbor Policy which is to create an anti-military action series towards the close states of United States of America instead of armed intervention in inter-American affairs. The Convention was signed by 19 states including United States of America and Nicaragua.
This Convention on the Rights and Duties of States’ all of the articles are about the intervention rights, self-defense, and military actions of signatory states. Nevertheless, the following articles are some of the most significant one for the case:
Article 8:
“No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”
Article 5:
“The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner or whatsoever.”
This series of treaties was established to create peaceful and cooperative relations between the Nicaraguan Government and United States of America. During this case, the Nicaraguan Government stated that the treaties about the mutual respect for sovereignty and the right to territory, as well as the non-intervention were breached by the United States of America with the activities of military and paramilitary activities in Nicaraguan territory.
This Treaty on Pacific Settlement, also known as Pact of Bogota, was signed by independent republics of America gathered at the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogota. The purpose of the treaty was to enforce a general obligation, and mutual respect on signatories to settle their disputes through peaceful means, rather than military activities. This very treaty, both signed by Nicaragua and United States of America, also creates an obligation to inaugurate under never performing paramilitary activities in any of the signatory independent American republic. The relevant article below is one of the most significant bases of this case:
Article 31:
“Recognizes the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice resolving disputes between member states.”
Introduction to the Case
The United States of America insistently refused to participate in proceedings, leading the verdict to came out late, arguing with International Court of Justice for their views on the matter and even sent out a threating letter to Nicaraguan Government during the case hearings. The hearings of the case revolved around two major if’s: whether the United States violated Nicaragua’s sovereignty and whether its actions could be justified under international law.
The Unites States of America and Nicaraguan Government have consistently remained their friendly bilateral relations in the recent years. Nevertheless, in the 19th and 20th centuries, tensions were extremely high between two countries especially with the case of the Military and Paramilitary Activities between them. In addition, during the 1980s, Red Scare Paranoia and an attempt to put down socialism in the region, United States of America proceeded to wage over several independent American republics including Nicaragua.
a .American Protectorate 1913 to 1933
Benjamin Harrison states that Wilson was strictly committed in Latin America to the fostering democracy and stable governments, as well as fair economic policies. Woodrow Wilson was extremely frustrated by the chaotic genesis in Nicaragua. Facing a Liberal rebellion, a treaty called Bryan-Chamorro Treaty was signed between Nicaragua and United States of America. The treaty prohibited Nicaragua from ever declaring a war on any other country, never granting a territorial concession, and would not contract with any other state outside debts without Washington’s approval. This treaty made Nicaragua turn into a semi-sovereign state, operating under United States of America.
Nicaraguan Revolution
After a long-lasting terrorism condemnation of United States of America, the Government of US started to aim for support to consolidation of the democratic process in Nicaragua starting with 1990’s election of President Chamorro. United States of America also started to promote national reconciliation, encouraging Nicaraguans to resolve the problems between Nicaragua and United States of America via dialogue and international official diplomatic relations.
Recently, the Nicaraguan Government and United States of America came to agree upon the listed policy goals by United States of America:
History of the Case
In response to those policies and close ties with leftist governments, the United States of America began supporting the Contras, anti-Sandinista rebel group active in Nicaragua, to bring chaos into the Nicaraguan Government. Administration of United States of America not only supported the rebel group but also provided them with funding, training, and supplying arms to the Contras, as well as conducting covert military operations, such as the mining of harbors and airstrikes against key infrastructure.
a. Facts of the Case
The case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) first started to revolve around the allegations made by the Nicaraguan Government. Nevertheless, both parties came into agreement sooner or later for the facts listed below:
Applicable Law
United Nations Charter (1945)
Article 51:
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945):
Article 36(2):
Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, all of Article XIX
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933):
Article 8:
American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogota, 1948):
Article 31:
Geneva Conventions (1949):
Common Article 3:
References
Avalon Project – the Covenant of the League of Nations. avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp.
Cesare PR Romano, et al. The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication. OUP Oxford, 2014.
Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present. City Lights Books, 1997.
Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Princeton University Press, 1976.
Eyffinger, Arthur. “A Highly Critical Moment: Role and Record of the 1907 Hague Peace Conference.” Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 54, no. 02, Aug. 2007, p. 197. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0165070x07001970.
Hilderbrand, Robert C. “Dumbarton Oaks: The Origins of the United Nations and the Search for Postwar Security.” The SHAFR Guide Online, 2 Oct. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim300060044.
“How the Court Works.” INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. www.icj-cij.org/how-the-court-works.
Hudson, Manley O. “The Succession of the International Court of Justice to the Permanent Court of International Justice.” American Journal of International Law, vol. 51, no. 3, July 1957, pp. 569–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2195063.
Jasentuliyana, Nandasiri, ed. Perspectives on International Law. Kluwer Law International, 1995.
Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster, 1994.
Laurence, 1999:31, 48. Doyle already observes: “Although the circumstances in Haiti are unique, the case suggests a pattern that may be replicated in the future: a contracted out enforcement action to end the violence followed by a consent-based UN operation to consolidate peace” (Doyle 1997:7). This is also the scenario the Brahimi Report draws.
Lim, C. L. The Cambridge Companion to International Arbitration. Cambridge UP, 2021.
“Members of the Court.” INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. www.icj-cij.org/members.
Meyer, John. Paramilitary Forces and International Security. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 14–150, https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
Nicolson, Harold. Diplomacy. Oxford University Press, 1939.
Philpott, Daniel. “Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 48, no. 2, 1995, pp. 353–368.
“Presidency.” INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. www.icj-cij.org/presidency.
Ralston, Jackson Harvey. International Arbitration, From Athens to Locarno. 1929.
Shaw, Malcolm N. International Law. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Siander, Andreas. “Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth.” International Organization, vol. 55, no. 2, 2001, pp. 251–287.
Subramanian, S. R. “Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and the Balance between Immunities and the Duty to Respect the Local Laws and Regulations under the Vienna Conventions: The Recent Indian Experience.” The Chinese Journal of Global Governance, 2017.
“United Nations Charter.” United Nations, 1945, www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter.
Wilkinson, Paul. Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. Routledge, 2006.