Make a Submission
Vol. 36 (2016)
General Articles

The Nicaragua Judgment and the Use of Force – 30 Years Later

PDF
  • Roman Kwiecień
Roman Kwiecień
Cracow University of Economics

Published 2016-12-31

Keywords

  • armed attack,
  • counter-measures,
  • customary international law,
  • Nicaragua judgement,
  • UN Character,
  • use of force,
  • self-defence
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2021 Polish Yearbook of International Law

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

The Nicaragua Judgment and the Use of Force – 30 Years Later. (2016). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 36, 21-36. https://doi.org/10.7420/pyil2016b

Abstract

In light of contemporary circumstances, on the 30th anniversary of the Nicaragua judgment it is worth revisiting and considering again certain legal problems decided by – and raised by – the ICJ judgment. This article addresses the importance of the judgment in terms of international legal regulations on the use of force. First and foremost, the article examines the concept of armed attack based on the “gravity” criterion elaborated by the Court and the exercise of the right of self-defence. Moreover, the relationship between customary international law and treaty law, as well as forcible counter-measures and military actions against non-State actors are also discussed in the article. It is argued that the “gravity” criterion used by the ICJ seems controversial and, consequently, may limit the right of self-defence. On the other hand, however, the judgment established a strong barrier to the realization of individual political interests by militarily powerful States. This is the Nicaragua judgment’s long-lasting legacy.In this sense the judgment has stood the test of time.

PDF

References

  1. Bowett D.W., Self-Defence in International Law, Manchester University Press, Manchester 1958.
  2. Christodoulidou T., Chainoglou K., The Principle of Proportionality from a Jus Ad Bellum Perspective [in:] M. Weller (ed.), The Use of Force in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014.
  3. Constantinou A., The Right to Self-Defence under Customary International Law and Article 51 of the UN Charter, Bruylant, Bruxelles 2000.
  4. Crawford J., The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002.
  5. Crawford J.R., Jurisdiction and Applicable Law, „Leiden Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 471-479.
  6. Dinstein Y., Aggression [in:] R. Wolfrum et al. (eds.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Heidelberg-Oxford 2013.
  7. Dinstein Y., War, Aggression and Self-Defence (3rd ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001.
  8. Doswald-Beck L., The Legal Validity of Military Intervention by Invitation of the Government, „British Yearbook of International Law” 1985, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 189-252.
  9. Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award, Jus ad Bellum, Ethiopia’s Claims 1-8, 1-8, 19 December 2005, https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/763 [accessed: 30.05.2017].
  10. Etezazian S., The Nature of the Self-defence Proportionality Requirement, „Journal of the Use of Force and International Law” 2016, vol. 3, no. 2.
  11. Fitzmaurice G.G., The Definition of Aggression, „International & Comparative Law Quarterly” 1952, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 137-144.
  12. Gardam J., Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004.
  13. Gray Ch., International Law and the Use of Force (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004.
  14. Higgins R., Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1994.
  15. ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2005.
  16. ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2005.
  17. ICJ, Corfu Channel, Merits, ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 1949.
  18. ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ, Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins, ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2004.
  19. ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ, Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans.
  20. ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 1996 (I).
  21. ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 1986.
  22. ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 1969.
  23. ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 6 November 2003, ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2003.
  24. ICJ, Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2003.
  25. ICJ., The Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameron and Nigeria (Cameron v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, ICJ Reports of Judgement, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2002.
  26. Institut de droit international, Session de Santiago – 2007, Present Problems of the Use of Armed Force. Selfdefence, available at: http://www.idi-iil.org/idiE/resolutionsE/2007_san_02_en.pdf (accessed 30 May 2017).
  27. Kowalski M., Armed Attack, Non-state Actors and a Quest for the Attribution Standard, „Polish Yearbook of International Law” 2010, vol. 30, pp. 101-130.
  28. Kowalski M., Ius ad bellum a systemowy charakter prawa międzynarodowego [Jus ad bellum and the systemic nature of international law] [in:] Kwiecień R. (ed.), Państwo a prawo międzynarodowe jako system prawa [The state and international law as a system of law], Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin 2015.
  29. Kowalski M., Napaść zbrojna w prawie międzynarodowym – w poszukiwaniu współczesnej definicji [Armed attack in international law – a quest for a contemporary definition], „Studia Prawnicze” 2008, no. 3, pp. 59-82.
  30. Kowalski M., Original Sin Reaffirmed: The Nicaragua Judgement’s Impact on the Notion of Armed Attack as the Most Grave Form of the Use of Force, Polish Yearbook of International Law 36 (2016).
  31. Kowalski M., Prawo do samoobrony jako środek zwalczania terroryzmu międzynarodowego [The right to self-defence as a means of countering international terrorism], Difin, Warszawa 2013.
  32. Kowalski M., The Use of Force: Contemporary Challenges in Light of Professor Skubiszewski’s Legacy, „International Community Law Review” 2016, vol. 18, no 2.
  33. Kranz J., Wojna, pokój czy uspokajanie? Współczesne dylematy użycia siły zbrojnej [War, peace, or appeasement? Contemporary controversies on the use of force], Centrum Stosunków Międzynarodowych, Warszawa 2006.
  34. Kreß C., Major Post-Westphalian Shifts and Some Important Neo-westphalian Hesitations in the State Practice on the International Law on the Use of Force, „Journal of the Use of Force and International Law” 2014, vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 11-54.
  35. Kretzmer D., The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum, „European Journal of International Law” 2013, vol. 24, no. 1.
  36. Kunz J.L., Individual and Collective Self-Defence in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, „American Journal of International Law” 1947, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 872 - 879.
  37. Kwiecień R., Czy “wojna z terroryzmem” to bellum iustum? O związkach etyki i prawa w świetle rezolucji Rady Bezpieczeństwa 2249 (Is the “war on terror” bellum justum? The relationship between ethics and law in Security Council Resolution 2249] [in:] B. Krzan (ed.), Ubi ius, ibi remedium, BECK, Warszawa 2016.
  38. MacDonald R.St.J., The Nicaragua Case: New Answers to Old Questions?, „Canadian Yearbook of International Law” 1986, vol. 24, pp. 127 - 160.
  39. Mik C., Agresja [Aggression] [in:] Pyć D., Symonides J. (eds.), Wielka encyklopedia prawa [Large encyclopedia of law], vol. IV, Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne [Public international law], Fundacja Ubi societas, ibi ius, Warszawa 2014.
  40. Nolte G., Multipurpose Self-Defence, Proportionality Disoriented: A Response to David Kretzmer, „European Journal of International Law” 2013, vol. 24, no. 1.
  41. Nolte G., Randelzhofer A., Article 51 [in:] B. Simma et al. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (3rd ed.), vol. II., Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012.
  42. Pellet A., The Nicaragua Case: ‘Mafiosi’s’ and ‘Veteran’s’ Approaches Combined, 25 „Leiden Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 481-489.
  43. Randelzhofer A., Article 51 [in:] B. Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (2nd ed.), Berlin 2002.
  44. Skubiszewski K., The Use of force by States. Collective Security. Law of War and Neutrality, [in:] Sørensenn M. (ed.), Manuel of Public International Law, Palgrave Macmillan, London 1968.
  45. Thouvenin J.-M., Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness in the ILC Articles on State Responsibility: Self-Defence [in:] J. Crawford, A. Pellett, S. Ollenson (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010.
  46. Wood M., The Use of Force in 2015 with Particular Reference to Syria, „Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Studies Research Paper Series” 2015, no. 16-05.
  47. Yusuf A.A., The Notion of ‘Armed Attack’ in the Nicaragua Judgment and Its Influence on Subsequent Case Law, „Leiden Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 461-470.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.