Nicaragua v USA (Paramilitaries/Sandinista Case) (Treaty law and Customary law)

Summary

The transcript covers the complex historical and legal issues surrounding Nicaragua's conflict with the United States in the 1980s. After a devastating earthquake and the fall of a dictatorship, the Sandinistas, a socialist group, rose to power. The U.S. opposed their government, supporting rebel groups known as the Contras. Nicaragua filed a case against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice, citing violations of international law. The court ruled that the U.S. had breached customary international law but did not enforce reparations. This case highlights the tension between customary international law and treaty law, illustrating how powerful nations can bypass international rulings.

Takeaways

• 😀 Nicaragua is a small country in Central America with coastlines on both the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea.
• 😀 From 1937 to 1979, Nicaragua was under the control of a family dictatorship, which began to crumble after a devastating earthquake in 1972.
• 😀 The Sandinistas, a socialist group, gained popularity by helping earthquake victims and ultimately overthrew the dictatorship in 1979.
• 😀 The U.S. opposed the Sandinistas due to the Cold War, fearing the spread of socialism, and supported a group called the Contras against them.
• 😀 In 1984, Nicaragua took the U.S. to the International Court of Justice, accusing them of violating international law by supporting the Contras and conducting military actions.
• 😀 The United States rejected the court's jurisdiction, citing reservations from international treaties and arguing that the nearby country of El Salvador was also affected.
• 😀 The International Court of Justice reluctantly agreed with the U.S. argument and did not hear the case under the treaties but considered customary international law.
• 😀 Customary international law refers to practices between nations not covered by treaties but developed through long-term relationships and behavior.
• 😀 The court ruled that customary international law is not automatically extinguished by treaties, even if they cover similar topics.
• 😀 The U.S. was ordered to pay reparations for breaching customary international law, but they refused to comply, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction.
• 😀 The Sandinistas ruled Nicaragua until 1990, returned to power in 2006, but many critics argue they abandoned their socialist roots and became autocratic.
• 😀 Ultimately, the case highlights that while customary international law is not overridden by treaties, stronger nations can ignore international rulings without facing consequences.

Q & A

What significant event in 1972 contributed to the downfall of Nicaragua's dictatorship?

In 1972, a devastating earthquake struck Nicaragua, killing as many as 10,000 people and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless. This disaster led to widespread criticism of the dictatorship, particularly regarding the misappropriation of foreign aid.

Who were the Sandinistas, and how did they rise to power in Nicaragua?

The Sandinistas were a socialist group that opposed the dictatorship in Nicaragua. They gained popularity by providing aid to those affected by the 1972 earthquake and ultimately led a successful revolution, overthrowing the dictatorship in 1979.

How did the United States react to the rise of the Sandinistas?

The U.S. was concerned about the expansion of socialism in Central America during the Cold War. To counter the Sandinistas, the U.S. supported anti-Sandinista groups, primarily the Contras, by supplying them with arms.

What was the role of Oliver North in the U.S. support of the Contras?

Oliver North, a Lieutenant Colonel, played a central role in facilitating the continued supply of arms to the Contras, despite Congress withdrawing its support for the operation in 1984.

What did Nicaragua do in 1984 in response to the U.S. actions?

In 1984, Nicaragua took the United States to the International Court of Justice, claiming that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras and engaging in military actions such as laying sea mines.

What was the United States' argument regarding the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?

The U.S. argued that the court did not have jurisdiction, citing a reservation in the multilateral treaties they had signed, which required the participation of all affected states. The U.S. also argued that El Salvador, another affected country, was not involved in the case.

How did the International Court of Justice rule on the U.S.'s jurisdiction argument?

The court reluctantly agreed with the U.S. argument, stating that Nicaragua's claim under the treaties could not be considered due to the lack of involvement of all affected states. However, the court still heard Nicaragua's claim under customary international law.

What is customary international law, and how did it apply in this case?

Customary international law refers to unwritten rules that evolve over time based on the practices of nations. In this case, the court found that customary international law applied to the actions of the U.S., specifically its support for the Contras and other military interventions in Nicaragua.

What was the court's decision regarding reparations for Nicaragua?

The court ruled that the U.S. should pay reparations to Nicaragua for violating customary international law, but since the U.S. maintained that the court lacked jurisdiction, no reparations were ever paid.

What is the relationship between customary international law and treaty law, according to the court's judgment?

The court concluded that customary international law is not extinguished by treaty law, even when both cover similar topics. A treaty may override customary law in specific cases, but in most instances, customary law remains applicable even if a treaty exists.

What broader lesson about international law can be learned from this case?

One key lesson is that international law is often powerless when larger, stronger nations choose to ignore its rulings. Despite the court's decision, the U.S. refused to comply, demonstrating the challenges of enforcing international law against powerful states.