CATEGORIES:
BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism
Reports 1978, p. 7, para. 15 ; United States Diplornatic and Consular Staff inI. C.J. Reports 1973, p. 7, para. 12 ; p. 54, para. 13 ; I. C.J. Reports 1974, p. 9, para. 17 ; p. 18 1, para. 18 ; Nuclear Tests, I. C.J. Reports 1974, p. 257, para. 15 ; p. 461, para. 15 ; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, I. C.J. Reports 1978, p. 7, para. 15 ; United States Diplornatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, I. C.J. Reports 1980, p. 18, para. 33)... Furthermore the Court is bound to emphasize that the non-participation of a party in the proceedings at any stage of the case cannot, in any circumstances, affect the validity of its judgment. Nor does such validity depend upon the acceptance of that judgment by one party. The fact that a State purports to "reserve its rights" in respect of a future decision of the Court, after the Court has determined that it has jurisdiction, is clearly of no effect on the validity of that decision. Under Article 36, paragraph 6, of its Statute, the Court has jurisdiction to determine any dispute as to its own jurisdiction, and its judgment on that matter, as on the ments, is final and binding on the parties under Articles 59 and 60 of the Statute (cf. Corfu Channel, Judgment of 15 December 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 248). 28. When Article 53 of the Statute applies, the Court is bound to "satisfy itself, not only that it has jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 36 and 37, but also that the claim" of the party appearing is well founded in fact and law... A State which decides not to appear must accept the consequences of its decision, the first of which is that the case will continue without its participation ; the State which has chosen not to appear remains a party to the case, and is bound by the eventual judgment in accordance with Article 59 of the Statute. There is however no question of a judgment automatically in favour of the party appearing, since the Court is required, as mentioned above, to "satisfy itself" that that party's claim is well founded in fact and law. 29. The use of the term "satisfy itself" in the English text of the Statute (and in the French text the term "s'assurer") implies that the Court must attain the same degree of certainty as in any other case that the claim of the party appearing is sound in law, and, so far as the nature of the case permits, that the facts on which it is based are supported by convincing evidence. For the purpose of deciding whether the claim is well founded in law, the principle jura novit curia signifies that the Court is not solely dependent on the argument of the parties before it with respect to the applicable law (cf. "Lotus", P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10, p. 31), so that the absence of one party has less impact. As the Court observed in the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases : "The Court . . ., as an international judicial organ, is deemed to take judicial notice of international law, and is therefore required in a case falling under Article 53 of the Statute, as in any other case, to consider on its own initiative al1 rules of international law which may be relevant to the settlement of the dispute. It being the duty of the Court itself to ascertain and apply the relevant law in the given circumstances of the case, the burden of establishing or proving rules of international law cannot be imposed upon any of the parties, for the law lies within the judicial knowledge of the Court." (I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 9, para. 17 ; p. 181, para. 18.) 30. As to the facts of the case, in principle the Court is not bound to confine its consideration to the material formally submitted to it by the parties (cf. Brazilian Loans, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 20/21, p. 124 ; Nuciear Tests, I.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 263-264, paras. 31, 32). Nevertheless, the Court cannot by its own enquiries entirely make up for the absence of one of the Parties ; that absence, in a case of this kind involving extensive questions of fact, must necessarily limit the extent to which the Court is informed of the facts. It would furthermore be an over-simplification to conclude that the only detrimental consequence of the absence of a party is the lack of opportunity to submit argument and evidence in support of its own case. Proceedings before the Court cal1 for vigilance by all. The absent party also forfeits the opportunity to counter the factual allegations of its opponent. It is of course for the party appearing to prove the allegations it makes, yet as the Court has held : "While Article 53 thus obliges the Court to consider the submissions of the Party which appears, it does not compel the Court to examine their accuracy in al1 their details ; for this rnight in certain unopposed cases prove impossible in practice." (Corfu Channel, 1. C..'f. Reports 1949, p. 248.) 31. ...where one party is not appearing "it is especially incumbent upon the Court to satisfy itself that it is in possession of all the available facts" (Nuclear Tests, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 263, para. 31 ; p. 468, para. 32). 33. legal dispute – where international law is relevant or controlling As the Court pointed out in the Nottebohm case : "When an Application is filed at a time when the law in force between the parties entails the compulsoryjurisdiction of the Court. . . the filing of the Application is merely the condition required to enable the clause of compulsory jurisdiction to produce its effects in respect of the claim advanced in the Application. Once this condition has been satisfied, the Court must deal with the claim ; it has jurisdiction to deal with al1 its aspects, whether they relate to jurisdiction, to admissibility or to the merits. An extrinsic fact such as the subsequent lapse of the Declaration [or, as in the present case also, the Treaty containing a compromissory clause], by reason of the expiry of the period or by denunciation, cannot deprive the Court of the jurisdiction already established." (I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 123.) 38. The present case is the first in which the Court has had occasion to exercise the power first provided for in the 1972 Rules of Court to declare that a preliminary objection "does not possess, in the circumstances of the case, an exclusively preliminary character". It may therefore be appropriate to take this opportunity to comment briefly on the rationale of this provision of the Rules, in the light of the problems to which the handling of preliminary objections has given rise. 39. Under the Rules of Court dating back to 1936 (which on this point reflected still earlier practice), the Court had the power tojoin an objection to the merits "whenever the interests of the good administration of justice require it" (Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway, P. C. I.J., Series A / B, No. 75, p. 56), and in particular where the Court, if it were to decide on the objection, "would run the risk of adjudicating on questions which appertain to the merits of the case or of prejudging their solution" (ibid.). 40. ... In the Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case, the Permanent Court defined a preliminary objection as one "submitted for the purpose of excluding an examination by the Court of the merits of the case, and being one upon which the Court can give a decision without in any way adjudicating upon the merits" (P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 76, p. 22)... The final solution adopted in 1972, and maintained in the 1978 Rules, concerning preliminary objections is the following : the Court is to give its decision "by which it shall either uphold the objection, reject it, or declare that the objection does not possess, in the circumstances of the case, an exclusively preliminary character. If the Court rejects the objection, or declares that it does not possess an exclusively preliminary character, it shall fix time-limits for the further proceedings." (Art. 79, para. 7.) 41. While the variety of issues raised by preliminary objections cannot possibly be foreseen, practice has shown that there are certain kinds of preliminary objections which can be disposed of by the Court at an early stage without examination of the merits. Above all, it is clear that a question of jurisdiction is one which requires decision at the preliminary stage of the proceedings. The new rule enumerates the objections contemplated as follows : "Any objection by the respondent to thejurisdiction of the Court or to the admissibility of the application, or other objection the decision upon which is requested before any further proceedings on the merits . . ." (Art. 79, para. 1.) It thus presents one clear advantage : that it qualifies certain objections as preliminary, making it quite clear that when they are exclusively of that character they will have to be decided upon immediately, but if they are not. especially when the character of the objections is not exclusively preliminary because they contain both preliminary aspects and other aspects relating to the merits. they will have to be dealt with at the stage of the merits. This approach also tends to discourage the unnecessary prolongation of proceedings at the jurisdictional stage. 42. The 1984 Judgment included pronouncements on certain aspects of that reservation. but the Court then took the view that it was neither necessary nor possible, at the jurisdictional stage of the proceedings, for it to take a position on al1 the problems posed by the reservation. (43.) It regarded this as not necessary because, in its Application, Nicaragua had not confined its claims to breaches of multilateral treaties but had also invoked a number of principles of "general and customary international law", as well as the bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1956. ... "it is only when the general lines of the judgment to be given become clear", the Court said, "that the States 'affected' could be identified"... 45. ... But it is clear that the fact that the United States, having refused to participate at the merits stage, did not have an opportunity to press again at that stage the argument which, in the jurisdictional phase, it founded on its multilateral treaty reservation cannot be tantamount to a waiver of the argument drawn from the reservation. 56. ... It should however be recalled that, as will be explained further below, the effect of the reservation in question is confined to barring the applicability of the United Nations Charter and Organization of American States Charter as multilateral treaty law, and has no further impact on the sources of international law which Article 38 of the Statute requires the Court to apply. 58. A further aspect of this case is that the conflict to which it relates has continued and is continuing. It has therefore been necessary for the Court to decide, for the purpose of its definition of the factual situation, what period of time, beginning from the genesis of the dispute, should be taken into consideration. The Court holds that general principles as to the judicial process require that the facts on which its Judgment is based should be those occurring up to the close of the oral proceedings on the merits of the case. While the Court is of course very well aware, from reports in the international press, of the developments in Central America since that date, it cannot, as explained below (paragraphs 62 and 63), treat such reports as evidence, nor has it had the benefit of the comments or argument of either of the Parties on such reports. As the Court recalled in the Nuclear Tests cases, where facts, apparently of such a nature as materially to affect its decision, came to its attention after the close of the hearings : "It would no doubt have been possible for the Court, had it considered that the interests of justice so required, to have afforded the Parties the opportunity, e.g., by reopening the oral proceedings, of addressing to the Court comments on the statements made since the close of those proceedings." (I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 264, para. 33 ; p. 468, para. 34.) Neither Party has requested such action by the Court ; and since the reports to which reference has been made do not suggest any profound modification of the situation of which the Court is seised, but rather its intensification in certain respects, the Court has seen no need to reopen the hearings. 62. At al1 events, in the present case the Court has before it documentary material of various kjnds from various sources. A large number of documents has been supplied in the form of reports in press articles, and some also in the form of extracts from books. Whether these were produced by the applicant state, or bythe absent Party before it ceased to appear in the proceedings, the Court has been careful to treat them with great caution ; even if they seem to meet high standards of objectivity, the Court regards them not as evidence capable of proving facts, but as material which can nevertheless contribute, in some circumstances, to corroborating the existence of a fact, Le., as illustrative material additional to other sources of evidence. 63. However, although it is perfectly proper that press information should not be treated in itself as evidence for judicial purposes, public knowledge of a fact may nevertheless be established by means of these sources of information, and the Court can attach a certain amount of weight to such public knowledge. In the case of United States Diplontaticand Consular Staff in Tehran, the Court referred to facts which "are, for the most part, matters of public knowledge which have received extensive coverage in the world press and in radio and television broadcasts from Iran and other countries" (I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 9, para. 12). On the basis of information, including press and broadcast material, which was "wholly consistent and concordant as to the main facts and circumstances of the case", the Court was able to declare that it was satisfied that the allegations of fact were well-founded (ibid., p. 10, para. 13). The Court has however to show particular caution in this area. Widespread reports of a fact may prove on closer examination to derive from a single source, and such reports. however numerous, will in such case have no greater value as evidence than the original source. 64. The material before the Court also includes statements by representatives of States, sometimes at the highest political level. Some of these statements were made before officia1 organs of the State or of an international or regional organization, and appear in the official records of those bodies. Others, made during press conferences or interviews, were reported by the local or international press. The Court takes the view that statements of this kind, emanating from high-ranking official political figures. sometimes indeed of the highest rank, are of particular probative value when they acknowledge facts or conduct unfavourable to the State represented by the person who made them. They may then be construed as a form of admission. 65. ... The Court must take account of the manner in which the statements were made public ; evidently, it cannot treat them as having the same value irrespective of whether the text is to be found in an officiai national or international publication, or in a book or newspaper. It must also take note whether the text of the officia1 statement in question appeared in the language used by the author or on the basis of a translation... It may also be relevant whether or not such a statement was brought to the Court's knowledge by officia1 communications filed in conformity with the relevant requirements of the Statute and Rules of Court. 68. The Court has not treated as evidence any part of the testimony given which was not a statement of fact, but a mere expression of opinion as to the probability or otherwise of the existence of such facts, not directly known to the witness. Testimony of ths kind, which may be highly subjective, cannot take the place of evidence. An opinion expressed by a witness is a mere persona1 and subjective evaluation of a possibility. which has yet to be shown to correspond to a fact ; it may, in conjunction with other material, assist the Court in determining a question of fact, but is not proof in itself. Nor is testimony of matters not within the direct knowledge of the witness, but known to him only from hearsay, of much weight. 69. ... These declarations at ministerial level on each side were irreconcilable as to their statement of certain facts. In the view of the Court. this evidence is of such a nature as to be placed in a special category. In the general practice of courts, two forms of testimony which are regarded as prima facie of superior credibility are, first the evidence of a disinterested witness - one who is not a party to the proceedings and stands to gain or lose nothing from its outcome - and secondly so much of the evidence of a party as is against its own interest. Indeed the latter approach was invoked in this case by counsel for Nicaragua. 70. ... The Court thus considers that it can certainly retain such parts of the evidence given by Ministers, orally or in writing, as may be regarded as contrary to the interests or contentions of the State to which the witness owes allegiance, or as relating to matters not controverted. For the rest. while in no way impugning the honour or veracity of the Ministers of either Party who have given evidence, the Court considers that the special circumstances of this case require it to treat such evidence with great reserve. 71. However, before outlining the limits of the probative effect of declarations by the authorities of the States concerned, the Court would recall that such declarations may involve legal effects, some of which it has defined in previous decisions (Nuclear Tests, United Sures Diplornutic and Consular Staff in Tehran cases). Among the legal effects which such declarations may have is that they may be regarded as evidence of the truth of facts, as evidence that such facts are attributable to the States the authorities of which are the authors of these declarations and, to a lesser degree, as evidence for the legal qualification of these facts. 72. ... But the Court considers that, in its quest for the truth, it may also take note of statements of representatives of the Parties (or of other States) in international organizations, as well as the resolutions adopted or discussed by such organizations, in so far as factually relevant, whether or not such material has been drawn to its attention by a Party. 73. In addition, the Court is aware of the existence and the contents of a publication of the United States State Department entitled "Revolution Beyond Our Borders", Sandjnista Intervention in Central America intended to justify the policy of the United States towards Nicaragua... The Court however considers that, in view of the special circumstances of this case, it may, within limits, make use of information in such a publication... 74. ... The Court would observe that the normal purpose of an invocation of self-defence is tojustify conduct which would otherwise be wrongful. If advanced as a justification in itself, not coupled with a denial of the conduct alleged, it may well imply both an admission of that conduct, and of the wrongfulness of that conduct in the absence of the justification of self-defence... The Court thus cannot consider reliance on self-defence to be an implicit general admission on the part of the United States ; but it is certainly a recognition as to the imputability of some of the activities complained of. 106. In the light of the evidence and material available to it, the Court is not satisfied that al1 the operations launched by the contra force, at every stage of the conflict, reflected strategy and tactics wholly devised by the United States. However, it is in the Court's view established that the support of the United States authorities for the activities of the contras took various forms over the years, such as logistic support, the supply of information on the location and movements of the Sandinista troops, the use of sophisticated methods of communication, the deployment of field broadcasting networks, radar coverage, etc. The Court finds it clear that a number of rnilitary and paramilitary operations by this force were decided and planned, if not actually by United States advisers, then at least in close collaboration with them, and on the basis of the intelligence and logistic support which the United States was able to offer, particularly the supply aircraft provided to the contras by the United States. 107. To sum up, despite the secrecy which surrounded it, at least initially, the financial support given by the Government of the United States to the military and paramilitary activities of the contras in Nicaragua is a fully established fact. The legislative and executive bodies of the respondent State have moreover, subsequent to the controversy which has been sparked off in the United States, openly admitted the nature, volume and frequency of this support. Indeed, they clearly take responsibility for it, this government aid having now become the major element of United States foreign policy in the region. 108. Despite the large quantity of documentary evidence and testimony which it has examined, the Court has not been able to satisfy itself that the respondent State "created" the contra force in Nicaragua. It seems certain that members of the former Somoza National Guard, together with civilian opponents to the Sandinista régime, withdrew from Nicaragua soon after that régime was installed in Managua, and sought to continue their struggle against it, even if in a disorganized way and with limited and ineffectual resources, before the Respondent took advantage of the existence of these opponents and incorporated this fact into its policies vis-à-vis the régime of the Applicant. Nor does the evidence warrant a finding that the United States gave "direct and critical combat support", at least if that form of words is taken to mean that this support was tantamount to direct intervention by the United States combat forces, or that al1 contra operations reflected strategy and tactics wholly devised by the United States. On the other hand, the Court holds it established that the United States authorities largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized the FDN. 109. What the Court has to determine at this point is whether or not the relationship of the contras to the United States Government was so much one of dependence on the one side and control on the other that it would be right to equate the contras, for legal purposes, with an organ of the United States Government, or as acting on behalf of that Govemment... Yet despite the heavy subsidies and other support provided to them by the United States, there is no clear evidence of the United States having actually exercised such a degree of control in al1 fields as tojustify treating the contras as acting on its behalf. 110. ... In sum, the evidence available to the Court indicates that the various forms of assistance provided to the contras by the United States have been crucial to the pursuit of their activities, but is insufficient to demonstrate their complete dependence on United States aid... It is afortiori unable to determine that the contra force may be equated for legal purposes with the forces of the United States. This conclusion, however, does not of course suffice to resolve the entire question of the responsibility incurred by the United States through its assistance to the contras. 115. The Court has taken the view (paragraph 110 above) that United States participation, even if preponderant or decisive, in the financing, organizing, training, supplying and equipping of the contras, the selection of its military or paramilitary targets, and the planning of the whole of its operation, is still insufficient in itself, on the basis of the evidence in the possession of the Court, for the purpose of attributing to the United States the acts committed by the contras in the course of their military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Al1 the forms of United States participation mentioned above, and even the general control by the respondent State over a force with a high degree of dependency on it, would not in themselves mean, without further evidence, that the United States directed or enforced the perpetration of the acts contrary to human rights and humanitarian law alleged by the applicant State. Such acts could well be committed by members of the contras without the control of the United States. For this conduct to give rise to legal responsibility of the United States, it would in principle have to be proved that that State had effective control of the military or paramilitary operations in thecourse of which the alleged violations were committed. 116. ... It takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, and that the United States is not responsible for the acts of the contras, but for its own conduct vis-à-vis Nicaragua, including conduct related to the acts of the contras... The lawfulness or otherwise of such acts of the United States is a question different from the violations of humanitarian law of which the contras may or may not have been guilty. Itis for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them. At the same tirne, the question whether the United States Government was, or must have been, aware at the relevant time that allegations of breaches of humanitarian law were being made against the contras is relevant to an assessment of the lawfulness of the action of the United States. In this respect, the material facts are primarily those connected with the issue in 1983 of a manual of psychological operations. 122. The Court concludes that in 1983 an agency of the United States Government supplied to the FDN a manual on psychological guerrilla warfare which, while expressly discouraging indiscriminate violence against civilians, considered the possible necessity of shooting civilians who were attempting to leave a town ; and advised the "neutralization" for propaganda purposes of local judges, officials or notables after the semblance of trial in the presence of the population. The text supplied to the contras also advised the use of professional criminals to perform unspecified "jobs", and the use of provocation at mass demonstrations to produce violence on the part of the authorities so as to make "martyrs". 127. ... In the Court's view, however, if Nicaragua has been giving support to the armed opposition in El Salvador, and if this constitutes an armed attack on El Salvador and the other appropriate conditions are met, collective self-defence could be legally invoked by the United States, even though there may be the possibility of an additional motive, one perhaps even more decisive for the United States, drawn from the political orientation of the present Nicaraguan Government. The existence of an additional motive, other than that officially proclaimed by the United States, could not deprive the latter of its right to resort to collective self-defence. 135. ... In short, the Court notes that the evidence of a witness called by Nicaragua in order to negate the allegation of the United States that the Government of Nicaragua had been engaged in the supply of arms to the armed opposition in El Salvador only partly contradicted that allegation. 141. The full significance of the documents reproduced in the first of these publications, which are "written using cryptic language and abbreviations", is not readily apparent, without further assistance from United States experts, who might have been called as witnesses had the United States appeared in the proceedings. For example, there are frequent references to "Lagos" which, according to the United States, is a code-name for Nicaragua ; but without such assistance the Court cannot judge whether this interpretation is correct. 143. The Court's attention has also been drawn to various press reports of statements by diplomats, by leaders of the armed opposition in El Salvador, or defectors from it... As the Court has already explained. it regards press reports not as evidence capable of proving facts, but considers that they can nevertheless contribute, in some circumstances. to corroborating the existence of a particular fact (paragraph 62 above)... 147. The evidence or material offered by Nicaragua in connection with the allegation of arms supply has to be assessed bearing in mind the fact that, in responding to that allegation, Nicaragua has to prove a negative. 155. ...As the Court observed in 1949 : "it cannot be concluded from the mere fact of the control exercised by a State over its territory and waters that that State necessarily knew, or ought to have known, of any unlawful act perpetrated therein, nor yet that it necessarily knew, or should have known, the authors. This fact, by itself and apart from other circumstances, neither involvesprima facie responsibility nor shifts the burden of proof." (Corfu Channel, 1. C.J. Reports 1949, p. 18.) 156. In passing, the Court would remark that, if this evidence really existed, the United States could be expected to have taken advantage of it in order to forestall or disrupt the traffic observed ; it could presumably for example arrange for the deployment of a strong patrol force in El Salvador and Honduras, along the frontiers of these States with Nicaragua. It is difficult to accept that it should have continued to carry out military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua if their only purpose was, as alleged, to serve as a riposte in the exercise of the right of collective self-defence. If, on the other hand, this evidence does not exist, that, as the Court has pointed out, implies that the arms traffic is so insignificant and casual that it escapes detection even by the sophisticated techniques employed for the purpose... 165. In view of the assertion by the United States that it has acted in exercise of the right of collective self-defence for the protection of El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica, the Court has also to consider the evidence available on the question whether those States, or any of them, made a request for such protection. 175. ... On a nurnber of points, the areas governed by the two sources of law do not exactly overlap, and the substantive rules in which they are frarned are not identical in content. But in addition, even if a treaty norrn and a customary norm relevant to the present dispute were to have exactly the same content, this would not be a reason for the Court to take the view that the operation of the treaty process rnust necessarily deprive the custornary norm of its separate applicability.... 176. ... On one essential point, this treaty itself refers to pre-existing custornary international law ; this reference to custornary law is contained in the actual text of Article 5 1, which mentions the "inherent right" (in the French text the "droit naturel") of individual or collective self-defence... The Court therefore finds that Article 5 1 of the Charter is only rneaningful on the basis that there is a "natural" or "inherent" right of self-defence, and it is hard to see how this can be other than of a custornary nature, even if its present content has been confirmed and influenced by the Charter. Moreover the Charter, having itself recognized the existence of this right, does not go on to regulate directly al1 aspects of its content. For exarnple, it does not contain any specific rule whereby self-defence would warrant only rneasures which are proportional to the arrned attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in custornary international law. Moreover, a definition of the "armed attack" which, if found to exist, authorizes the exercise of the "inherent right" of self-defence, is not provided in the Charter, and is not part of treaty law. It cannot therefore be held that Article 51 is a provision which "subsumes and supervenes" custornary international law. 177. The Court found that this identity of content in treaty law and in customary international law did not exist in the case of the rule invoked, which appeared in one article of the treaty, but did not suggest that such identity was debarred as a matter of principle : on the contrary, it considered it to be clear that certain other articles of the treaty in question "were . . . regarded as reflecting, or as crystallizing, received or at least emergent rules of customary international law" (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 39, para. 63). 178. ... if a State exercises its right to terminate or suspend the operation of a treaty on the ground of the violation by the other party of a "provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty" (in the words of Art. 60, para. 3(b), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), it is exempted, vis-à-vis the other State. from a rule of treaty-law because of the breach by that other State of a different rule of treaty-law. But if the two rules in question also exist as rules of customary international law, the failure of the one State to apply the one rule does not justify the other State in declining to apply the other rule. Rules which are identical in treaty law and in customary international law are also distinguishable by reference to the methods of interpretation and application... 18 1. The question raised by this argument is whether the provisions of the multilateral treaties in question, particularly the United Nations Charter, diverge from the relevant rules of customary international law to such an extent that a judgrnent of the Court as to the rights and obligations of the parties under customary law, disregarding the content of the multilateral treaties binding on the parties, would be a wholly academic exercise, and not "susceptible of any compliance or execution whatever" (Northern Cameroons, I.C.J. Reports 1963, p. 37)... However, so far from having constituted a marked departure from a customary international law which still exists unmodified, the Charter gave expression in this field to principles already present in customary international law, and that law has in the subsequent four decades developed under the influence of the Charter, to such an extent that a number of rules contained in the Charter have acquired a status independent of it. 183. In view of this conclusion, the Court has next to consider what are the rules of customary international law applicable to the present dispute. For this purpose, it has to direct its attention to the practice and opiniojuris of States ; as the Court recently observed, "It is of course axiomatic that the material of customary international law is to be looked for primarily in the actual practice and opinio juris of States, even though multilateral conventions may have an important role to play in recording and defining rules deriving from custom, or indeed in developing them." (Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriyu/ Malta), I. C.J. Reports 1985, pp. 29-30, para. 27.) In this respect the Court must not lose sight of the Charter of the United Nations and that of the Organization of American States, notwithstanding the operation of the multilateral treaty reservation. 186. The Court does not consider that, for a rule to be established as customary, the corresponding practice must be in absolutely rigorous conformity with the rule. In order to deduce the existence of customary rules, the Court deems it sufficient that the conduct of States should, in general, be consistent with such rules, and that instances of State conduct inconsistent with a given rule should generally have been treated as breaches of that rule, not as indications of the recognition of a new rule. If a State acts in a way prima facie incompatible with a recognized rule, but defends its conduct by appealing to exceptions orjustifications contained within the rule itself, then whether or not the State's conduct is in fact justifiable on that basis, the significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than to weaken the rule. 187. The Court must therefore determine, first, the substance of the customary rules relating to the use of force in international relations, applicable to the dispute submitted to it... 188. ... The Court has however to be satisfied that there exists in customary international law an opinio juris as to the binding character of such abstention. This opinio juris may, though with al1 due caution, be deduced from, inter alia, the attitude of the Parties and the attitude of States towards certain General Assembly resolutions, and particularly resolution 2625 (XXV) entitled "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations". The effect of consent to the text of such resolutions cannot be understood as merely that of a "reiteration or elucidation" of the treaty commitment undertaken in the Charter. On the contrary, it may be understood as an acceptance of the validity of the rule or set of rules declared by the resolution by themselves. The principle of non-use of force, for example, may thus be regarded as a principle of customary international law, not as such conditioned by provisions relating to collective security, or to the facilities or armed contingents to be provided under Article 43 of the Charter. It would therefore seem apparent that the attitude referred to expresses an opinio juris respecting such rule (or set of rules), to be thenceforth treated separately from the provisions, especially those of an institutional kind, to which it is subject on the treaty-law plane of the Charter. 189. As regards the United States in particular, the weight of an expression of opiniojuris can similarly be attached to its support of the resolution of the Sixth International Conference of American States condemning aggression (18 February 1928) and ratification of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (26 December 1933)... Also significant is United States acceptance of the principle of the prohibition of the use of force which is contained in the declaration on principles governing the mutual relations of States participating in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki, 1 August 1975), whereby the participating States undertake to "refrain in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in general, "(emphasis added) from the threat or use of force. Acceptance of a text in these terms confirms the existence of an opinio juris of the participating States prohibiting the use of force in international relations. 190. A further confirmation of the validity as customary international law of the principle of the prohibition of the use of force... may be found in the fact that it is frequently referred to in statements by State representatives as being not only a principle of customary international law but also a fundamental or cardinal principle of such law. The International Law Commission, in the course of its work on the codification of the law of treaties, expressed the view that "the law of the Charter concerning the prohibition of the use of force in itself constitutes aconspicuous example of a rule in international law having the character of jus cogens »... 191. ... the adoption by States of this text [Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations] affords an indication of their opinio juris as to customary international law on the question. 193. ... First, with regard to the existence of this right, it notes that in the language of Article 5 1 of the United Nations Charter, the inherent right (or "droit naturel") which any State possesses in the event of an armed attack, covers both collective and individual self-defence. Thus, the Charter itself testifies to the existence of the rieht of collective self- .2 defence in customary international law... 194. ... Since the existence of the right of collective self-defence is established in customary international law, the Court must define the specific conditions which may have to be met for its exercise, in addition to the conditions of necessity and proportionality to which the Parties have referred. 195. 195. In the case of individual self-defence, the exercise of this right is subject to the State concerned having been the victim of an armed attack... an armed attack must be understood as including not merely action by regular armed forces across an international border, but also "the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to" (inter alia) an actual armed attack conducted by regular forces, "or its substantial involvement therein". This description, contained in Article 3, paragraph (g), of the Definition of Aggression annexed to General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX), may be taken to reflect customary international law... But the Court does not believe that the concept of "armed attack" includes not only acts by armed bands where such acts occur on a significant scale but also assistance to rebels in the form of the provision of weapons or logistical or other support. Such assistance may be regarded as a threat or use of force, or amount to intervention in the interna1 or external affairs of other States. amount to intervention in the interna1 or external affairs of other States. It is also clear that it is the State which is the victim of an armed attack which must form and declare the view that it has been so attacked. There is no rule in customary international law permitting another State to exercise the right of collective self-defence on the basis of its own assessment of the situation. Where collective self-defence is invoked, it is to be expected that the State for whose benefit this right is used will have declared itself to be the victim of an armed attack. 196. The question remains whether the lawfulness of the use of collective self-defence by the third State for the benefit of the attacked State also depends on a request addressed by that State to the third State. A provision of the Charter of the Organization of American States is here in point : and while the Court has no jurisdiction to consider that instrument as applicable to the dispute, it may examine it to ascertain what light it throws on the content of customary international law... 199. At al1 events, the Court finds that in customary international law, whether of a general kind or that particular to the inter-American legal system, there is no rule permitting the exercise of collective self-defence in the absence of a request by the State which regards itself as the victim of an armed attack. 200. ... Whatever influence the Charter may have had on customary international law in these matters, it is clear that in customary international law it is not a condition of the lawfulness of the use of force in self-defence that a procedure so closely dependent on the content of a treaty commitment and of the institutions established by it, should have been followed. On the other hand, if self-defence is advanced as ajustification for measures which would otherwise be in breach both of the principle of customary international law and of that contained in the Charter, it is to be expected that the conditions of the Charter should be respected. Thus for the purpose of enquiry into the customary law position, the absence of a report may be one of the factors indicating whether the State in question was itself convinced that it was acting in self-defence. 202. The principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference... Of course, statements whereby States avow their recognition of the principles of international law set forth in the United Nations Charter cannot strictly be interpreted as applying to the principle of non-intervention by States in the interna1 and external affairs of other States, since this principleis not, as such, spelt out in thecharter. But it was never intended that the Charter should embody written confirmation of every essential principle of international law in force. The existence in the opinio juris of States of the principle of non-intervention is backed by established and substantial practice. 203. The principle has since been reflected in numerous declarations adopted by international organizations and conferences in which the United States and Nicaragua have participated, e.g., General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX), the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty. It is true that the United States, while it voted in favour of General Assembly resolution 21 3 1 (XX), also declared at the time of its adoption in the First Committee that it considered the declaration in that resolution to be "only a statement of political intention and not a formulation of law" (Official Records of the General Assembly, Twentieth Session, First Committee, A/C. 1 /SR. 1423, p. 436). However, the essentials of resolution 2131 (XX) are repeated in the Declaration approved by resolution 2625 (XXV), which set out principles which the General Assembly declared to be "basic principles" of international law, and on the adoption of which no analogous statement was made by the United States representative. 204. ... In a different context, the United States expressly accepted the principles set forth in the declaration, to which reference has already been made, appearing in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Helsinki, 1 August 1975), including an elaborate statement of the principle of non-intervention ; while these principles were presented as applying to the mutual relations among the participating States, it can be inferred that the text testifies to the existence, and the acceptance by the United States, of a customary principle which has universal application. 205. ... in view of the generally accepted formulations, the principle forbids al1 States or groups of States to intervene directly or indirectly in internal or external affairs of other States. A prohibited intervention must accordingly be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty. to decide freely. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy. Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion in regard to such choices, which must remain free ones. The element of coercion, which defines, and indeed forms the very essence of, prohibited intervention, is particularly obvious in the case of an intervention which uses force, either in the direct form of military action, or in the indirect form of support for subversiveor terrorist armed activities within another State. As noted above (paragraph 191). General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) equates assistance of this kind with the use of force by the assisting State when the acts committed in another State "involve a threat or use of force"... 206. ... It has to consider whether there might be indications of a practice illustrative of belief in a kind of general right for States to intervene, directly or indirectly, with or without armed force, in support of an internal opposition in another State, whose cause appeared particularly worthy by reason of the political and moral values with which it was identified. For such a general right to come into existence would involve a fundamental modification of the customary law principle of non-intervention. 207. ... The significance for the Court of cases of State conduct prima facie inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention lies in the nature of the ground offered as justification. Reliance by a State on a novel right or an unprecedented exception to the principle rnight, if shared in principle by other States, tend towards a modification of customary international law. In fact however the Court finds that States have not justified their conduct by reference to a new right of intervention or a new exception to the principle of its prohibition. The United States authorities have on some occasions clearly stated their grounds for intervening in the affairs of a foreign State for reasons connected with, for example, the domestic policies of that country, its ideology, the level of its arrnaments, or the direction of its foreign policy. But these were statements of international policy, and not an assertion of rules of existing international law. 209. The Court therefore finds that no such general right of intervention, in support of an opposition within another State, exists in contemporary international law. The Court concludes that acts constituting a breach of the customary principle of non-intervention will also, if they directly or indirectly involve the use of force, constitute a breach of the principle of non-use of force in international relations.
Date: 2015-12-11; view: 1304
|