Case Digest: Nicaragua v. U.S., ICJ 1984

Public International Law | Jurisdiction of the ICJ: Contentious jurisdiction

Facts:

  • In 1946, the U.S. made an Optional Clause Declaration with a reservation allowing termination after five years plus six months' notice.
  • In 1984, when it became clear that its dispute with Nicaragua would be placed before the Court, the U.S. deposited a notification restricting its 1946 declaration's applicability to disputes involving Central American states or events in Central America for two years.
  • Nicaragua sought to rely on the 1946 U.S. declaration to establish the ICJ's jurisdiction, claiming it was a state accepting the same obligation as the U.S. under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute.
Issue: WoN Nicaragua was a “State accepting the same obligation” as the United States within the meaning of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. YES

Held: 
  • The Court found Nicaragua that it was a state accepting the same obligation but on the basis of a declaration it made under the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
  • The Court therefore finds that the Nicaraguan declaration of 1929 is valid and that Nicaragua accordingly was, for the purposes of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, a “State accepting the same obligation” as the United States at the date of filing of the Application and could therefore rely on the United States declaration of 1946.
  • The declaration of the United States: The notification of 1984
  • The acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court by the United States on which Nicaragua relies is the result of the United States declaration of 14 August 1946. 
    • However, the United States argues that effect should be given to the letter sent to the Secretary- General of the United Nations on 6 April 1984.
    • It is clear that if this notification were valid as against Nicaragua at the date of filing of the Application, the Court would not have jurisdiction under Article 36 of the Statute. 
  • After outlining the arguments of the Parties in this connection, the Court points out that the most important question relating to the effect of the 1984 notification is whether the United States was free to disregard the six months’ notice clause which, freely and by its own choice, it has appended to its declaration, in spite of the obligation it has entered into vis-a-vis other States which have made such a declaration. 
  • The Court notes that the United States has argued that the Nicaraguan declaration, being of undefined duration, is liable to immediate termination, and that Nicaragua has not accepted “the same obligation” as itself and may not rely on the time-limit proviso against it. 
  • The Court does not consider that this argument entitles the United States validly to derogate from the time-limit proviso included in its 1946 declaration. 
  • In the Court’s opinion, the notion of reciprocity is concerned with the scope and substance of the commitments entered into, including reservations, and not with the formal conditions of their creation, duration or extinction. 
  • Reciprocity cannot be invoked in order to excuse departure from the terms of a State’s own declaration. The United States cannot rely on reciprocity since the Nicaraguan declaration contains no express restriction at all. 
  • On the contrary, Nicaragua can invoke the six months’ notice against it, not on the basis of reciprocity, but because it is an undertaking which is an integral part of the instrument that contains it. 
  •  The 1984 notification cannot therefore override the obligation of the United States to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court vis-a-vis Nicaragua.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more