Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T14:56:28.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nicaragua v. United States as a Precedent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Frederic L. Kirgis Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 652 - 657
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1984 ICJ Rep. 392 (Judgment of Nov. 26), 24 ILM 59 (1985).

2 1982-1983 Y.B. ICJ 88-89.

3 Letter from Secretary of State George Shultz to the UN Secretary-General, 23 ILM 670 (1984).

4 See the State Department’s statement in 79 AJIL 439, 441 (1985), 24 ILM 246, 248 (1985).

5 The State Department has said, “The Court’s theory is flatly inconsistent with two prior decisions of the Court (the Aerial Incident and Barcelona Traction cases).” 79 AJIL 423, 425 (1985), 24 ILM 249, 253 (1985). The theory arguably is inconsistent with some of the language in those Judgments, but the cases themselves are distinguishable.

6 A similar assertion-acquiescence process has given authoritative effect to the International Labor Office’s interpretation of ILO conventions. See ILO Governing Body, Minutes of the Ninth Session 365-66 (1921). Nor is the process unknown in other international organizations.

7 Case concerning the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Hond. v. Nicar.), 1960 ICJ Rep. 192 (Judgment of Nov. 18).

8 Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.; NZ v. Fr.), 1974 ICJ Rep. 253, 457 (Judgments of Dec. 20).

9 See Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Port. v. India), Preliminary Objections, 1957 ICJ Rep. 125, 146 (Judgment of Nov. 26); The Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belg. v. Bulgaria), 1939 PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 77, at 81.

10 1 Rosenne, S., The Law and Practice of the International Court 413-14 (1965)Google Scholar.

11 UNTS Regis. No. 18,232, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/27 (1969).

12 See 12 Whiteman, M., Digest of International Law 1302-03 (1971)Google Scholar.

13 Jan. 21, 1956, Art. XXIV(2), 9 UST 449, TIAS No. 4024, 367 UNTS 3.

14 As of September 1984, there were 40 such multilateral treaties and another 40 such bilateral treaties. See Genocide Convention: Hearing on Executive O Before the Senate Comm. on Foreign Relations, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 63 (1984). For a list of the multilateral treaties, see S. Exec. Rep. No. 50, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 37-41 (1984).

15 Dec. 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277.

16 Mar. 7, 1966, 660 UNTS 195.

17 See Wash. Post, Mar. 6, 1985, at A8, col. 5.