Talk:Nicaragua v. United States/Archive 1

Judges countries

Can we put what countries the Judges come from next to their names? user:J.J. 07:06, 8 June 2003

Cool, now that that's done can we put a "total" column after all the yes and no votes? as in, "3Y/14N" - user:J.J. 07:23, 11 July 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.228.208 (talk • contribs)

Be bold. But as it is the votes are kind of empty information given that the reader cannot see what the paragraphs were about. Get-back-world-respect 11:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I definitely see that Japan and the UK gave the US a pass compared to the other countries. The world's 3 most brutal imperialist empires have stuck together for decades.

Clean up

I added the cleanup tag. That table needs to cleaned up. It's messy and oogly. --Woohookitty 00:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tried to add some clarification

Tried to add some clarification of the legal matters and their impact on internation law, the previous version would give few indications to readers of what principles and what articles United States was considered to be in breach of, and most people are not too enligthened in matters of international law. Others with some competence in international law and the particilar case could help making that part of this article a bit more understanding. 15 February 2005—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybbe (talk • contribs)

current status of the USA-international court relationship?

Hi, does anyone know the current status of the USA's relationship to the International Court? this article says that the USA 'withdrew its declaration accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction.' after the case, does the USA still not accept rulings by the Court, and does that mean that it can't even be taken to Court? (because to go you have to be willing to accept the ruling...)

andy 7 June 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13trees (talk • contribs)

They have not made a declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. They can, however, choose to participate on an ad hoc basis, and some treaties refer to ICJ for disputes, there have been a few the last years regarding consular rights. Countries that have accepted compulsory jurisdiction: [1]. --Cybbe 20:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

deleted sentence

I deleted this sentence after 2 weeks of citation needed and no one answering:

The U.S. State Department had called activities of the Contras "terrorist activities". ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Travb 06:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: deletion of 1946 reference and George Schultz

A user had deleted:

On April 6, 1984, three days before the trial, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz notified the International Court that the United States would invoke its special provision that was brought to the United Nations on 26 August 1946. This provision stated that the United States agreement to abide by the decisions of the court "... shall not apply to disputes with any Central American State or arising out of or related to events in Central America." But this provision, as the court pointed out "...shall remain in force for a period of two years..." only.[2][3]

I added the template: {{Disputeabout|U.S. defense and response}} and returned this deletion.

I am really confused:

The United States also disputes the jurisdiction of the Court in this case by relying on a declaration which it deposited on 6 April 1984, referring to its 1946 Declaration, and providing that that Declaration "shall not apply to disputes with any Central American State or arising out of or related to events in Central America" and that it "shall take effect immediately and shall remain in force for a period of two years". Since the dispute with Nicaragua, in its opinion, clearly falls within the terms of the exclusion in the declaration of 6 April 1984, it considers that the 1946 Declaration cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court to entertain the case. For its part, Nicaragua considers that the declaration of 6 April 1984 could not have modified the 1946 Declaration which, not having been validly terminated, remains in force.

So to summarize and reword what the court said:

The US disputes the ICJ taking the case because of the 6 April 1984 Statment ("Declaration" A formal statment proclamation or announcement especially one in an instrument) which it gave to the court. The US refers to its 1946 declaration:

• "The court cannot oversee disputes in any Central American State" and that
• the statment will "take effect immediately and will be valid for two years".

The US argues that since the argument with the Nigaragua court clearly is part of the exception in the 6 April 1984 statment, the US aruges that the 1946 declaration bars the ICJ from hearing the Nicaragua dispute.

Nicaraga argues that the 6 April 1984 statment didn't change the 1946 Declaration which was not terminated correctly and remains in force.

I am confused....this case is poorly written. I look forward to your response.Travb 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(later) The user is correct, i was wrong. I went to the law libaray and read the book: Gill, Terry D. (1989). Litigation strategy at the International Court a case study of the Nicaragua v United States dispute, Dordrecht. ISBN 0792303326. reading the footnote on Shultz (#55--the first reference to Shultz in the book)--the letter which Shultz submitted to the ICJ stated clearly that he wanted a two year time period where the US could not be brought to the ICJ by Central American countries. Later in the book I read that this was dismissed by the court because of the requirement that a country has to give 6 months notice. Shultz gave 3 days notice: the Friday before the weekend were that next Monday the case was too begin. I am going to contact this website owner and tell him that he is incorrect.Travb 03:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed to talk page

After being marked with the fact tag for a few months, I removed this to the talk page:

withdrawing its declaration accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction.{{Fact}}

To read this fragment sentence in full context click here:

edit history

Signed: Travb (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this case..

..closed for good? --PaxEquilibrium 13:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Travb (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

UN Security Council resolutions

Didn't the US then veto two UN Security Council resolutions calling upon all states to observe international law or something? If that's the case, then it's certainly relevant, and should be mentioned somewhere.Mike.lifeguard 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken links

Ramonk 22:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Operative Paragraph link on top the judge's voting table is broken. Could someone fix this?

Long term effects of this case

Didn't this case cause the United States to withdraw their agreement to be automatically bound by ICJ decisions? I believe it was also one of the cornerstone cases which gave developing countries greater confidence in the ICJ and led to a greatly increased usage by them as well as declerations by them recognising the jurisdiction of the court (previously, they had regarded it largely as something set up by the developed western world for their benefit). These legacy issues don't seem to be covered here tho Nil Einne 13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cutting down the quote

Ultra, any suggestion on how to trim the text of section 116 of the ICJ ruling? 69.150.212.214 10:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How about simply the final vote in the intro, and moving 116 to the body, to the section at the end of the article, called "Legal clarification and importance"? Ultramarine 10:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of introduction

This has been removed from the intro "Regarding possible human rights violations by the contras, "The Court does not consider that the assistance given by the United States to the contras warrants the conclusion that these forces are subject to the United States to such an extent that any acts they have committed are imputable to that State." Therefore, "It is 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."[4]" The intro should represent the main points of the article. This, or similar description, is an essential part of the judgement so this should be mentioned in the intro for completeness and npov.Ultramarine 23:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple problems. The first is that this is just one legal point that the court made, and I don't see why this particular point about extent of the actions of the Contras related to a finding of to what degree the US is reponsible for, is important enough to be in the introduction. It was an important part of the reasoning used by the court to consider the scope of what they considered, and thus looked into, but its really a side statement. So there is no need to repeat this point in the introduction when its covered already in a section later in the article. Its certainly not standard to have an article repeat itself with the same paragraph in two parts of the article. The other problem is that the paragraph, while I have kept it intact in the main body of the article, also is a bit misleading. We have:

"However, regarding possible human rights violations by the contras, "The Court does not consider that the assistance given by the United States to the contras warrants the conclusion that these forces are subject to the United States to such an extent that any acts they have committed are imputable to that State." Therefore, "It is 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."

The full text of the decision is here with the highlighted portions being the portions which were cut and paste to this site:

The Court does not consider that the assistance given by the United States to the contras warrants the conclusion that these forces are subject to the United States to such an extent that any acts they have committed are imputable to that State. 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-a-vis Nicaragua, including conduct related to the acts of the contras. What the Court has to investigate is not the complaints relating to alleged violations of humanitarian law by the contras, regarded by Nicaragua as imputable to the United States, but rather unlawful acts for which the United States may be responsible directly in connection with the activities 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. It is 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 time, 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.

What is left out?

Sentence 2: 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-a-vis Nicaragua, including conduct related to the acts of the contras.

i.e. The US is responsible for its acts in Nicaragua, including the acts related to the contras.

Sentence 3: "What the Court has to investigate is not the complaints relating to alleged violations of humanitarian law by the contras, regarded by Nicaragua as imputable to the United States, but rather unlawful acts for which the United States may be responsible directly in connection with the activities of the contras."

i.e. The court should investigate the unlawful acts of the United States which are connected to the contras.

Sentence 4: "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. "

i.e. The lawfulness of the US acts is a different than the humanitarian violations that the contracts may have committed.

Sentence 6: "At the same time, 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."

i.e. It is important to know if the United States is breaking humanitarian law, because this can show if the US actions are lawful.

Sentence 7: "In this respect, the material facts are primarily those connected with the issue in 1983 of a manual of psychological operations. "

i.e. The facts showing that the US was aware of humanitarian crimes can be found in the 1983 of a manual of psychological operations. This manual is a torture manual, teaching students how to torture.

Again, I have left it intact as it is, despite this potencially misleading selective quotation, but there is no reason why this fine legal point needs to be quoted in the introduction. The introduction is not for fine points of law, its for basic synopsis and general thrust of the case, which did find the US guilty. To talk about what it did not find the US guilty of, is to be left for the article, which does get into those details. Even then, the way this point is presented, needs to be in proper and full context.Giovanni33 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant this passage from the voted on statements. "In the final voting, the court found by by fourteen votes to one "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America"" This is necessary to include for NPOV and completeness regarding what the court decided.Ultramarine 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Its still being repeated twice, in the body of the article and in the introduction. It belongs in the section it currently resides, on legal signifance, and does not need to be repeated above. I'll expand the legal signifance section with your changes and keep it there. Otherwise, why give undue weight to this point, by repeating it twice in this article.Giovanni33 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro summarized important points of the body, that is not duplicaton.Ultramarine 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it a summary when the point is exactly, verbatim, reapeated in the section below? This is not summary info, its a technical legality point the court made about what actions the contras can be attributed to the US. It belongs in the section it currently resides in, otherwise you are giving it undue weight by repeating it in the intro, esp. in full.Giovanni33 06:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That are very important points. The summary is misleading without them. I have summarized the text.Ultramarine 11:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept your summary, then.Giovanni33 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Witnesses section

Undue weight to this long section since the court found the US not imputable for human rights violations and therefore did not consider if these claims had actually occurred. So should be drastically reduced.Ultramarine 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the court did find the US guilty of violations of human rights, and of encouraing the Contras violations. THe part you refer to, you seem to misunderstand. The court states that not any action can be attributed to the US simply because the Contras did it, so they didn't need to look into all the human rights violations of the contras or consider that to rule on the US. Basically, the Contras and the US are two separate entitites. That is the point the court made, which is a common sense, and really trivial point. But, the Court did find the US guilty of violating the norms of humanitarian law, use of unlawful force, etc. The witness section is important for it provides context to the dispute. Nicaruaga was bringing all these witnesses as evidence of US complicity, so its quite appropos here.Giovanni33 07:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give the exact quote where to court find the US guilty of human rights violations. I have already given mine The court also stated "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America" and Therefore, "It is 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."[5]Ultramarine 11:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to go through the document to find other instances, but for instance finding of use of unlawful force, against international law, the mining of harbors, etc. But, even if the court did not find other instance of human rights abuses imputable to the US, the witness section is still valid beause this was evidence that was submitted by one of the parties, Niaragua. This article discusses both sides, AND the court ruling on them. There is no good reason to exclude the evidence Nic presented simply because the court ruled in a certain way. They all belong in this article.Giovanni33 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mining harbours, violating the territory of another nations, or supporting an opposition group in another nation are not human rights violations, although they violate other laws.Ultramarine 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law

Law. to ascribe to or charge (a person) with an act or quality because of the conduct of another over whom one has control or for whose acts or conduct one is responsible.

So they encouraged the human rights violations, but did were not directly responsible for them. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am moving this to talk as per above.Ultramarine 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I don't know if you delete more material than you add. It is a shame that you can't accept referenced material which contradicts your own ideology. With all of your first rate work (remember I vigously defended your democratic peace theory chart AfD, until I got a veiled threat from a powerful admin) I sincerly believe you would be a first rate scholar if you did. Instead, unfortunatly you seem no different then the other dozens of edit war people here. You should talk to Rjesen, he also is an INCREDIBLE scholar, but he can't tolerate opposing views on wikipages, and has removed large sections of referenced text that he personally doesn't agree with. This drives me crazy. Please spend more time adding material to wikipedia articles--we need more work like this.

Personally, I feel confident enough that my own views are strong enough to stand up along side other peoples views too. Do you?

The two witness you deleted comes from the only full book available on the Nicaragua versus United States case. The information is relevant and meets, exceeds all of the guidelines for wikipedia. The court obviously considered this information. Please read more articles and possible pick up the referenced book (when I say pick up I mean read--not cherry picking the book as you have with the court ruling). If you are interested I know how to get a hold of the book. Many of the law review articles here are also very impressive and very thorough (some are only opinion pieces). If you notice there is a nice balance of both pro-american and pro-nicaraguan articles, side by side.

Thanks for at least moving the text to the talk page, I appreciate that.

Thanks for forcing me too recheck my sources, and making me a better wikieditor.

Like Rjesen, I don't expect an overnight change, but thanks for listening. travb 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks, the Court clearly stated "the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them." as noted above. It is undue weight to mention them, especially since the section already lists many other pro-Sandinsta witnesses but none of those supporting the US view.Ultramarine 15:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)::

Also, why did you delete this important information from the intro? Remember WP:SOAP.Ultramarine 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So include some witnesses for the US and leave the other ones in. Notmyrealname 15:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my point that they were irrelevant for the judgement.Ultramarine 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, I was answering your other point that only including Nicaragua witnesses was WP:UNDUE, although it appears that since the US refused to participate in the proceedings, there probably weren't any witnesses for them. This would not violate WP:UNDUE as it is an accurate reflection of what occurred in the court case (which is the subject of the article, not US policy towards Nicaragua). Second, it seems that, despite the "were not imputable" issue, most of the Court's rulings clearly rely on the evidence presented by the witnesses. Including these summaries of testimony by witnesses is very helpful to the general reader, as it gives them a fuller picture of the evidence the court heard without having to read the entire court transcript. Again, there is no question of WP:UNDUE as this article deals with what happened in the court case. Notmyrealname 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rjesen ignored my comments too. They are not personal attacks, in fact I compliment your scholarship.
No one is arguing that you do in fact, delete large portions of referenced material, correct?
I see a common thread when you defend your widespread deletions of referenced material which does not match your POV.
You find a question to ask the person who defends this referenced material, and continue to ask.
It is undue weight to mention them
If you feel that the witnesses opinions are WP:UNDUE then there is a solution. Add referenced material which matches your own POV and contradicts the information already available. I welcome these changes.
If we want to talk about WP:UNDUE lets talk about how you first misquote sources, and then you insisist on mentioning one section of 16 sections which makes the US look a little good. How doyou defend such edits?
The court did in fact consider the fourth and fifth witness, and used their testimony to formulate the verdict. Every layperson knows how courts make decisions.
Just because you dont like the testimony of the witnesses because it doesnt mirror your own POV, doesnt mean it is not valid.
...especially since the section already lists many other pro-Sandinsta witnesses but none of those supporting the US view.
The US decided to veto the court proceedings. So there is no testimony from the US.
Strip away all of the policy arguments which masks your real concern, and here, is the real problem that you have with these two sections: there is not enough of a US view. Please, I welcome your references additions.
Add back the intro. I reverted it at the same time I reverted the large deletions. I wish you would respect other peoples contributions as much as you give weight to your own. You are such a talented editor....User:travb 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP, the judgement should be presented neutrally, including that the US was not found guilty of HR by the Contras. By deleting this and inserting the Witness the impression is falsely given that the Court found the US guilty of these violations.Ultramarine 14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see response below, thanks. User:travb 03:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hearing

Ultramarine: Please answer my point that they were irrelevant for the judgement.

http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html:

113. The question of the degree of control of the contras by the United States Government is relevant to the claim of Nicaragua attributing responsibility to the United States for activities of the contras whereby the United States has, it is alleged, violated an obligation of international law not to kill, wound or kidnap citizens of Nicaragua. The activities in question are said to represent a tactic which includes "the spreading of terror and danger to non-combatants as an end in itself with no attempt to observe humanitarian standards and no reference to the concept of military necessity". In support of this, Nicaragua has catalogued numerous incidents, attributed to "CIA-trained mercenaries" or "mercenary forces", of kidnapping, assassination, torture, rape, killing of prisoners, and killing of civilians not dictated by military necessity. The declaration of Commander Carrion annexed to the Memorial lists the first such incident in December 1981, and continues up to the end of 1984. Two of the witnesses called by Nicaragua (Father Loison and Mr. Glennon) gave oral evidence as to events of this kind. By way of examples of evidence to provide "direct proof of the tactics adopted by the contras under United States guidance and control", the Memorial of Nicaragua offers a statement, reported in the press, by the ex-FDN leader Mr. Edgar Chamorro, repeated in the latter's affidavit, of assassinations in Nicaraguan villages; the alleged existence of a classified Defence Intelligence Agency report of July 1982, reported in the New York Times on 21 October 1984, disclosing that the contras were carrying out assassinations; and the preparation by the CIA in 1983 of a manual of psychological warfare. At the hearings, reliance was also placed on the affidavit of Mr. Chamorro.

Litigation Strategy at the International Court A Case Study of the Nicaragua v. United States Dispute (p 197):

Professor Glennon and Father Loison were also both non-Nicaraguan nationals. Their identities were also important for Nicaragua's case - albeit less so than the two "star witnesses". One a respected academic with impeccable credentials, the other a Roman Catholic priest, were obviously chosen with a view to the favorable impression they were likely to have upon the Court and upon public opinion. Their testimonies were clearly directed towards dispelling any remaining benefit of the doubt any of the judges might harbor concerning the morality of the contras.

Nicaragua's last two witnesses, Messrs.Hupper (the Minister of Finance) and Chamorro (the ex-contra political leader) were the least important. Both were Nicaraguan nationals and therefore in principle suspect of partisan points of view like Carrion, but unlike Carrion their testimonies were of less importance to establishing Nicaragua's case. Minister Hupper's testimony was directed towards a marginal aspect of Nicaragua's case - the question of financial damage which would not really be pertinent unless Nicaragua won its case on the merits.

Notice how these last two witness, who the author dubs "least important" were not included? But the two witnesses "were also important for Nicaragua's case" were? User:travb 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"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." By deleting material such conclusion from the intro and inserting these witnesses the false impression is given the Court found the US responsible for HR violations by the Contras.Ultramarine 14:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You have made this clear in your edits that the court did not blame the US for the acts of the contras. I appreciate this clarification. If you would like to add a paragraph about this, that is welcome. These witnesses, according to Litigation Strategy at the International Court A Case Study of the Nicaragua v. United States Dispute were important. If needed I can find out how important...Thanks for challenging me :) User:travb 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian law

Did the US violate humanitarian law? Yes.

The Court observes that the laying of mines in the waters of another State without any warning or notification is not only an unlawful act but also a breach of the principles of humanitarian law underlying the Hague Convention No. VIII of 1907.[6]

(9) By fourteen votes to one,

Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled "Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas", and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America; [7]

Litigation Strategy at the International Court A Case Study of the Nicaragua v. United States Dispute (p 329):

What about the violations of humanitarian law by the contras through their use of "terroristic violence" as Professor Glennon concluded? Is this conduct legally imputable to the United States? If one accepts the Court's conclusions concerning the U.S. contra relationship, then it is impossible to conclude other than the Court did- i.e. that the United States is not responsible for the acts of the contras, but for its own acts vis a vis Nicaragua in violation of humanitarian law. (Whether or not U.S. support for the contras makes the contras' violations of human rights morally imputable to the U.S. is another matter. Professor Glennon thought so - but the ICJ is not a Court of morals).(II)

(Both of these passages say: the US is not responsible for the human rights violations of the contras, but the US is only responsible for their own human rights violations)

Litigation Strategy at the International Court A Case Study of the Nicaragua v. United States Dispute (p 333):

The U.S. action in support of the contras and in mining Nicaragua's harbors, attacking its oil depots etc. does not by any recognized standard fall within the terms of self defense. User:travb 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(6) By twelve votes to three,

Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

(8) By fourteen votes to one,

Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;

6. Humanitarian law (paras. 215 to 220)

The Court observes that the laying of mines in the waters of another State without any warning or notification is not only an unlawful act but also a breach of the principles of humanitarian law underlying the Hague Convention No. VIII of 1907. This consideration leads the Court on to examination of the international humanitarian law applicable to the dispute. Nicaragua has not expressly invoked the provisions of international humanitarian law as such, but has complained of acts committed on its territory which would appear to be breaches thereof. In its submissions it has accused the United States of having killed, wounded and kidnapped citizens of Nicaragua. Since the evidence available is insufficient for the purpose of attributing to the United States the acts committed by the contras, the Court rejects this submission.

The question however remains of the law applicable to the acts of the United States in relation to the activities of the contrast Although Nicaragua has refrained from referring to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, to which Nicaragua and the United States are parties, the Court considers that the rules stated in Article 3, which is common to the four Conventions, applying to armed conflicts of a non-international character, should be applied. The United States is under an obligation to "respect" the Conventions and even to "ensure respect" for them, and thus not to encourage persons or groups engaged in the conflict in Nicaragua to act in violation of the provisions of Article 3. This obligation derives from the general principles of humanitarian law to which the Conventions merely give specific expression.[8]

User:travb 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

From you own quote, from the voted on final statements: "but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America" That they did violate HR by laying mines may be, but is a different matter from HR vioaltions done by the Contras.Ultramarine 14:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed :) user:travb 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored your introduction, and made some minor changes--feel free to edit it. I am not really in the mood to go much more into this...user:travb 04:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Giovanni33, plese explain why this book is not a reliable source. As well as why you removed the citation needed tags.[9].Ultramarine 09:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This hardly needs explanation. But I can do it in one name: David Horowitz. He may be a reliable source for his own article, about his own views, but not much else. The fact tags are well known facts and sources have been provide before to you about this point. If you want, include them. They are quite easy to find. I refer you to the pdf from redress.org previously provided.Giovanni33 09:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain why Horowitz is not a reliable source, compared say with Choamsky or Blum. It is those who claim something who must provide sources. Unless such are given these statements will be removed.Ultramarine 09:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no Chomsky or Blum in this article. Care to point it out? It all depends on what the source is being cited for. You are citing Horowitz for a fine legal point regarding this trial, when he has no qualification in this area, aside from a right-wing attacker of Chomsky (notable in critcisms of Chomsky, I might add), is the problem. Same would go with using Blum here by the same token. If its to cite a notable POV (such as his Anti-Chomsky reader about that subject--Chomsky, then it would be ok)Giovanni33 09:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to my points regarding citations, otherwise I will take it as no objection to removing the unsourced text.Ultramarine 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did respond, and you saw the source before because you said you read it. Its also common knowelge. But, here is a reliable source that makes the same point you wanted to make, too. I'll add in it the article: "The US did accepted the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua, and that the US was in "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another sate" and ordered to pay reparations, though it never did."[10]Giovanni33 09:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The other claims are still unsourced. Any source? Ultramarine 10:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the claim that the US choose not to pay, despite being ordered to by the general assembly? That is in the same source, which you claimed to have already read.Giovanni33 10:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this claim:"Only El Salvador, which also had disputes with Nicaragua, and Israel voted with the U.S. In spite of this resolution."Ultramarine 10:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As well as this "The court found that it was obliged to apply this exception and refused to take on claims by Nicaragua based on the United Nations Charter and Organization of American States charter, but concluded that it could still decide the case based on customary international law obligations with 11-4 majority."Ultramarine 10:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

These are well known facts, and you do do your own homework to add sources, quite easily. For instance, here is the court judgment by Americans attempting to get the American courts to enforce the ICJ's decision. It reviews the facts. For instance, "U.N. General Assembly, resolution, “Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1986 concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua: need for immediate compliance” (U.N. Doc. A/RES/41/31 {html, 207 kb pdf}, November 3 1986, recorded vote: 94/3/47/15, 159 voting members). The 3 “no” votes: U.S., Israel, El Salvador."[11]You can easily find multiple and better sources, too. The statments you question are well known factually correct. Just look for sources if you want to source them. I'll let you do this one.Giovanni33 10:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal homepages are not allowed sources. It is those who want to have statements in the article who must give sources, as per WP:V.Ultramarine 10:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that you dont want to have these factual statements in the article and so that is why you refer to delete things you know are true instead of look up good sources to cite them with? That is against an even more important WP rule, not to mention against the spirit of WP itself. I didn't add those statments, but they are factual, and if you want to cite them, please do so. Deleting is only valid when you suspect its not true and no sources can be found.Giovanni33 10:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that statements must follow WP:V and that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".Ultramarine 10:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you answer my question? Why are you ignoring it? I find that most interesting. There is a rule on WP that we can not hide behind the rules, the letter of the rulres, to break the spirit of the rules. WP works on common sense, too. I suggest you consider that as a higher level of rules to follow, since you seem to be invoking rules a lot, but doing so not to help WP and to remove information which you don't even deny is factual. That is a big problem, and that is the point of my question to you, which you keep ignoring. Care to answer? And by the way, here is another source, the European Journal of International Law, which can be cited:[12]Giovanni33 10:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to remove these unsourced statements since they are unverifiable. If anyone wants to keep them, including you, then sources have to be given. You have given a source for some of the claims which I have added to the article.Ultramarine 11:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Source still required for "The court found that it was obliged to apply this exception and refused to take on claims by Nicaragua based on the United Nations Charter and Organization of American States charter, but concluded that it could still decide the case based on customary international law obligations with 11-4 majority." This claim is strange considering that the Court several times refers to the UN Charter.Ultramarine 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, if you don't allow opposing viewpoints, you are no better than the conservatives who refuse to allow Chomsky's views in articles. Let it drop--Horwitz belongs in the article. David Horwitz is simply parroting other authors, maybe one of us can find a less controversial author who says the same thing?

Ultramarine, is there a book that Horwitz quotes? Ultramarine, I said there are some really good sources in the external links, by law professors, who oppose the court case.

Personally, I first became familar with this case because of Chomsky, but as Giovanni33 points out, there is no Chomsky in this article. Why, because I researched the case deeper and realized the Chomsky's treatment of the case was shallow and one sided, as I am sure Horwitz's is.

Giovanni33, don't delete referenced sections which oppose your own POV [13] You two are more alike then you care to admit.

Why don't you two find another article to edit war in, and leave this one in peace? User:Travb 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has improved in several ways since it has received more attention from both sides, so this has been constructive. Various US objections can be found for example here: [14] I also note that research has shown that the judges are biased in various ways when voting.[15] Are there any objections to removed the unsourced paragraph refered to above? Also, the view of CIA, also mentioned in the judgement, that manual was intended to "moderate" activities already being done should included. Objections? Ultramarine 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been some constructive progress. I agree :)

I don't know what paragraph you are talking about, I guess that is between you and Giovanni33.

Please add any criticisms you would like in the US response section. There is A LOT of criticism of the Nicaragua case by conservative US academics and lawyers.

I personally feel the information about the manual can be discussed on the manual page itself, unless the Nicaragua court specifically said that the manual was used to moderate the contras. There is only passing reference to it here, and the passing reference states that the court did not blame the US for contra activities. [thanks for your addition Ultramarine--I missed that]

This is a discussion for the manual talk page, but I find it hilarious that the CIA defends the document by saying that it was used to "moderate" the contras, since it encouraged the targeting killing of judges, etc...

Also note that D'Amato, Anthony, who I added three articles on, is also very critical of the court.

I will add your excellent Murphy article to the external links page.

The international court bias article only mentions the Nicaragua court case in one paragraph.[16] You are welcome to add it, but I don't see it being very relevant myself.

Funny that you are supporting a very liberal view of the courts, developed in the 1960's with the new left: that courts are inheretly biased. [I wish I remembered the name of this group from my American Law history course--it is a world view I support] But maybe you feel the bias is only in international courts, and not American ones?

Thanks User:travb 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for other POV's, critical or not. However, the sources that we report on those POV's are important, esp. for an article like this, and esp. for some fine legal interpretation--not just a POV. For that purpose, I object to Horotwiz. He fails as reliable source since he is no legal expert. We can find his POV but in reliable sources, I'm sure--and that I"m all for.Giovanni33 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved around sections

I moved around the sections. In all articles, there is an explanation of the subject, then criticisms. The US view of the judgment is a criticism of the judgement, and belongs at the end. I put it above the witnesses. User:Travb 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Judgement sentence

I moved the following sentence to talk:

The very long judgement first listed 291 points. Among them that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force". This was followed by the statements that the judges voted on.

I was thinking that this sentence can be incorporated into the ruling section. There is no doubt that the judgement was against the US. User:Travb 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why this should even be mentioned. It was not some general principle voted on. Its claims to notability seem to be that Chomsky decided to pick out these few words out of the very long text as supposed evidence that the court found the US guilty of terrorism.Ultramarine 20:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is between you and G. Maybe the sentence should be expanded, so it is in context. I think it is more notable than just chomsky, but I dont want to spend the time reaquanting myself with the case User:travb 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is important to understanding the significance of the decision. It could certainly stand to be moved around to an appropriate spot, and possibly expanded. Ideally, we should be able to find a secondary source that deems it important so that we are not overly reliant on primary sources. I suppose we could use Chomsky if we are going to use Horowitz, but it would be best to try to stick to less polemical sources on all sides to avoid an all-out edit war. Notmyrealname 21:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important, it not something voted on? Ultramarine 07:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It was part of the Court's Judgment. It is discussed in paragraphs 251, 252, and 253 of the Court Judgment. Notmyrealname 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not something they voted on, but a few selectively picked words from 292 points before this.Ultramarine 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unclear on this. It is discussed (in those words) in those three points that I listed. These appear to me to be part of the judgment. Were they not voted on? Why are they included? Thanks. Notmyrealname 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The voted on statements can be found at the end, after the 292 points, which seems to be some form of preamble.[17]Ultramarine 20:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need the opinion of someone with a little more legal background to clear this up. It seems to me that the 292 points are part of the judgment. The voted on part is the ruling on the legal questions that carry possible penalties or remedies. The first part seems to be findings of fact. From my reading, there's no indication that these points are in dispute. They are part of the judgment of the Court. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so it would be helpful if someone who is could clarify this.Notmyrealname 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But why should we mention a few selected words from this very long section. The important statements are what was voted on.Ultramarine 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to hear what someone with some legal expertise has to say about the significance of this section. From my reading, it was part of the judgment and appears to be a finding of fact. It was the basis for the decisions. That the Court found these facts true is quite significant. Part of the job of editing is to highlight the most salient items from longer documents for the reader. Notmyrealname 22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should we pick out these words from all the others in among the 292 points? The editor wanting to add material has the burden of evidence, so you have to provide a source showing that ths particular quote is important.Ultramarine 08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(shifting left) I think this point is debatable. You've been rather insistent, for instance, in including a prominent reference to Paragraph 116 regarding what the Court felt legally competent to rule on. As long as what we're pulling out is an accurate reflection of what's actually written, I don't see a problem with editors pulling out the most salient points. I do agree, though, that it would be helpful to have supporting sources. In fact, we're all probably on shaky ground in that this is a primary source. Notmyrealname 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that a statement from these 292 points was the essence or the central verdict of the court.Ultramarine 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems like that was what you were arguing here. Notmyrealname 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Following removed

The following has been recently removed:

The court stated that the US was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

The court had 16 final decisions which it voted upon. In Statment 9, the court stated that the US encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas. However, this did not make such acts attributable to the US.

Regarding possible human rights violations by the contras, "The Court does not consider that the assistance given by the United States to the contras warrants the conclusion that these forces are subject to the United States to such an extent that any acts they have committed are imputable to that State." Therefore, "It is 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."

In regards to laying mines, "...the laying of mines in the waters of another State without any warning or notification is not only an unlawful act but also a breach of the principles of humanitarian law underlying the Hague Convention No. VIII of 1907."

Thanks Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see why the last part was removed as its a very minor technical legal detail, meaning that the the US and Contras were separate enough entities so that even with the US support for the human rights violations committed by the contras, it does reach the level that one can attribute any and all violations by the Contras to the US; therefore it does not need to look at specific human rights committed by the Contras per se, as evidence against the US as having committed those acts indirectly. If they are attributed to the Contras, then it does not need to look at them. Makes sense to me.

But, more recently were was a much bigger removal, which I do object to. That is, the removing of the sourced statements of witnesses regarding this case. This article is has lots of information at one time and is now starting to look like a stub. What is going on? I'm going to fill it back up information from good sources, but I also will be restoring these two sections in particular.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Judgment

I was wondering if "The United States of America had to pay reparations for the damage." should be expanded. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerwinUMD (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, several points, need expanding. And the point about the US security counsel opting not to act is misleading. They were blocked from action by the US veto power being a permanent security council member, and they did vote, with only the US voting to stop enforcement. Regarding reparations, yes, the court awarded them in its verdict, but the US govt did not comply, and there was no way to force compliance. This article fails to mention any of these facts. I'll dig up some sources and this.Giovanni33 (talk)

test

I"m not sure why comments on the talk page are not showing up as text. This is a test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni33 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Groundless"

"but also rejected the charges against Nicaragua as groundless after examining the evidence in official U.S. government documents". Looking at the actual court documents shows a much more complex situation. There much evidence against Nicaragua, like clear evidence of an arms flow to El Salvador and statements made by Nicaragua itself like ""We've said that we're willing to send home the Cubans, the Russians, the rest of the advisers. We're willing to stop the movement of military aid, or any other kind of aid, through Nicaragua to El Salvador, and we're willing to accept international verification." Not just enough evidence to prove that the Nicaraguan government itself did the support.Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not for us to debate, or argue. The statement you reference reflects the comments from a reliable source. The solution here, is to cite a contrary opinion from a reliable source and add that text/point in that place, but keep it short since this is a side-point. Also, this has more to do with what the court said, as opposed to what other partisan parties allege. So when you find a source it should talk about what the Courts view was on the question.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I cited the court itself [18], you a partisan magazine. The groundless statement should be removed since it is incorrect.Ultramarine (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant text that you wish to include on the question. I'll look for another source to see if we can substantiate that claim from Chomsky. I don't think its inaccurate. Give me a day or two to look into it.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"The court found evidence for an arms flow between Nicaragua and to the insurgents in El Salvador in 1979-81. However, there was not enough evidence to show that the Nicaraguan government was responsible for this or that the US response was proportional. The court also found established that certain transborder incursions into the territory of Guatemala and Costa Rica, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, were imputable to the Government of Nicaragua. However, neither Guatemala and Costa Rica made any request for intervention by the US and El Salvador only in 1984, well after the US intervention started."[19] We can include the view of Chomsky, properly attributed and not stated as a fact.Ultramarine (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be reasonable.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Witness"

Why include only those from one side in so extreme detail, especially when those relating to human rights violations by the Contras, when the US was found not responsible for those? Ultramarine (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because they are part of the trial, of which this article concerns. Its thus valid information that should be included. As far as not being responsible for, that is not entirely true. The US was found guilty of, among other things, of "encouraging the human rights violations" of the Contras. The witnesses were part of the testimony of the court regardless of what it ultimately ruled. About it being from one side, the solution is not to delete, its to add the other side. If you have witnesses and testimony from the other side, then by all means include it.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the title and added a statement to avoid confusion.Ultramarine (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw. I'm ok with this, although I'll point out that this point now being made three times in the article.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Manual

Why was this removed? "The CIA claimed that the purpose of the manual was to "moderate" activities already being done by the Contras."Ultramarine (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. Seems accidental. I have no objection if you add that part back in.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Horowitz

He is not a reliable source and the bit you added with his opinion adds nothing to the article since the issue is discussed very well. In fact listing his legal opinion degrades the quality of the article. Also, he is misleading since he implies that simply because the US did not agree--which the US did since 1946--means that there was no juristiction; suspension requires 6 months notice, designed to prevent exactly this type of situation from occuring, i.e. when a party is going to get sued, to simply opt out and claim no juristiction. Why do we care what Horowitz thinks, unless this is was an article on the man?Giovanni33 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He is a reliable, or unreliable, as Chomsky, when writing about history.Ultramarine (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think it would be best if we could use less partisan sources and avoid the Chomskys and the Horowitzs altogether. Notmyrealname (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to removing both.Ultramarine (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no comparison between Prof. Chomsky and the the likes of Horotwitz. Its false parity.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky has no education or academic degree in history or political science. Equally reliable.Ultramarine (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I moved some sections around to what makes much more sense (pre-trial, prosecution, defence, judgment, post-trail interpretations). To anyone with no back ground on the case, this should be more helpful than the previous incarnation of the article. There is still a lot that needs to be done, as pieces of the article are just copied from court documents (or perhaps other sources), and not much is explained in layman's terms (which is what this encyclopedia is about). There should be a little more back story too.

The "witnesses against the US section" needs to be included in the Nicaraguaian argments section, but it also needs to be a lot shorter. I've left that as it is for now as I know it's a touchy subject for some. NJGW (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article, still needs refining

I appreciate the work of all involved in this article. There are links to credible sources here which I had previously not been able to find (and I have looked) - such as the vetoed UNSC resolution from Oct 86. Reading some of the previous comments claiming that some things are just "well known facts" and therefore don't require links to credible sources, that line of thinking is ludicrous, and obviously not in line with Wiki standards. I removed the Chomsky and Horowitz pieces. The Chomsky part had no source - the link was to an outdated webpage (error 404), and what was written did not make much sense. The Horowitz blurb also made no sense, as the US did accept World Court jurisdiction in 1946, and the comments there made it seem as if the US had never accepted jurisdiction. I'm all for third party interpretations, but this was sloppy work. I'll scrutinize this article more carefully, and if I can add anything I will. Good work again. MJM72 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A few updates

The Senate intended to proscribe any suspension designed to avoid specific litigation- which is just what the State Department had in mind in the Nicaraguan case. By acting without the requisite six month's notice, the administration was violating a duly ratified treaty which constitutionally had the force of domestic law."

This isn't correct, as more recent SCOTUS decisions (Medellin v. Texas) have held.

Also, oddly the fact that Nicaragua withdrew this ICJ case in 1991 isn't mentioned. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That the withdrawal was made under the pro-US Chamorro regime is surely relevant and while the matter might have been settled in a formal legal sense it was not at all settled in a political sense which is why this is easily one of the most well-known ICJ cases.70.53.194.189 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ironically"

In the section Nicaragua_vs._United_States#UN_voting, is this sentence :

"At that time, El Salvador was receiving substantial funding and military advisement from the U.S., which was aiming to crush a Sandinista-like revolutionary movement by the FMLN, though, ironically, no international court case was brought against the FMLN."

That last part seems possibly POV to me. Does the same International Court of Justice have jurisdiction to bring a case against the FMLN ? It doesn't seem so. Does another international court have such jurisdiction ? Unless I am mistaken, few revolutionary/guerilla movements have been condemned at the level of an international court ; I would say it's more in the jurisdiction of national courts to condemn such movements under the specific laws and policies of the country in which it takes place or is alleged to take place.

Thus, I fail to see what is "ironic" here, and it sounds like an implicit accusation of bias against the ICJ (and I don't mean to say it is unbiased, but here it looks inappropriate to me given both the arguments used and Wikipedia policies).

Your opinions ? --Tovarich1917 (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely POV and innapropriate. Doesn't belong on this page.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have, for the time being, removed the aforementioned part. Does anyone oppose this edit ? Tovarich1917 (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing citation and link

the following sentencing in the opening paragraph are all missing, and the link given dose not lead anywhere. I propose to have it replaced or taken down if the link can not be produced.

"The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

The Court had 16 final decisions upon which it voted. In Statement 9, the Court stated that the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. However, this did not make such acts attributable to the U.S.[4]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

/* Communist leanings in the 1980's (Government didn't become Socialist until 1990)*/

Nicaragua was influenced by Cuba's government. The fact is that Nicaragua followed a communist idealogy during the 1980's until 1990 when they moved towards Socialism!

The Sandinista movement was influenced by the communist movement during the cold war in the mid 20th century. Today, the FSLN has evolved from a communist to more of a socialist movement. The opposition party in Nicaragua is the Constitutionalist Liberal Party. They want to follow responsible democratic capitalism like the Republicans and Democrats do in the United States. The Sandinistas have trouble conforming with that idea because of the history of the United States' occupation and involvment in Nicaragua the past century, as well as Somoza's irresponsible nondemocratic capitalist practices. Both parties in Nicaragua do want a true democracy though, whether it's socialism or capitalism.

Daniel Ortega was influenced by the Cuban Government when he lived in Cuba for seven years. He helped overthrow the Somoza regime in the late 1970's and he has been the leader of the FSLN ever since.

I have visited the rural areas of Nicaragua and have befriended a family who once were called the "wealthy land owners" in the 1970's. This family had worked very hard and spent many years with much dedication to build a successful coffee plantation, only to be pushed out by the Sandinistas in 1981. Their home, land, and all of their possessions were confiscated by the Government and divided up between the other people. Their home was tranformed into a Government building and hospital in the 1980s. Their once profitable coffee business was now run by the other citizens of the community who had no experience with the business practices. They basically ran the business into the ground, and it was not profitable. Nicaragua's GDP dropped dramatically in the 1980's. The FSLN did change their way of thinking in 1990, when the opposing party won office. Daniel Ortega was still a big influence in the politics though! He won back his Presidency in 2006 and has been there ever since. He will never let go of his power.

The family that I mentioned above fled for their lives to Miami in 1981. They then moved to Montreal, Canada where they opened up a profitable small family store for 10+ years. In that time the family had rebuilt some of their wealth. Ironically, they took the money that they had earned in Canada and returned to Nicaragua. The government was nice enough to give them their old house back. 76.121.99.198 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)