The International Court of Justice yesterday ruled that US support to the contras in Nicaragua is illegal, and demanded that the US pay reparations to the Sandinistas.
Nicaragua intends to sue the US for more than dollars 1 billion in damages in US domestic courts as a result of yesterday's World Court ruling, a legal counsel for the Managua Government said yesterday in Washington.
In a 16-point ruling on a complaint lodged by Nicaragua , the judges rejected American claims of collective self-defence and found the US guilty of breaches of international law and the 1956 treaty of friendship between the two countries.
Three judges submitted dissenting opinions: Judge Oda (Japan), Judge Schwebel (US) and Sir Robert Jennings (Britain).
The US rejected the judgment, claiming that the Managua regime is a Soviet puppet.
A Soviet judge did not take part in the case. One judge was withdrawn last August and was only replaced in December - too late to join his 14 colleagues, plus the ad hoc judge added to the court to represent Nicaragua .
The Sandinistas had appealed to the World Court in April, 1984, to condemn American intervention, but the US has always maintained that the court's jurisdiction did not extend to ruling on this issue. The US does recognise the jurisdiction of the court in many other cases, such as the 1984 ruling on the Bay of Maine dispute with Canada.
In its verdict, the court stated that US acts and actions in training and financing the contras, the attack on Puerto Sandino and interference with maritime commerce constituted breaches of international law and the obligation not to violate national sovereignty.
The court argued that the two parties should negotiate on the level and type of reparations, but that if agreement could not be reached, the court would determine compensation at a later date.
The US benches were empty when the court announced its decision. Among the Nicaraguan delegates was the Foreign Minister, Father Miguel d'Escoto, who said he hoped that the verdict would help the Americans to re-evaluate their position and stop defying the law and the court.
Dutch legal experts argue that the decision is legally binding on the US, despite the American refusal to recognise the court's jurisdiction. One said: 'The USA has always recognised the ICJ. It should have changed its position earlier if it wanted to duck the court in this case. 'It is a well-known principle of international law that, if a country submits to the jurisdiction of a court, it cannot sidestep the court after the judges have started their work,' a professor of international law at Amsterdam University said.
WASHINGTON - In an initial reaction - the 400 pages of the ruling have yet to be digested - the State Department spokesman, Mr Charles Redman, said that the court's decision demonstrated that it was not equipped to deal with a case of such a complex nature.
Mr Redman said that the US and Nicaragua agreed that international law was not the issue but the facts of-the case, whether one accepted the US or Nicaraguan version of events. Both the Administration and Congress - on the basis of intelligence information not made available to the court - concluded that Nicaragua had launched unprovoked and unlawful attacks on its neighbours, he said.
At the same time, the US said that the latest crackdown in Nicaragua against the opposition was not unexpected and condemned the measures announced by President Daniel Ortega. 'We are deeply concerned at the welfare of the civilian opposition,' Mr Redman said.
Congressional sources opposed to Mr Reagan's policy said the Nicaraguan crackdown demonstrated that the Administration policy of trying to open up the political system had failed.
Source: The Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment