Abstract
The 1986 Judgment in the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) case is yet again a key precedent in a field which constitutes one of the cornerstones of international law: State responsibility. Mostly known for its controversial contribution to the rules of attribution of acts of private persons to a State, the 1986 Judgment also shaped the scope of certain circumstances precluding wrongfulness. The Nicaragua v. United States case and the recent proceedings concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) have also raised stimulating issues with regard to reparation.
Benjamin Samson was part of the legal team representing the Republic of Nicaragua in the following cases: Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia (Nicaragua v. Colombia); Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia); Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua). The views and opinions expressed in this Chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Republic of Nicaragua. Special thanks to Vladyslav Lanovoy for his comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimer applies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Verhoeven (1987), p. 1238 (‘No one, including a “super-power”, is above the law’—our translation). See also the contribution by Pellet above.
- 2.
See Lang (1990), p. 1. See also the contribution by Schabas below.
- 3.
See notably Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, ICTY Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment, 15 July 1999, para 116 (hereinafter ‘Tadić (Appeal Judgment)’); Meron (1998), p. 237.
- 4.
See notably Tadić (Appeal Judgment), supra n. 3, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge McDonald, pp. 295–296; Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, ECHR Application No. 13216/05, 16 June 2015, Concurring Opinion of Judge Motoc; Crawford (2013), p. 125, n. 73.
- 5.
Condorelli (2004), p. 305 (‘function of legislative substitution’—our translation).
- 6.
Crawford (2013), p. 147.
- 7.
See however e.g. Eisemann (1986), pp. 179–180.
- 8.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 62, para 109 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. United States (Merits)’).
- 9.
Ibid., pp. 62–63.
- 10.
Ibid., p. 64, para 114.
- 11.
Ibid., para 110.
- 12.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007, pp. 204–205, paras 391–393 (hereinafter ‘Bosnia v. Serbia (Merits)’).
- 13.
Ibid., p. 207, para 397; Pellet (2011), p. 125.
- 14.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 64, para 114.
- 15.
Crawford (2013), p. 126.
- 16.
See e.g., Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia, ECHR Applications Nos. 43,370/04, 8252/05 and 18,454/06, Judgment, 19 October 2012, para 76, quoting the passage of the Judgment on the Merits in the Genocide case which relies on the Nicaragua v. United States case.
- 17.
Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, Vol. II, September 2009, p. 260, however referring solely to the Genocide case.
- 18.
Lanovoy (2017), p. 576.
- 19.
Trapp (2011), p. 35.
- 20.
Lanovoy (2017), p. 576.
- 21.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, pp. 64–65, para 115.
- 22.
See further Cassese (2007), p. 654.
- 23.
See Draft articles on State responsibility: texts adopted by the Drafting Committee—title of chap. II and articles 7–9, YbILC 1974, Vol. I, pp. 152–153, Article 8: ‘The conduct of a person or group of persons shall also be considered as an act of the State under international law if
-
(a)
it is established that such person or group of persons was in fact acting on behalf of that State; or
-
(b)
such person or group of persons was in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence of the official authorities and in circumstances which justified the exercise of those elements of authority’.
-
(a)
- 24.
See notably Tadić (Appeal Judgment), supra n. 3, para 117 quoted below, subscribing to the notion of control and only questioning the required degree of control.
- 25.
Crawford, Special Rapporteur, First report on State responsibility, UN Doc. A/CN.4/490, YbILC 1998, Vol. II, Part One, p. 40, paras 198 ff (hereinafter ‘Crawford, First report’); Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 50th session (1998), UN Doc. A/53/10, YbILC 1998, Vol. 2, Part Two, p. 81, para 376, and pp. 83–84, paras 394–395, 406 (hereinafter ‘1998 ILC Report’).
- 26.
Text annexed to UNGA Res. 56/83, 12 December 2001, definitively adopting Article 8 of the Draft articles provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee: articles 1, 3, 4 (Part One, Chapter I), 5, 7, 8, 8 bis, 9, 10, 15, 15 bis and A (Chapter II), YbILC 1998, Vol. I, p. 288.
- 27.
Bosnia v. Serbia (Merits), supra n. 12, pp. 207–208, paras 398–399.
- 28.
See however Lanovoy (2017), p. 576.
- 29.
1998 ILC Report, supra n. 27, p. 81, para 376.
- 30.
Ibid., p. 83, para 395. See further YbILC 2001, Vol. II, Part One, p. 49 (footnotes omitted): ‘The Netherlands is pleased to note that the words ‘direction or control’ allow for the application of both a strict standard of ‘effective control’, as used by the ICJ in the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua case, and a more flexible standard as applied by the Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Tadić case. This inbuilt ambiguity is a positive element and offers scope for progressive development of the legal rules on State responsibility.’
- 31.
See in particular Loizidou v. Turkey, ECHR Application No. 15318/89, Judgement, 18 December 1996, para 56, referring to a test of ‘effective overall control’ and Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, ECHR Application No. 48787/99, Judgment, 8 July 2004, para 315: ‘It is not necessary to determine whether a Contracting Party actually exercises detailed control over the policies and actions of the authorities in the area situated outside its national territory, since even overall control of the area may engage the responsibility of the Contracting Party concerned’. Subsequent decisions nevertheless reverted to the expression ‘effective control’ (see e.g., Mozer v. The Republic of Moldova and Russia, ECHR Application No. 11138/10, Judgment, 23 February 2016, para 101) and removed any ambiguity as to the ambit of the ECHR standard which actually has no bearing on the law of State responsibility (and thus goes beyond the scope of the present contribution), see outstandingly Mozer, ibid., para 102: ‘The Russian Government submitted an argument based on the ICJ Bosnian Genocide case […] and the case of Nicaragua v. the United States of America […]. In these cases, the ICJ was concerned with determining when the conduct of a group of persons could be attributed to a State, with the result that the State could be held responsible under international law for that conduct. In the instant case, however, the Court reiterates that it is concerned with a different issue, namely whether the facts complained of by the applicant fall within the jurisdiction of a respondent State within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. As the Court has already found, the test for establishing the existence of ‘jurisdiction’ under Article 1 of the Convention has never been equated with the test for establishing a State’s responsibility for an internationally wrongful act under international law.’
- 32.
Jan de Nul NV and Dredging International NV v. Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/04/13, Award, 6 November 2008, para 173 (emphasis added), and see n. 17 in the original quoting Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, paras 113 and 115. See also Gustav F Hamester GmbH and Co KG v. Ghana, ICSID Case No ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para 179; White Industries Australia Ltd. v. India, IIC 529 (2011), Final Award, 30 November 2011, paras 8.1.11–8.1.18; Electrabel SA v. Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015, para 7.69.
- 33.
Tadić (Appeal Judgment), supra n. 3, in particular paras 124 and 137. See also Cassese (2007), p. 649.
- 34.
Ibid., para 117 (emphasis in the original). See also in favor of a differentiated approach Bosnia v. Serbia (Merits), supra n. 12, Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, p. 255, para 37 and Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Mahiou, pp. 447–449, paras 114–117.
- 35.
Tadić (Appeal Judgment), supra n. 3, para 120.
- 36.
Ibid., para 122 (emphasis in the original). See further ibid., para 131: ‘In order to attribute the acts of a military or paramilitary group to a State, it must be proved that the State wields overall control over the group, not only by equipping and financing the group, but also by coordinating or helping in the general planning of its military activity. Only then can the State be held internationally accountable for any misconduct of the group. However, it is not necessary that, in addition, the State should also issue, either to the head or to members of the group, instructions for the commission of specific acts contrary to international law.’
- 37.
Ibid., para 117.
- 38.
See in particular the Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 28 December 1999, E/CN.4/2000/4, paras 14–15, underlining that ‘[f]ar from being rigid, [the applicable] criteria are evolving’ and accordingly presenting the Nicaragua Judgment as the ‘third stage’ of this development before concluding that the Tadić test represented the criteria finally endorsed by international law. See further in this sense Cassese (2007), p. 659.
- 39.
See in particular the Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, Vol. II, September 2009, p. 260.
- 40.
Speech by H.E. Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, ‘The proliferation of international judicial bodies: The outlook for the international legal order’, 27 October 2000.
- 41.
See on one side, Bosnia v. Serbia (Merits), supra n. 12, p. 209, paras 406–407; and on the other side, Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, ICTY Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 March 2000, paras 131–134; Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić, Zdravko Mucić, Hazim Delić and Esad Landžo (‘Čelebići Case’), ICTY Case No. IT-96-21-A, Decision, 20 February 2001, paras 12–26 and Lašva Valley, Prosecutor v. Kordić (Dario) and Čerkez (Mario), ICTY Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgment, 17 December 2004, para 307.
- 42.
ILC, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, YbILC 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 48, para 5, endorsing the explanation given in Tadić, supra n. 3, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para 17.
- 43.
Ibid.
- 44.
Tadić (Appeal Judgment), supra n. 3, para 117, quoted above and by the ILC itself, ibid.
- 45.
Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission finalized by M. Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, 13 April 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, para 51.
- 46.
Ibid., para 50, n. 52: ‘This need not be the only - nor indeed the correct - interpretation of the contrast between the two cases. As some commentators have suggested, the cases can also be distinguished from each other on the basis of their facts. In this case, there would be no normative conflict. Whichever view seems more well-founded, the point of principle remains, namely that it cannot be excluded that two tribunals faced with similar facts may interpret the applicable law differently.’
- 47.
Ibid., para 50.
- 48.
See in particular the passages quoted above of the Tadić Appeal Judgment and paras 125–130 relying notably on United States v. Mexico (Stephens Case), RIAA, Vol. IV, pp. 266–267; Kenneth P. Yeager v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Rep., Vol. 17, p. 92; Loizidou v. Turkey, Merits, ECHR Application No. 15318/89, Judgement, 18 December 1996, para 56.
- 49.
See in particular Bosnia v. Serbia (Merits), supra n. 12, pp. 208–209, paras 401 and 403. See also Cassese (2007), p. 649.
- 50.
Bosnia v. Serbia (Merits), supra n. 12, Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, pp. 256–257, para 39. See also regarding the differences between the Nicaragua and Genocide cases, Bosnia v. Serbia (Merits), supra n. 12, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Mahiou, pp. 448–449, paras 115 and 117.
- 51.
Ibid., p. 210, para 406. See also Crawford, First report, supra n. 27, p. 43, para 213: ‘[t]he principle should not extend to conduct which was only incidentally or peripherally associated with an operation, or which escaped from the State’s direction and control’.
- 52.
- 53.
See the contribution by H.E. Mohammed Bedjaoui above, in particular p. 9. See also Cassese (2007), p. 654.
- 54.
Reuter (1991), p. 390. See further on the fundamental importance of the law of State responsibility, British claims in the Spanish zone of Morocco (Spain v. United Kingdom), Award, 1 May 1925, RIAA, Vol. II, p. 641: ‘La responsabilité est le corollaire nécessaire du droit. Tous droits d’ordre international ont pour conséquence une responsabilité internationale’ (‘responsibility is the necessary corollary of rights. All international rights entail international responsibility’—translation by the United Nations Secretariat, YbILC 1973, Vol. II, p. 174, n. 43); and Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 33, para 36: ‘Responsibility is the necessary corollary of a right.’
- 55.
Simma (2004), p. 846.
- 56.
- 57.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 146, para 292(3).
- 58.
Thirlway (2013), p. 581.
- 59.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 114, para 220.
- 60.
Ibid.
- 61.
I.e., ‘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’, Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 147, para 292(6).
- 62.
Ibid., p. 148, para 292(8).
- 63.
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 226, para 160.
- 64.
Ibid., para 161.
- 65.
Ibid., para 248. Likewise, the Court determined that the FRY was under a duty to prevent acts of genocide in Bosnia v. Serbia (Merits), supra n. 12, p. 225, para 438. The debate on Draft Article 8 within the ILC had also pointed at the responsibility for failure to prevent as a ‘complementary factor […]’ to the ‘restrictive’ control test, see 1998 ILC Report, supra n. 27, para 396.
- 66.
Boon (2014), p. 375. See however Crawford (2013), pp. 157–161, arguing—with respect to terrorism—that rather than broadening the scope of Article 8 of the ILC Draft and diluting the Nicaragua test to solve attribution problems, the preferable approach is indeed to rely on primary norms of international law to permit direct attribution to the State.
- 67.
- 68.
Lanovoy (2016), p. 329.
- 69.
See Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 134, para 266.
- 70.
See the contribution by Schabas below and in particular pp. 314–317.
- 71.
See Draft Article 34: ‘The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the act constitutes a lawful measure of self-defence taken in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations’ (YbILC 1980, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 52).
- 72.
Commentary of Draft Article 34, ibid., para 1.
- 73.
In its Second report, Crawford pointed out this difficulty (YbILC 1999, Vol. II, Part One, pp. 74–75, paras 298–300 (hereinafter ‘Crawford, Second report’)).
- 74.
Paddeu (2015). See Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, pp. 44–45, para 74 and pp. 107–108, para 226.
- 75.
Paddeu (2015).
- 76.
See Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 126, para 247.
- 77.
See ibid., p. 128, para 251.
- 78.
See ibid., p. 139, para 278.
- 79.
See ibid., respectively p. 126, paras 247–249, p. 128, para 252 and p. 141, para 282.
- 80.
The Court explained that ‘[f]or 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 […] so that the absence of one party has less impact’ (Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, pp. 24–25, para 29).
- 81.
Ibid., p. 126, para 246.
- 82.
See also ibid., p. 108, para 206. Interestingly, in a recent statement, Austria referred to the Nicaragua v. United States case in support of its condemnation of the supply of arms to the Syrian opposition (see ‘Syria: Austrian Position on Arms Embargo’, 13 May 2013, p. 2, https://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/interactive/2013/may/15/austria-eu-syria-arms-embargo-pdf, accessed on 29 March 2017—cited in Gray (2016), pp. 168–169).
- 83.
Legitimacy is a relative notion and the right of certain governments to consent to a foreign military intervention in their country has been recently questioned. One may refer for example to the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine (for a discussion, see Vermeer 2014) and that of Abdrahbu Mansour Hadi in Yemen (for a discussion, see Vermeer 2015).
- 84.
- 85.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 127, para 249; see also p. 128, para 252.
- 86.
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 55, para 83. See also Crawford, Second report, supra n. 77, p. 93 and Third report on State responsibility, UN Doc. A/CN.4/507, YbILC 2000, Vol. II, Part One, p. 105, para 400 (hereinafter ‘Crawford, Third report’).
- 87.
The debate is still ongoing with respect to counter-measures in reaction to the violation of jus cogens norms (see the odd redaction of Article 54 of the ILC’s Articles on State responsibility and the commentary hereto (YbILC 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 137).
- 88.
Alland (1994), pp. 334–335.
- 89.
See e.g., D. Alland who explains that ‘[l]a Cour internationale de Justice a énoncé très nettement la condamnation des contre-mesures prises par les États tiers dans l’affaire des activités militaires et paramilitaires des États-Unis au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci’ (ibid., pp. 337–338). See also David (1986), p. 167.
- 90.
Verhoeven (1987), p. 1216.
- 91.
Sicillianos (1990), pp. 152–154. See also Crawford, Third report, supra n. 86, p. 37, para 114.
- 92.
Crawford, Third report, supra n. 86, p. 105, para 400—footnotes omitted.
- 93.
Crawford (2013), p. 704.
- 94.
See Articles 49 and 52 (YbILC 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, pp. 129–130 and 135).
- 95.
Emphasis added.
- 96.
YbILC 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 137.
- 97.
Commentary to Article 54, ibid., p. 139, para 7.
- 98.
On these three arguments, see Eisemann (1986), pp. 186–187.
- 99.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 134, para 266.
- 100.
Ibid.
- 101.
Ibid., pp. 134–135, para 268.
- 102.
Ibid.
- 103.
Ibid., p. 135, para 269.
- 104.
Nollkaemper (2012).
- 105.
See Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, pp. 134–135, para 266–269.
- 106.
See UNGA Res. 60/1, ‘2005 World Summit Outcome’, 24 October 2005, paras 138–139 and UNSC Res. 1674, ‘Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’, 28 April 2006, para 4. See also Kohen (2012), p. 163.
- 107.
Kohen (2012), p. 163.
- 108.
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Compensation, Order of 2 February 2017.
- 109.
By a letter of 12 September 1991, Nicaragua requested ‘that an Order be made officially recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the list’, Nicaragua v. United States, Order of 26 September 1991, ICJ Reports 1991, p. 48.
- 110.
On this request, see Thirlway (2013), p. 623.
- 111.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 20, para 15.
- 112.
Ibid.
- 113.
The provisions on provisional measures in the Statue and the Rules of the Court were not meant to encompass requests of this kind, if only because requests for provisional measures have priority over any other matter pending before the Court (see Article 74(1) of the Rules of Court).
- 114.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 8, p. 143, para 285.
- 115.
Ibid.
- 116.
Ibid.
- 117.
On 29 March 1988.
- 118.
See Memorial of Nicaragua (Compensation), 29 March 1988, paras 48–58.
- 119.
See ibid., paras 59–71 and 82–110.
- 120.
See ibid., paras 380–399.
- 121.
See ibid., paras 407–432.
- 122.
Paragraph 6 of the Commentary to Article 37 of the ILC’s Articles on State responsibility, YbILC 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, pp. 106–107.
- 123.
See Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2015, p. 713, para 125 (hereinafter ‘Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Judgment)’).
- 124.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, ICJ Reports 2013, pp. 364–365, paras 45–46. See also, ibid., p. 713, para 126.
- 125.
CR 2015/7, 17 April 2015, p. 37–38, para 5 (Pellet).
- 126.
Ibid. See also Costa Rica’s reply, CR 2015/14, 28 April 2015, pp. 39–42, paras 2–10 (Parlett).
- 127.
Certain Activities; Construction of a Road (Judgment), p. 713, para 126.
- 128.
Ibid.
- 129.
Ibid., Separation Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, para 35; see also paras 45–46.
- 130.
See e.g. Verhoeven (1987), p. 1238.
- 131.
See e.g., UNSC Res. 1377 (2001), 12 November 2001 declaring ‘that acts of international terrorism constitute one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the twenty-first century’, see also more recently UNSC Res. 2199 (2015), 12 February 2015.
References
Alland D (1994) Justice privée et ordre juridique internationale – Étude théorique des contre-mesures en droit international public. Pedone, Paris
Boon K (2014) Are control tests fit for the future? The slippage problem in attribution doctrines. Melb JIL 15:330–377
Byrne M (2016) Consent and the use of force: an examination of ‘intervention by invitation’ as a basis for US drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. J Use Force Int Law 3:97–125
Cassese A (2007) The Nicaragua and Tadić tests revisited in light of the ICJ judgment on genocide in Bosnia. EJIL 18:649–668
Condorelli L (2004) Conclusions générales. In: SFDI, La pratique et le droit international. Pedone, Paris, pp 285–306
Crawford J (2013) State responsibility: the general part. CUP, Cambridge
David E (1986) Discussion sur le seuil de 1’illicite dans le principe de non-intervention. In: Le discours juridique sur la non-intervention et la pratique internationale – Actes de la septième rencontre de Reims. EPURE, Reims, pp 122–174
Eisemann PM (1986) L’arrêt de la C.I.J. du 27 juin 1986 (fond) dans l’affaire des activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis). AFDI 32:153–191
Gibney M (2007) Genocide and state responsibility. Hum Rights Law Rev 7:760–773
Gray C (2016) The limits of force. Collect Course Hague Acad Int Law 376:93–197
Jørgensen NHB (2003) The responsibility of states for international crimes. OUP, Oxford
Kohen M (2012) The principle of non-intervention 25 years after the Nicaragua judgment. LJIL 25:157–164
Lang C (1990) L’affaire Nicaragua/États-Unis devant la Cour internationale de Justice. LGDJ, Paris
Lanovoy V (2016) Complicity and its limits in the law of international responsibility. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Lanovoy V (2017) The use of force by non-state actors and the limits of attribution of conduct. EJIL 28:563–585
Meron T (1998) Classification of armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s fallout. AJIL 92:236–242
Nollkaemper A (2012) LJIL symposium: from Nicaragua to R2P: continuity and change. http://opiniojuris.org/2012/03/20/ljil-nicaragua-to-r2p/. Accessed 25 Nov 2016
Nollkaemper A, van der Wilt H (eds) (2009) System criminality in international law. CUP, Cambridge
Paddeu F (2015) Self-defence as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness: understanding article 21 of the articles on state responsibility. BYbIL 85:90–132
Pellet A (2011) Some remarks on the recent case law of the International Court of Justice on responsibility issues. In: Kovács P (ed) International law – a quiet strength (Miscellanea in memoriam Geza Herczegh). Pazmany Press, Budapest, pp 111–133
Reuter P (1991) Trois observations sur la codification de la responsabilité internationale des États pour fait illicite. In: Le droit international au service de la paix, de la justice et du développement – Mélanges Michel Virally. Pedone, Paris, pp 389–398
Sicillianos VLA (1990) Les réactions décentralisées à l’illicite - Des contre-mesures à la légitime défense. LGDJ, Paris
Simma B (2004) Fragmentation in a positive light. Mich JIL 25(4):845–847
Thirlway H (2013) The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice: fifty years of jurisprudence. OUP, Oxford
Trapp KN (2011) State responsibility for international terrorism. OUP, Oxford
Verhoeven J (1987) Le droit, le juge et la violence – Les arrêts Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis RGDIP 91:1159–1239
Vermeer Z (2014) Intervention with the consent of a deposed (but legitimate) government? Playing the Sierra Leone card. http://www.ejiltalk.org/intervention-with-the-consent-of-a-deposed-but-legitimate-government-playing-the-sierra-leone-card/. Accessed 29 March 2017
Vermeer Z (2015) The Jus ad Bellum and the airstrikes in Yemen: double standards for decamping presidents?. http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-jus-ad-bellum-and-the-airstrikes-in-yemen-double-standards-for-decamping-presidents/. Accessed 29 March 2017
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Samson, B., Barsac, T. (2018). The Law of State Responsibility in the Nicaraguan Cases. In: Sobenes Obregon, E., Samson, B. (eds) Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62961-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62962-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)