Skip to content

Case Summary: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (1986)

Authored By: Harsh Tyagi NIMS School of Law , NIMS University Jaipur 1. Case Title & Citation Full Name: Case [...]

In this image on the right side and left side there are some people who are fighting, and at the...
In this image on the right side and left side there are some people who are fighting, and at the bottom there is sand and in the center there is one person who is standing and he is holding a camera and clicking pictures. And there is a wall and gate and flag.

Case Summary: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (1986)

On 27 June 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark ruling in the case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States). The court found the United States guilty of violating international law through military actions and economic pressure against Nicaragua. The decision sparked immediate controversy after Washington rejected the verdict.

The ICJ determined that the US had breached the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation by mining Nicaraguan harbours and enforcing a trade embargo. It also ruled that American support for Contra forces and direct military operations violated Nicaragua’s sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention.

The court dismissed US claims of collective self-defence, stating that no armed attack by Nicaragua had taken place. Despite American objections, the ICJ affirmed its jurisdiction and ordered the US to halt all unlawful actions immediately. Reparations were to be calculated in later proceedings. US President Ronald Reagan swiftly refused to recognise the ruling. The United States then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding compliance with the ICJ’s decision.

The ICJ’s judgment condemned the US for unlawful use of force and required reparations. Nicaragua secured a legal victory, but enforcement depended on international pressure. The case remains a key example of tensions between state power and international judicial authority.

Read also:

Latest