We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
The only significant point of disagreement this author might have with the June 27, 1986 decision on the merits by the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America concerns its failure to hold the United States Government fully responsible for the violations of the laws and customs of warfare committed by the contra forces in Nicaragua. The Court carefully premised this result on the finding that it had insufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion on such a delicate matter. Nevertheless, the Court held it established that the U.S. Government largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized the contras. Somewhat questionably, in the Court’s estimation, it remained to be proven that the Reagan administration actually exercised operational control over the contra forces.
1 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 61–62, para. 108 (Judgment of June 27).
2 Dickey, C., With the Contras 104 (1985)Google Scholar.
3 Id. at 112.
4 Id. at 101, 112.
5 Id. at 102, 289.
6 Id. at 171.
7 Id. at 156–58.
8 Id. at 153.
9 Id. at 244–46.
10 Dep’t of the Army, The Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10, 1956) [hereinafter cited as Field Manual].
11 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, 1986 ICJ Rep. at 259, 523, para. 219.
12 Field Manual, supra note 10, para. 501 (emphasis added).
13 In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946).
14 Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, TIAS No. 3365, 75 UNTS 287.
15 No. 002170 (Cir. Ct. of Lake Cty., Ill., Apr. 15, 1985). See Boyle, F., Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law (1987)Google Scholar.
