Editing Contras (section)

===International Court of Justice ruling===
{{Main|Nicaragua v. United States}}
In 1984 the Sandinista government filed a suit in the [[International Court of Justice]] (ICJ) against the United States (''Nicaragua v. United States''), which resulted in a 1986 judgment against the United States. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated [[international law]] by supporting the contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by [[Naval mine|mining]] Nicaragua's harbors. Regarding the alleged human rights violations by the contras, however, the ICJ took the view that the United States could be held accountable for them only if it would have been proven that the U.S. had effective control of the contra operations resulting in these alleged violations.<ref>"Having reached the above conclusion, the Court takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, in particular the alleged violations by them of humanitarian law. For the United States to be legally responsible, it would have to be proved that that State had effective control of the operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, VII (5)</ref> Nevertheless, the ICJ found that the U.S. encouraged acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law by producing the manual ''[[Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare]] (Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas'') and disseminating it to the contras.<ref>"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." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, (9)</ref> The manual, amongst other things, advised on how to rationalize killings of civilians<ref name="ReferenceC">In the case of shooting "a citizen who was trying to leave the town or city in which the guerrillas are carrying out armed propaganda or political proselytism", the manual suggests that the contras "explain that if that citizen had managed to escape, he would have alerted the enemy." As seen at: Sklar 1988, p. 179</ref> and recommended to hire professional killers for specific selective tasks.<ref name="Sklar 1988, p. 181">Sklar 1988, p. 181</ref>

The United States, which did not participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, maintained that the ICJ's power did not supersede the [[Constitution of the United States]] and argued that the court did not seriously consider the Nicaraguan role in El Salvador, while it accused Nicaragua of actively supporting armed groups there, specifically in the form of supply of arms.<ref>International Court of Justice 1986, VIII (1)</ref> The ICJ had found that evidence of a responsibility of the Nicaraguan government in this matter was insufficient.<ref>"In any event the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the Court that the Government of Nicaragua was responsible for any flow of arms at either period." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, VIII (1)</ref> The U.S. argument was affirmed, however, by the dissenting opinion of ICJ member U.S. Judge Schwebel,<ref>"But the Court, remarkably enough, while finding the United States responsible for intervention in Nicaragua, failed to recognize Nicaragua's prior and continuing intervention in El Salvador." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel</ref> who concluded that in supporting the contras, the United States acted lawfully in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support.<ref>"concluded that the United States essentially acted lawfully in exerting armed pressures against Nicaragua, both directly and through its support of the contras, because Nicaragua's prior and sustained support of armed insurgency in El Salvador was tantamount to an armed attack upon El Salvador against which the United States could react in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel</ref> The U.S. blocked enforcement of the ICJ judgment by the [[United Nations Security Council]] and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.<ref name="law">{{cite journal|author=Morrison, Fred L. |title=Legal Issues in The Nicaragua Opinion |journal=American Journal of International Law |date=January 1987 |volume=81 |issue=1 |pages=160–166 |url=http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/55750.html |doi=10.2307/2202146 |jstor=2202146 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205163909/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/55750.html |archive-date=5 February 2012}} "Appraisals of the ICJ's Decision. Nicaragua vs United States (Merits)"</ref> The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of [[Violeta Chamorro]]), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.<ref name="HRW report">{{cite web|title=Human Rights Watch World Report 1993 – Nicaragua |url=http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,NIC,467fca491e,0.html |access-date=18 September 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121009082531/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher%2CHRW%2C%2CNIC%2C467fca491e%2C0.html |archive-date=9 October 2012}}</ref>