Editing Nicaragua v. United States (section)

== U.S. defense and response ==
The United States refused to participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, but the Court found that the US refusal did not prevent it from deciding the case. The Court also rejected the United States defense that its action constituted collective self-defense.
The United States argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction, with U.S. ambassador to the [[United Nations]] [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] dismissing the Court as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't."<ref name="middle">{{cite web
 |title      = International Law PSCI 0236 > International Law PSCI 0236 > Introduction
 |work       = middlebury.edu
 |url        = https://segue.middlebury.edu/index.php?action=site&site=psci0236a-f06
 |access-date = 2006-09-05
}}{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

The United States had signed the treaty accepting the Court's decision as binding, but with the exception that the court would not have the power to hear cases based on multilateral treaty obligations unless it involved all parties to the treaty affected by that decision or the United States specially agreed to jurisdiction. The court found that it was obliged to apply this exception and refused to take on claims by Nicaragua based on the [[United Nations Charter]] and [[Organization of American States]] charter, but concluded that it could still decide the case based on [[customary international law]] obligations with 11-4 majority.

When a similar but crucially non-binding resolution was brought before the [[United Nations General Assembly]] on 3 November it was passed.<ref name="UN_ARES4131" />  Only [[El Salvador]] and [[Israel]] voted with the U.S. against it.  El Salvador's ruling [[Junta (governing body)|junta]] was at that time receiving substantial funding and military advisement from the U.S., which was aiming to crush a Sandinista-like revolutionary movement by the [[FMLN]]. In spite of this resolution, the U.S. still chose not to pay the fine.

In response to the ICJ's decision that US aid to the contra rebels violated international law, US State Department lawyer, [[Abraham David Sofaer|Abraham Sofaer]], said that the US would no longer recognize the ICJ's 'compulsory jurisdiction' authority. Sofaer said "We felt the Nicaragua case was an unfortunate signal to us that we should be concerned about our security interests and about the use of the court for political-public relations purposes. . . . The President does not want the court used for those purposes--at the same time, he and others in this Administration want to continue to use the court for its intended purposes". Paul Reichler, one of the lawyers representing Nicaragua in the case, said: "It’s another indication that this Administration has no regard for international law--when international law conflicts with a foreign policy objective of the Administration, they will throw international law into the waste basket".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kempster |first=Norman |date=October 8, 1985 |title="COURT: U.S. Restricts Participation : U.S. Rejects ‘Compulsory’ World Court Jurisdiction" |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-10-08-mn-15250-story.html}}</ref>