Editing Nicaragua v. United States (section)

===Findings===
The court found evidence of an arms flow between Nicaragua and insurgents in El Salvador between 1979 and 1981. However, there was not enough evidence to show that the Nicaraguan government was imputable for this or that the US response was proportional. The court also found that certain transborder incursions into the territory of Guatemala and Costa Rica, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, were imputable to the Government of Nicaragua. However, neither Guatemala nor Costa Rica had made any request for US intervention; El Salvador did in 1984, well after the US had intervened unilaterally.[http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060825081816/http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html |date=2006-08-25 }}

"As regards El Salvador, the Court considers that in [[customary international law]] the provision of arms to the opposition in another State does not constitute an armed attack on that State. As regards Honduras and Costa Rica, the Court states that, in the absence of sufficient information as to the transborder incursions into the territory of those two States from Nicaragua, it is difficult to decide whether they amount, singly or collectively, to an armed attack by Nicaragua. The Court finds that neither these incursions nor the alleged supply of arms may be relied on as justifying the exercise of the [[Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter#Article 51|right of collective self-defence]]."<ref name="icj-cij.org">{{cite web|last=International Court of Justice|date=1986-06-27|title=Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)|url=https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf|access-date=2020-11-13|work=icj-cij.org|archive-date=November 14, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201114073459/https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

Regarding human rights violations by the Contras, "The Court has to determine whether the relationship of the contras to the United States Government was such that it would be right to equate the Contras, for legal purposes, with an organ of the United States Government, or as acting on behalf of that Government. The Court considers that the evidence available to it is insufficient to demonstrate the total dependence of the Contras on United States aid. A partial dependency, the exact extent of which the Court cannot establish, may be inferred from the fact that the leaders were selected by the United States, and from other factors such as the organisation, training and equipping of the force, planning of operations, the choosing of targets and the operational support provided. There is no clear evidence that the United States actually exercised such a degree of control as to justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf... 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."<ref name="icj-cij.org"/>

The Court concluded that the United States, despite its objections, was subject to the Court's jurisdiction. The Court had ruled on November 26, 1984 by 11 votes to one that it had jurisdiction in the case on the basis of either Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (i.e. compulsory jurisdiction) or the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Nicaragua. The Charter provides that, in case of doubt, it is for the Court itself to decide whether it has jurisdiction, and that each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the Court. The Court also ruled by unanimity that the present case was admissible.<ref>{{cite journal | title=United States Decides Not to Participate in World Court Case Initiated by Nicaragua| journal=UN Chronicle | date=1984–1985 | volume=22 and 9 | issue=January}}</ref> The United States then announced that it had "decided not to participate in further proceedings in this case." About a year after the Court's jurisdictional decision, the United States took the further, radical step of withdrawing its consent to the Court's compulsory jurisdiction, ending its previous 40 year legal commitment to binding international adjudication. The Declaration of acceptance of the general compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice terminated after a 6-month notice of termination delivered by the Secretary of State to the United Nations on October 7, 1985.
<ref name="Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy">{{cite journal | author= Robert J. Delahunty, John Yoo | title=Executive Power V. International Law| journal=Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy| year= 2006 | volume=30}}</ref>

Although the Court called on the United States to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua and stated that the US was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and ordered it to pay reparations, the United States refused to comply.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.redress.org/publications/TerrorismReport.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2007-07-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070810033633/http://www.redress.org/publications/TerrorismReport.pdf |archive-date=2007-08-10 }}</ref>  As a permanent member of the Security Council, the U.S. has been able to block any enforcement mechanism attempted by Nicaragua.<ref name="COMPLIANCE WITH DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE">{{cite book | author= Constanze Schulte | title=COMPLIANCE WITH DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE| location= New York| publisher= Oxford University Press |date=January 2004 | volume=81 | pages= 282–285|isbn= 0-19-927672-2}}</ref> On November 3, 1986 the [[United Nations General Assembly]] passed, by a vote of 94-3 (El Salvador, Israel and the US voted against), a non-binding<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm| title = resolution| access-date = June 29, 2017| archive-date = August 2, 2009| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090802021602/https://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r031.htm| url-status = live}}</ref> resolution urging the US to comply.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol6/No4/art2-01.html |title=Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Law of the United Nations |access-date=2007-07-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181559/http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol6/No4/art2-01.html |archive-date=2007-09-30 }}</ref>