NICARAGUA HELD:

VS The ICJ has jurisdiction. The 1946 declaration is

. US - Calinisan c/o SC notes Tanquilit still binding on the US.The US cannot derogate
FACTS: from the time-limit proviso included in its 1946
In 1946, the US made a declaration containing declaration. The notion of reciprocity
the following reservation: “this declaration shall isconcerned with the scope and substance of
remain in force for a period of 5 years and the commitments entered into, including
thereafter until the expiration of 6 months after reservations, and not withformal conditions of
notice may be given to terminate their creation, duration, or extinction.
thisdeclaration. In 1984, the US deposited with Reciprocity cannot be invoked in order to
the UN Sec Gen a notification referring to the excusedeparture from the terms of a State’s
1946 declaration, stating: “theaforesaid own declaration. Nicaragua can invoke the six
declaration shall not apply to disputes with any months’ notice against the US,not on the basis
Central American State or arising out of or of reciprocity, but because it is an undertaking
related toevents in Central America, any of which is an integral part of the instrument
which disputes shall be settled in such manner thatcontains it. The 1984 notification cannot
as the parties to them may agree.” Nicaragua override the obligation of the US to submit to
filed a claim against the US for damages in the jurisdiction of the Courtvis-à-vis Nicaragua.
connection with military and paramilitary ISSUE:
activities allegedlysupported by the US in and Whether the contras can be considered as
against Nicaragua. The US argues that pursuant organs of the US Government, or as acting on
to the 1984 reservation that it made, theICJ has its behalf.
no jurisdiction over the controversy, since it HELD:
involves a dispute with a Central American No, the contras are not agents of the US
State. Nicaraguaargues that the ICJ has government.The evidence is insufficient to
jurisdiction under the 1946 declaration, which demonstrate the total dependence of the
was not terminated by the subsequent contras on US aid. A partial dependencymay be
1984declaration, since the US never gave the 6- inferred from the fact that the leaders were
months notice of termination, as required by selected by the US, and from other factors such
the reservation that it hadmade in as theorganization, training and equipping of
1946.According to Nicaragua, the US conceived, the force, planning of operations, the choosing
created, and organized a mercenary army, the of targets, and the operationalsupport
contra force, in Nicaragua.The court found that provided. There is, however, no clear evidence
contra force was not created by the US, but that that the US actually exercised such a degree of
a number of the operations were decided and control as to justify treating the contras as
planned, if not actually by the US advisers, then acting on its behalf. Therefore, the contras,
at least in close collaboration with them, and on remain responsible for their own acts, in
the basis of theintelligence and logistic support particular for alleged violations by them of
which the US was able to offer. The US gave humanitarian law.For the US to be legally
assistance to the contra force in theform of responsible, it would have to be proved that the
logistic support, the supply of information on State had effective control of the operationsin
the location and movements of the Sandinista the course of which the alleged violations were
troops, the useof sophisticated methods of committed.
communication, etc. However, the evidence
does not warrant a finding that the US
gavedirect combat support. Summaries of the Decisions
ISSUE:
W/N the declaration is still binding on the US. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo
 Nations Charter is to be found anywhere in the
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) Charter with respect to the Security Council and
the Court.
Provisional Measures
The Court further stated that it is not precluded
Order of 1 July 2000 from indicating provisional measures in a case
merely because a State which has
On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of simultaneously brought a number of similar
the Congo instituted proceedings against cases before the Court seeks such measures in
Uganda in respect of a dispute concerning what only one of them.
the applicant referred to as acts of armed
aggression perpetrated by Uganda on the Given the situation on the ground, the Court
territory of the Congo. In its application, the then found that there existed a serious risk of
Congo based the jurisdiction of the Court on the events occurring which might aggravate or
declarations made by the two States under extend the dispute or make it more difficult to
Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. resolve. Accordingly it requested both Parties to
prevent and refrain from any action, and in
On 19 June 2000 the Congo then submitted to particular any armed action, which might
the Court a request for the indication of prejudice the rights of the other Party in respect
provisional measures by which it inter alia of whatever judgment the Court may render in
asked the Court to request Uganda to order its the case, or which might aggravate or extend
army to withdraw immediately and completely the dispute before the Court or make it more
from the disputed area; to order its army to difficult to resolve; that both Parties must take
cease all fighting or military activity on the all measures necessary to comply with all of
territory of the Congo and to withdraw their obligations under international law, in
immediately and completely from that territory; particular those under the United Nations
and finally to also desist from providing any Charter and the Charter of the Organization of
support to any State, group, organization, African Unity, and with United Nations Security
movement or individual engaged or preparing Council resolution 1304 (2000) of 16 June 2000;
to engage in military activities on the territory and that they must take all measures necessary
of the Congo. to ensure full respect within the zone of conflict
for fundamental human rights and for the
In its order, the Court noted that the two applicable provisions of humanitarian law.
Parties had each made a declaration recognizing
the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Judges Oda and Koroma appended declarations
Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute without to the order.
any reservation which therefore constituted a
prima facie basis upon which its jurisdiction in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
the case could be founded. 376 U.S. 398 (1964)
A US sugar distributor, Farr Whitlock and Co.
Besides and notwithstanding the fact that the contracted with a US-owned sugar producer in
very same situation had already been dealt with Cuba, Compania Azucarera Vertientes-
by the Security Council in its resolution 1304 Camaguay de Cuba (CAV), to import sugar into
(2000), adopted under Chapter VII of the United the US.
Nations Charter on 16 June 2000, the Court is As part of a trade dispute, the government of
not precluded from acting in accordance with Cuba nationalized their sugar industry and
its Statute and with the Rules of Court, since no seized the assets of several US-owned sugar
provision similar to Art. 12 of the United producers, including CAV.
CAV still made the delivery, but Farr didn't send Sabbatino Amendment) that revoked the
the payment to the Cuban government, instead presumption in favor of the validity of the Act of
they paid CAV's legal representative in the US, State Doctrine.
Sabbatino.
Banco National de Cuba (BNC) sued Sabbatino
in US Court to get them to hand over the money The Act of State DoctrineCase: Underhill v.
for the sugar. Hernandez (1897)168 U.S. 250Facts: In an 1892
BNC argued that the Cuban nationalization was revolution, General Hernandez deposed the
an official Act of State and should be honored existing Venezuelangovernment and took
by the US. control of Ciudad Bolivar, where Pl Underhill, an
The Act of State Doctrine says that the propriety Americancitizen, lived and ran a waterworks
of decisions of other countries relating to their system for the city. Underhill applied
internal affairs would not be questioned in US toHernandez, requesting a passport to leave the
courts. city. Hernandez initially refused,but ultimately
Sabbatino argued that the Act of State Doctrine granted it. When Underhill finally got back to
was inappropriate because: the U.S. he broughtan action to recover
The act in question was a violation of damages caused by his detention in Venezuela,
international law; for allegedconfinement to his own house, and
The doctrine should not be applied unless the for certain alleged assaults and affronts
Executive branch asks the court to do so; bysoldiers of Hernandez's
Cuba had brought the suit as a plaintiff and had army.Holding/Reasoning: Court determined
given up its sovereign immunity. that Hernandez had acted in his officialcapacity
The Trial Court found for Sabbatino. BNC as a military commander so his actions were
appealed. those of the Venezuelangovernment. The Court
The Appellate Court affirmed. BNC appealed. therefore refused to hear the claim against
The US Supreme Court reversed. based on the Actof State Doctrine. The Court
The US Supreme Court found that the policy of reasoned, "Every sovereign state is bound to
US Federal courts would be to honor the Act of respectthe independence of every other
State Doctrine. sovereign state, and the courts of one
The Court found that the Cuban seizure did not countrywill not sit in judgment on the acts of
violate international law, because there was no the government of another, done within itsown
clear international opinion that a seizure of land territory." Also, it didn’t matter that it was a
or property in a country by the government of revolution, and that thecommander may not
that country was illegal. have had recognition at the time as the leader
The Court found that there was no need for the from outside theterritory. What matters is that
Executive branch to ask the courts to apply the he succeeded and is now recognized as
Act of State Doctrine. such.Notes• Court will not let case proceed in
The Court found that it should be assumed to U.S. why?Use the int'l reasoning - we should
apply because if even a single court made a judge another country's actions if
mistake and failed to apply it, it could mess up ○
US relations with other countries. they have justification for it within their own
The Court found that the Act of State Doctrine laws.Govt actor, and it occurred in Venezuela.
still applied, even thought the State was a Therefore we should apply their
plaintiff. ○
Similar to the idea of sovereign immunity where law. Why apply U.S. law?• U.S. can make a
States can sue, but cannot be sued. jurisdictional claim b/c victim is American, but
In response to this decision, Congress passed b/c of act ofstate doctrine, we should leave it
the Second Hickenlooper Amendment (aka the up to Venezuela to deal with