Disputes Involving the Inherent Right of Self-defense (From International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, P 264-287, 1987, Lori Fisler Damrosch, ed. -- See NCJ-122854)

• NCJ Number: 122865
• Author(s): E V Rostow
• Date Published: 1987
• Length: 24 pages
• Sale Source: Transnational Publisher Inc
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This analysis of the decisions of the International Court of Justice regarding jurisdiction, admissibility, and the merits of the 1984 case brought by Nicaragua against the United States concludes that these decisions represented a usurpation of power and that the United States termination of its acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction was the only reasonable response.

Abstract

The United Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and makes individual nations ultimately responsible for their own self-defense. However, the International Court of Justice is not and cannot be an alternative Security Council when the Security Council does not act. Thus, the Courts decision that it had jurisdiction in the case of Nicaragua v. United States represented a fundamental attack on the sovereignty of every State, as well as an attack on the Security Council. The Court's reasoning in its opinion on the merits of the case also contained major flaws, and the United States action in response to the Court's decisions was clearly justified. 45 footnotes.