Yahoo Canada Web Search

Search results

  1. Report of the International Court of Justice, 1 August 1985-31 July 1986. UN. International Court of Justice. 1986

    • Icj
    • 1986
  2. The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) [ 2 ] was a case where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The case was decided in favor of Nicaragua and against the ...

  3. In this respect, the material facts are primarily those connected with the issue in 1983 of a manual of psychological operations. 3. Nicaragua has in fact produced in evidence before the Court two publications which it claims were prepared by the CIA and supplied to the contras in 1983.

  4. CitationI.C.J. 1984 I.C.J. 39 Brief Fact Summary. Nicaragua (P) brought a suit against the United States (D) on the ground that the United States (D) was responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to entertain the case as well as the admissibility of.

  5. The United States told the Court that it welcomed the discontinuance and, by an Order of the President dated 26 September 1991, the case was removed from the Court’s List. This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

  6. Nov 22, 2017 · 2.1 Rulings on Jurisdiction and Admissibility in the 1984 and 1986 Judgments. On 9 April 1984, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against the United States before the International Court to complain about a series of military activities carried out by persons linked to the US Government—including the mining of Nicaraguan ports, attacks against oil installations and trespasses into Nicaraguan ...

  7. People also ask

  8. Nov 22, 2017 · Abstract. The 1986 Judgment in the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) case is yet again a key precedent in a field which constitutes one of the cornerstones of international law: State responsibility.

  1. People also search for