Security Council does not adopt text calling for compliance with International Court ruling regarding Nicaraguan case.

A draft resolution by which the Security Council would have urgently called for "full and immediate compliance" with the 27 June 1986 Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case of "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua" was vetoed by a permanent member of the Council on 28 October.

The vote was 11 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Thailand, United Kingdom). Voting for the draft were Australia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. The text (S/18428) was put forward by Congo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago and United Arab Emirates.

(On 27 June, the 15-member Court at The Hague, Netherlands, decided that the United States, by activities "in and against Nicaragua", had acted in breach of "customary international law" not to use force, not to violate the sovereignty of another State, and not to intervene in the affairs of another State. It also rejected the "justification of collective self-defence" maintained bv the United States in connection with "military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua". Three Judges appended dissenting opinions to the Judgment. Court President Nagendra Singh and six other Judges appended separate opinions to the judgment.)

(The United States stated in January 1985 that it would not participate in further Court proceedings in the case, maintaining they were "a misuse of the Court for political purposes" and that the Court lacked jurisdiction and competence over such a case. (For details of the judgment, see UN Chronicle, 1986, No.4.)

The Council, which met on 21, 22, 27 and 28 October, conversed at the request of Nicaragua, which had asked for an emergency Council meeting, "in accordance with the provisions of Article 94" of the United Nations Charter.

Article 94 of the Charter states that each Member State of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court "in any case to which it is a party"; if any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a Court Judgment, the other party "may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the Judgment".

On 31 July, the United States had vetoed a draft resolution by which the Council would have made "an urgent and solemn call" for full compliance with the Court's judgment (see UN Chronicle, 1986, Na5.)

Explanations: The United States, in explaining its views on the 28 October vote, said the draft would not contribute to a peaceful and just settlement of the situation in Central America within the framework of international law and the Charter, because it did not take note of Nicaragua's own responsibility for the current situation and did not focus on the real issues of the conflict.

The draft sought to present - in the guise of support for the 27 June Court decision - a one-sided picture of the situation in Central America, and attempted to portray a false image of that situation as merely a conflict between Nicaragua and the United States. "The Sandinista government is responsible for the crisis", he said. Also the draft made no reference to the Contadora process, the only widely-accepted avenue for achieving peace through negotiations.

France said the draft contained "questionable references" to the judgment of the Court, both on matters of substance and as regarded the role of the Court.

Thailand said the draft, based as it was on Article 94, posed an unresolved dilemma for the Council, which could have been asked to take more appropriate action in pursuit of a peaceful settlement, in order to end the dangerous political conflict and military hostilities in Central America.

The United Kingdom felt the draft failed to take account of wider political factors and also failed to acknowledge that Nicaragua had largely brought its troubles upon itself.

Letter: The Council reviewed a 21 October letter from Nicaragua to the Secretary-General (A/41/741-S/I8419) transmitting the text of a 19 October note from Nicaraguan Acting Foreign Minister Victor Hugo Tinoco to United States Secretary of State George Shultz. Mr. Tinoco stated the continuation of military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua place the United States Government "outside international law and the community of nations and is a blow to the international legal order and the yearning for peace on the part of all humanity".

Debate

Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua, said the Reagan Administration had become "the first and only Government in history to receive the shameful honour of being condemned by the International Court of Justice for promoting and encouraging terrorism". The United States Government was determined to continue its war of aggression against Nicaragua. The United States had been one of the first countries to accept the Court's compulsory jurisdiction, a position it maintained "until the current Administration got the United States involved in a dirty and illegal war against Nicaragua".

On 5 October, "a young Nicaraguan patriot doing his military service" had shot down a United States aircraft - a C - 123 near the Costa Rican border that was "piloted by Americans and was carrying a large shipment of arms and military supplies for the contra mercenaries". After the plane's crash, Nicaraguan soldiers had captured the only surviving American and had recovered "important documents demonstrating once again the full responsibility of the United States in the mercenary war". The flight "could only have been undertaken in the context of a large-scale campaign of support and encouragement personally directed by President Ronald Reagan, who has canonized the terrorists who bring suffering, destruction and death to the Nicaraguan people", he said.

The Reagan Administration was clearly violating the Court's ruling, he went on. "In the name of freedom, President Reagan defends terrorism and crime, and encourages American citizens to deprive another people of their liberty."

If the Council did not respond appropriately to the "outlaw conduct" of the United States, "we could see the failure of the means of peaceful settlement of disputes and the imposition of force as a valid element of international relations".

Speaking after the vote, Nora Astorga-Gadea (Nicaragua) said that with its veto, the United States "put itself above the international community", and opted for the use of force in its international relations "in order to change political will".

Vernon Walters (United States) said the United States did not accept the proposition that it had consented to the Court's jurisdiction in the case brought by Nicaragua. Consequently the current item brought to the Council by Nicaragua had no merit. The Court's claim of jurisdiction and competence in the case in question was without foundation in law or fact.

The United States Congress had recently passed laws which stipulated that assistance to Nicaraguan democratic resistance was to be disbursed in separate tranches. The willingness of the Sandinistas to negotiate in earnest was a key factor in determining whether subsequent tranches were to be disbursed. Some $2 million had been authorized to facilitate the participation of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in regional meetings and negotiations to promote peace.

United States aid to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance was needed to convince Nicaragua to enter into serious negotiations. The Sandinistas continued materially to support Marxist insurgents in neigbouring countries. "As they have put into practice their policy of revolutionary internationalism, they have flouted international law and violated their pledge to the international community not to export their revolution." Since 1979, the Sandinistas had turned Nicaragua into "a haven for terrorists from around the world".

More than 20,000 Nicaraguans had taken up arms against the Sandinistas and hundreds of thousands more were in exile. The pilot, Eugene Hasenfus, the United States citizen on trial in "a kangaroo court" in Nicaragua, had been participating in a private initiative, not organized, directed or financed by the United States Government.

The Sandinista regime must come to terms with its own people. The United States would abide by an agreement that achieved a comprehensive, verifiable and simultaneous implementation of the 1983 Contadora Document of Objectives. Regrettably, the Sandinista regime had consistently blocked peace efforts by the Contadora countries. It should negotiate, with all members of the democratic opposition, a programme in which Nicaraguans could choose in free and fair elections their leaders and the type of government they wanted. They should end their aggression against their neighbours and negotiate seriously to restore regional peace.

Full and immediate

compliance with Court

Judgment urged by

General Assembly

The General Assembly on 3 November urgently called for full and immediate compliance with the 27 June 1986 Judgment of the International Court of Justice on military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. Resolution 41/31 was adopted by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 3 against (El Salvador, Israel, United States), with 47 abstentions.

The Assembly took that action having considered, it said, the events that had taken place since the judgment was rendered, "in particular, the continued financing by the United States of military and other activities in and against Nicaragua". The Secretary-General was requested to keep the Assembly informed on implementation of the resolution.

The draft was considered under a new item proposed by Nicaragua entitled Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1986 concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua: need for immediate compliance". Acting on the recommendation of its General Committee, the Assembly agreed on 31 October without a vote to include the question in its agenda, bringing to 146 the total number of items for the 1986 session.

On 30 October, the General Committee had recommended inclusion of the item without a vote, after rejecting by a vote of 10 to 9, with 6 abstentions, a United States motion to merge it with the existing agenda item on the situation in Central America.