United States decides not to participate in World Court case initiated by Nicaragua.

The United States on 18 January informed the Registrar of the International Court of Justice that it had decided not to participate in further Court proceedings in the case initiated by Nicaragua concerning miilitary and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.

While appearance before the Court by the Parties concerned is assumed, the absence of a party does not mean that the Court is therefore unable to act. Such a contingency is envisaged in Article 53 of the Statute of the Court, by which the other party may call upon the Court to decide in favour of its claim. Before doing so, the Court has a duty to satisfy itself that the claim "is well founded in fact and law".

The proceedings, according to the United States announcement, "are a misuse of the Court for political purposes", and the Court lacks jurisdiction and competence over such a case.

the President of the Court was informed on 22 January by the Agent of Nicaragua that his Government maintained its application and availed itself of the rights provided for in Article 53 of the Court's Statute.

The Court fixed the following time-limits for written proceedings: memorial of Nicaragua, 30 April 1985; counter-memorial of the United States, 31 May. The subsequent procedure, including fixing of a date for oral proceedings, was reserved for a further decision. (Press Release ICJ/432)

The Court had ruled on 26 November by 11 votes to one that it had jurisdiction in the case on the basis of either Article 36 (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 (see UN Chronicle 1984, No. 9).

The United States said the decision was "contrary to law and fact". "The haste with which the Court proceeded to a judgment on these issues", the United States said, "only adds to the impression that the Court is determined to find in favour of Nicaragua in this case". It said the conflict in Central America was not a narrow legal dispute; "it is an inherently political problem that is not appropriate for judicial resolution." The Court was never intended to resolve issues of collective security and self-defense".

The United States said "much of the evidence that would establish Nicaragua's aggression against its neighbours is of a highly sensitive intelligence character. We still not risk United States national security by presenting such sensitive material in public or before a Court that includes two judges from Warsaw Pact nations."

The United States said it was taking steps to clarify its acceptance of complusory jurisdiction, to make explicit that cases of this nature were not proper for adjudication by the Court.

The Court, in provisional measures indicated in an Order on 10 May 1984, had ruled that Nicaragua's right to sovereignty and political independence should not be jeoparadized by any military or paramilitary activities, and that the United States should cease restricting access to and from Nicaragua's ports, particularly through the laying of mines (see UN Chronicle, 1984, No. 4).