Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T21:58:03.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The World Court’s Achievement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Richard Falk
Richard Falk*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Even if conceived of only as a legal text, the array of judicial opinions contained in Nicaragua v. United States constitutes an extraordinary document. It represents a fascinating attempt through judicial inquiry to assess convincingly the relevance of law to an ongoing armed conflict. As such, despite procedural objection to entry upon this terrain by the three dissenting judges, it leads the Court to pronounce specifically upon the core issue of when force can permissibly be used in international relations, as well as the contours of a claimed right of collective self-defense in the setting of interventions and civil strife.

Type
Appraisals of the ICJ’s Decision: Nicaragua v. United States (Merits)
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 106 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I reach this conclusion despite my advocacy elsewhere of a pluralist jurisprudence (Western, Marxist, non-Western) as the most appropriate stance for the World Court. See Falk, R., Reviving the World Court (1986)Google Scholar. Now I believe a pluralist jurisprudence is preferable to provincial (that is, Western) jurisprudence, but that a universal jurisprudence is best of all.

2 But cf. Judge Oda’s dissent on this, especially para. 18. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 212, especially at 219 (Judgment of June 27) (Oda, J., dissenting).

3 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 ICJ Rep. 3 (Judgment of May 24).

4 1986 ICJ Rep. at 40, para. 59.

5 Id. at 272, para. 15; cf. also id. at 309–10 and 317–18, paras. 104 and 121–22 (Schwebel, J., dissenting).

6 Id. at 269, para. 7.

7 1986 ICJ Rep. at 49, para. 83.

8 For a careful survey of persistent reliance on covert operations, see the recent book Prados, J., Presidents’ Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations Since World War II (1986)Google Scholar. Few specialists would argue, I believe, that the character of this activity can be reconciled with international law.

* Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University.