Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel
Judge Schwebel dissented from the Court's Judgment on factual and legal grounds. He agreed with the Court in its holdings against the United States for its failure to make known the existence and location of mines laid by it and its causing the publication of a manual advocating acts in violation of the law of war. But Judge Schwebel concluded that the United States essentially acted lawfully in exerting armed pressures against Nicaragua, both directly and through its support of the contras, because Nicaragua's prior and sustained support of armed insurgency in El Salvador was tantamount to an armed attack upon El Salvador against which the United States could react in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support.
Judge Schwebel found that, since 1979, Nicaragua had assisted and persisted in providing large-scale, vital assistance to the insurgents in El Salvador. The delictual acts of Nicaragua had not been confined to providing the Salvadoran rebels with large quantities of arms, munitions and supplies, which of themselves arguably might be seen as not tantamount to armed attack. Nicaragua had also joined with the Salvadoran rebels in the organization, planning and training for their acts of insurgency, and had provided them with command-and-control facilities, bases, communications and sanctuary which enabled the leadership of the Salvadoran rebels to operate from Nicaraguan territory. That scale of assistance, in Judge Schwebel's view, was legally tantamount to an armed attack. Not only was El Salvador entitled to defend itself against that armed attack, it had called upon the United States to assist it in the exercise of collective self-defence. The United States was entitled to do so, through measures overt or covert. Those measures could be exerted not only in El Salvador but against Nicaragua on its own territory.
In Judge Schwebel's view, the Court's conclusion that the Nicaraguan Government was not "responsible for any flow of arms" to the Salvadoran insurgents was not sustained by "judicial or judicious" considerations. The Court had "excluded, discounted and excused the unanswerable evidence of Nicaragua's major and maintained intervention in the Salvadoran insurgency". Nicaragua's intervention in El Salvador in support of the Salvadoran insurgents was, Judge Schwebel held, admitted by the President of Nicaragua, affirmed by Nicaragua's leading witness in the case, and confirmed by a "cornucopia of corroboration".
Even if, contrary to his view, Nicaragua's actions in support of the Salvadoran insurgency were not viewed as tantamount to an armed attack, Judge Schwebel concluded that they undeniably constituted unlawful intervention. But the Court, "remarkably enough", while finding the United States responsible for intervention in Nicaragua, failed to recognize Nicaragua's prior and continuing intervention in El Salvador.
For United States measures in collective self-defence to be lawful, they must be necessary and proportionate. In Judge Schwebel's view, it was doubtful whether the question of necessity in this case was justiciable, because the facts were so indeterminate, depending as they did on whether measures not involving the use of force could succeed in terminating Nicaragua's intervention in El Salvador. But it could reasonably be held that the necessity of those measures was indicated by "persistent Nicaraguan failure to cease armed subversion of El Salvador".
Judge Schwebel held that "the actions of the United States are strikingly proportionate. The Salvadoran rebels, vitally supported by Nicaragua, conduct a rebellion in El Salvador; in collective self-defence, the United States symmetrically supports rebels who conduct a rebellion in Nicaragua. The rebels in El Salvador pervasively attack economic targets of importance in El Salvador; the United States selectively attacks economic targets of military importance" in Nicaragua.
Judge Schwebel maintained that, in contemporary international law, the State which first intervenes with the use of force in another State - as by substantial involvement in the sending of irregulars onto its territory - is, prima facie, the aggressor. Nicaragua's status as prima facie aggressor can only be confirmed upon examination of the facts. "Moreover", Judge Schwebel concluded, "Nicaragua has compounded its delictual behaviour by pressing false testimony on the Court in a deliberate effort to conceal it. Accordingly, on both grounds, Nicaragua does not come before the Court with clean hands. Judgment in its favour thus unwarranted, and would be unwarranted even if it should be concluded - as it should not be - that the responsive actions of the United States were unnecessary or disproportionate."
Nicaragua v. United States - ICJ
Bookmarks