Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:40:44.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nicaragua v. United States: Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Herbert W. Briggs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 373 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

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 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ Rep. 392 (Judgment of Nov. 26). References to the Judgment in the text will be followed by parenthetical citations to the appropriate paragraph or paragraphs.

2 Since space is not available here to analyze this jurisprudence, I venture to cite my 1958 lectures before the Hague Academy of International Law, Reservations to the Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, 93 Recueil des Cours 223 (1958 I), particularly the chapters on reciprocity, time limits and the opinions of the Court, where full citations are given.

3 Id. at 267.

4 Cf Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Port. v. India) (Preliminary Objections), 1957 ICJ Rep. 125, 143-44 (Judgment of Nov. 26), and quoted in the Court’s current opinion, para. 64.

5 See Waldock, , Decline of the Optional Clause 32 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 244 (1955-56)Google Scholar, from which dissenting judges freely quote in the current case. See also Briggs, supra note 2, at 258 ff, 261, 276-78, including citations.