II. | Substantive International Law - Second Part |
9. | HUMAN RIGHTS* |
¤
Military and Paramilitary Activities
(Nicaragua/United States of America)
Merits. J. 27.6.1986
I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14
[pp. 134-135] The Court also notes that Nicaragua is accused by the
1985 finding of the United States Congress of violating human rights. This
particular point requires to be studied independently of the question of the
existence of a "legal commitment" by Nicaragua towards the
Organization of American States to respect these rights ; the absence of such a
commitment would not mean that Nicaragua could with impunity violate human
rights. However, where human rights are protected by international conventions,
that protection takes the form of such arrangements for monitoring or ensuring
respect for human rights as are provided for in the conventions themselves. The
political pledge by Nicaragua was made in the context of the Organization of
American States, the organs of which were consequently entitled to monitor its
observance. The Court has noted above (paragraph 168) that the Nicaraguan
Government has since 1979 ratified a number of international instruments on
human rights, and one of these was the American Convention on Human Rights (the
Pact of San José, Costa Rica). The mechanisms provided for therein have
functioned. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in fact took action
and compiled two reports (OEA/Ser.L/V/11.53 and 62) following visits by the
Commission to Nicaragua at the Government's invitation. Consequently, the
Organization was in a position, if it so wished, to take a decision on the basis
of these reports.
In any event, while the United States might form its own appraisal of the
situation as to respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of force could
not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure such respect. With regard to
the steps actually taken, the protection of human rights, a strictly
humanitarian objective, cannot be compatible with the mining of ports, the
destruction of oil installations, or again with the training, arming and
equipping of the contras. The Court concludes that the argument derived
from the preservation of human rights in Nicaragua cannot afford a legal
justification for the conduct of the United States, and cannot in any event be
reconciled with the legal strategy of the respondent State, which is based on
the right of collective self-defence.
* For questions of state succession with regard to human rights treaties
see I 4.2.6.