Talk:Nicaragua v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Central America, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicaragua v. United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Judges countries 2 Anniversary 3 Clean up 4 Tried to add some clarification 5 current status of the USA-international court relationship? 6 deleted sentence 7 Re: deletion of 1946 reference and George Schultz 8 Removed to talk page 9 Is this case.. 10 UN Security Council resolutions

[edit] Judges countries

Can we put what countries the Judges come from next to their names? user:J.J. 07:06, 8 June 2003

Cool, now that that's done can we put a "total" column after all the yes and no votes? as in, "3Y/14N" - user:J.J. 07:23, 11 July 2004 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.228.208 (talk • contribs).

Be bold. But as it is the votes are kind of empty information given that the reader cannot see what the paragraphs were about. Get-back-world-respect 11:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anniversary

An event mentioned in this article is a June 27 selected anniversary 26 June 2004 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Clean up

I added the cleanup tag. That table needs to cleaned up. It's messy and oogly. --Woohookitty 00:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tried to add some clarification

Tried to add some clarification of the legal matters and their impact on internation law, the previous version would give few indications to readers of what principles and what articles United States was considered to be in breach of, and most people are not too enligthened in matters of international law. Others with some competence in international law and the particilar case could help making that part of this article a bit more understanding. 15 February 2005—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cybbe (talk • contribs).

[edit] current status of the USA-international court relationship?

Hi, does anyone know the current status of the USA's relationship to the International Court? this article says that the USA 'withdrew its declaration accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction.' after the case, does the USA still not accept rulings by the Court, and does that mean that it can't even be taken to Court? (because to go you have to be willing to accept the ruling...)

andy 7 June 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 13trees (talk • contribs).

They have not made a declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. They can, however, choose to participate on an ad hoc basis, and some treaties refer to ICJ for disputes, there have been a few the last years regarding consular rights. Countries that have accepted compulsory jurisdiction: [1]. --Cybbe 20:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deleted sentence

I deleted this sentence after 2 weeks of citation needed and no one answering:

The U.S. State Department had called activities of the Contras "terrorist activities". ^{[citation needed]} Travb 06:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: deletion of 1946 reference and George Schultz

A user had deleted:

On April 6, 1984, three days before the trial, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz notified the International Court that the United States would invoke its special provision that was brought to the United Nations on 26 August 1946. This provision stated that the United States agreement to abide by the decisions of the court "... shall not apply to disputes with any Central American State or arising out of or related to events in Central America." But this provision, as the court pointed out "...shall remain in force for a period of two years..." only.[2][3]

I added the template: {{Disputeabout|U.S. defense and response}} and returned this deletion.

I am really confused:

The United States also disputes the jurisdiction of the Court in this case by relying on a declaration which it deposited on 6 April 1984, referring to its 1946 Declaration, and providing that that Declaration "shall not apply to disputes with any Central American State or arising out of or related to events in Central America" and that it "shall take effect immediately and shall remain in force for a period of two years". Since the dispute with Nicaragua, in its opinion, clearly falls within the terms of the exclusion in the declaration of 6 April 1984, it considers that the 1946 Declaration cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court to entertain the case. For its part, Nicaragua considers that the declaration of 6 April 1984 could not have modified the 1946 Declaration which, not having been validly terminated, remains in force.

So to summarize and reword what the court said:

The US disputes the ICJ taking the case because of the 6 April 1984 Statment ("Declaration" A formal statment proclamation or announcement especially one in an instrument) which it gave to the court. The US refers to its 1946 declaration:

• "The court cannot oversee disputes in any Central American State" and that
• the statment will "take effect immediately and will be valid for two years".

The US argues that since the argument with the Nigaragua court clearly is part of the exception in the 6 April 1984 statment, the US aruges that the 1946 declaration bars the ICJ from hearing the Nicaragua dispute.

Nicaraga argues that the 6 April 1984 statment didn't change the 1946 Declaration which was not terminated correctly and remains in force.

I am confused....this case is poorly written. I look forward to your response.Travb 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(later) The user is correct, i was wrong. I went to the law libaray and read the book: Gill, Terry D. (1989). Litigation strategy at the International Court a case study of the Nicaragua v United States dispute, Dordrecht. ISBN 0792303326. reading the footnote on Shultz (#55--the first reference to Shultz in the book)--the letter which Shultz submitted to the ICJ stated clearly that he wanted a two year time period where the US could not be brought to the ICJ by Central American countries. Later in the book I read that this was dismissed by the court because of the requirement that a country has to give 6 months notice. Shultz gave 3 days notice: the Friday before the weekend were that next Monday the case was too begin. I am going to contact this website owner and tell him that he is incorrect.Travb 03:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed to talk page

After being marked with the fact tag for a few months, I removed this to the talk page:

withdrawing its declaration accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction.{{Fact}}

To read this fragment sentence in full context click here:

edit history

Signed: Travb (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this case..

..closed for good? --PaxEquilibrium 13:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Travb (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN Security Council resolutions

Didn't the US then veto two UN Security Council resolutions calling upon all states to observe international law or something? If that's the case, then it's certainly relevant, and should be mentioned somewhere.Mike.lifeguard 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)