Security Council does not adopt text calling for full compliance with International Court ruling in case of 'military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.'

Security Council does not adopt text calling for full compliance with International Court ruling in case of 'military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua'

On 31 July, a draft resolution bywhich the Security Council would have made "an urgent and solemn call" for full compliance with the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1986 in the case of "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against nicaragua" was not adopted by the Council because of the negative vote cast by one of its permanent members, the United States.

(On 27 June, the 15-member Courtat The Hague, Netherlands, decided that the United States, by activities "in and againts Nicaragua", had acted in breach of "customary international law" not to use force, not to violate the sovereignty of another State and not to intervene in the affairs of another State. It also rejected the "justification of collective self-defence" maintained by the United States in connection with "military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua". Three Judges appended dissenting opinions to the Judgment. Court President Nagendra Singh and six other Judges appended separate opinions to the Judgment.)

(The United States stated in January1985) that it would not participate in further Court proceedings in the case, maintaining they were "a misuse of the Court for political purposes" and that the Court lacked jurisdiction and competence over such a case. (For details of the Judgment, see UN Chronicle, 1986, No. 4.e

The vote in the Security Councilwas 11 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 3 abstentions (France, Thailand, United Kingdom). Voting for the draft were Australia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, USSR, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

The text (S/18250)--put forward byCongo, Ghana, Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago and United Arab Emirates--would have had the Council reaffirm the Court's role as "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and a means for peaceful solution of disputes in the interest of international peace and security". The Council would have recalled "the obligation of all States to seek a solution to their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with international law".

The Council would also have calledon all States to refrain from carrying out, supporting or promoting political, economic or military actions of any kind against any State of the region that might impede the peace objectives of the Contadora Group (Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela).

The vote came after five Councilmeetings held on 29, 30 and 31 July at the request of Nicaragua to consider "the dispute between the United States of America and Nicaragua, which was the subject of the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 27 June 1986 . . . and which threatens international peace and security" (S/18230).

Explanations: The United States saidit had voted against the draft because it would have painted an inaccurate picture of the true situation in Central America, because it would not have contributed to a comprehensive and peaceful settlement of the problems in the region, and because it would have done a disservice to the international law and institutions that it purported to uphold.

France sait it abstained because thedraft contained certain objectionable elements relating in particular to the Judgment of the Court, "with respect both to the role of the Court and to substance, elements which could not receive unanimous agreement".

The representative of Thailand saidthe paragraph of the draft by which the Council would have called for compliance with the Judgment of the Court was "not entirely devoid of political content". His delegation would be obliged to abstain because of lack of instructions from Bangkok, where no government had yet been formed following national elections.

The United Kingdom said it wouldabstain because it "cannot countenance anything that suggests that the Central American problem is only a bilateral United States-Nicaraguan question".

Letters: The Council reviewed an11 July letter from nicaragua to the Council President (S/18221) containing the text of the 27 June 1986 Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, an 18 July letter from the United States to the Secretary-General (A/40/1147-S/18227) containing the text of the separate and dissenting opinions of the Judgment in the same case, a 25 July letter from Nicaragua to the Secretary-General (A/40/1153-S/18248) transmitting the text of a 24 July note from Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann to United States Secretary of State George Shultz, and a 28 July letter from India to the Secretary-General (S/18244) containing the text of a communique adopted the same day by the Co-ordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. The Bureau had met to consider the situation in Central America in light of the Court Judgment.

In his letter, the Nicaraguan ForeignMinister referred to press reports about preparations for war against Nicaragua being drawn up in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, by "the ringleaders of the mercenary organization in the service of your Government, the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense." He said that by guiding the planning of those preparations, the United States "is seeking to continue the compromising use of Honduran territory for the planning and pursuit of its policy of force, threats and intervention against Nicaragua, thus ... openly violating" the Court's Judgment.

The non-aligned communique saidthe Bureau made "an urgent...