NCU LAW SCHOOL, COURT ROOM EXERCISE

IN THE HONBLE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE

HAGUE, NETHERLANDS

IN THE MATTER OF
Petitioner: Nicaragua
Vs.
Defendants: United States of America

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ankush Chattopadhyay (13LLB011)
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................3
ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..5
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE..6
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS...9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES..........................................................................................10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.11
ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................12
PRAYER..18
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT19
IMPORTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW..20
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................21

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED
1. The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, 1956 Page Number 9, 13 & 21.
2. Paragraph I - Article 35, Chapter II of the Statutes of the Court, ICJ Page Number 12
3. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter Page Number 16
4. Articles 18 of the Charter of the Organization of American States Page Number 17
5. Article 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States Page Number 17
6. Article 8 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States Page Number 17
7. Article I, Third of the Convention concerning the Duties and Rights of States in the
Event of Civil Strife Page Number 17
2

8. Hague Convention VIII. (18 October 1907).

9. Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (26 December 1933).
10. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations Page Number 9

ABBREVIATIONS

Honble

Honourable

USA

United States of America

Vs.

Versus

Ltd.

Limited

ICJ

International Court of Justice

RoN

Republic of Nicaragua

Co.

Company

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel for the appellant has approached the Honble International Court of Justice in the
exercise of its jurisdiction as provided under Article 36, Paragraph 1 of the Statute of this

Court1 due to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation entered into and signed by
both the mentioned parties in the year 1956.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The dispute before the Court between Nicaragua and the United States concerns events in
Nicaragua subsequent to the fall of the Government of President Anastasio Somoza Debayle
in Nicaragua in July 1979, and activities of the Government of the United States in relation to
1 Article 361. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially
provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.
2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without
special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal
disputes concerning:
a. the interpretation of a treaty;
b. any question of international law;
c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
3. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or
certain states, or for a certain time.
4. Such declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof
to the parties to the Statute and to the Registrar of the Court.
5. Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in
force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms.
6. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.

Nicaragua since that time. Following the departure of President Somoza, a Junta of National
Reconstruction and an 18-member government was installed by the body which had led the
armed opposition to President Somoza, the Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional
(FSLN). That body had initially an extensive share in the new government, described as a
'democratic coalition', and as a result of later resignations and reshuffles, became almost its
sole component. Certain opponents of the new Government, primarily supporters of the
former Somoza Government and in particular ex-members of the National Guard, formed
themselves into irregular military forces, and commenced a policy of armed opposition,
though initially on a limited scale.
The attitude of the United States Government to the 'democratic coalition government' was at
first favourable; and a programme of economic aid to Nicaragua was adopted. However by
1981 this attitude had changed. United States aid to Nicaragua was suspended in January
1981 and terminated in April 1981. According to the United States, the reason for this change
of attitude was reports of involvement of the Government of Nicaragua in logistical support,
including provision of arms, for guerrillas in El Salvador. There was however no interruption
in diplomatic relations, which have continued to be maintained up to the present time. In
September 1981, according to testimony called by Nicaragua, it was decided to plan and
undertake activities directed against Nicaragua.
The armed opposition to the new Government in Nicaragua, which originally comprised
various movements, subsequently became organized into two main groups: the Fuerza
Democratica Nicaraguense (FDN) and the Alianza Revolucionaria Democratica (ARDE). The
first of these grew from 1981 onwards into a trained fighting force, operating along the
borders with Honduras; the second, formed in 1982, operated along the borders with Costa
Rica. after an initial period in which the 'covert' operations of United States personnel and
persons in their pay were kept from becoming public knowledge, it was made clear, not only
in the United States press, but also in Congress and in official statements by the President and
high United States officials, that the United States Government had been giving support to
the contras, a term employed to de-scribe those fighting against the present Nicaraguan
Government. In 1983 budgetary legislation enacted by the United States Congress made
specific provision for funds to be used by United States intelligence agencies for supporting
'directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua'. According to
Nicaragua, the contras have caused it considerable material damage and widespread loss of
life, and have also committed such acts as killing of prisoners, indiscriminate killing of
6

civilians, torture, rape and kidnapping. It is contended by Nicaragua that the United States
Government is effectively in control of the contras, that it devised their strategy and directed
their tactics, and that the purpose of that Government was, from the beginning, to overthrow
the Government of Nicaragua.
Nicaragua claims furthermore that certain military or paramilitary operations against it were
carried out, not by the contras, who at the time claimed responsibility, but by persons in the
pay of the United States Government, and under the direct command of United States
personnel, who also participated to some ex-tent in the operations. They include the mining
of certain Nicaraguan ports in early 1984, and attacks on ports, oil installations, a naval base,
etc. Nicaragua has also complained of overflights of its territory by United States aircraft, not
only for purposes of intelligence-gathering and supply to the contras in the field, but also in
order to intimidate the population.
In the economic field, Nicaragua claims that the United States has withdrawn its own aid to
Nicaragua, drastically reduced the quota for imports of sugar from Nicaragua to the United
States, and imposed a trade embargo; it has also used its influence in the Inter-American
Development Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to block
the provision of loans to Nicaragua.
As a matter of law, Nicaragua claims, inter alia, that the United States has acted in violation
of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter, and of a customary international law
obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force; that its actions amount to intervention in
the internal affairs of Nicaragua, in breach of the Charter of the Organization of American
States and of rules of customary international law forbidding intervention; and that the United
States has acted in violation of the sovereignty of Nicaragua, and in violation of a number of
other obligations established in general customary international law and in the inter-American
system. The actions of the United States are also claimed by Nicaragua to be such as to defeat
the object and purpose of a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation concluded
between the Parties in 1956, and to be in breach of provisions of that Treaty.
The United States has not filed any pleading on the merits of the case, and was not
represented at the hearings devoted thereto. It did however make clear in its CounterMemorial on the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility that 'by providing, upon request,
proportionate and appropriate assistance to third States not before the Court' it claims to be

acting in reliance on the inherent right of self-defence 'guaranteed . . . by Article 51 2 of the

Charter' of the United Nations, that is to say the right of collective self-defence.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

The United States had at first been supporting the new government after the fall of Somoza in
1979. By 1981, the US had suspended aid because the US claimed that the Nicaragua
democratic coalition government was supporting guerrillas in El Salvador.

Article 51 - Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if
an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of
self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems
necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

 Two main armed opposition groups, the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense (FDN) and
Alianza Revolucionaria Democratica (ARDE), developed operating within Honduras and
Costa Rica with the alleged covert support of the US.

The Republic of Nicaragua filed an application on April 9, 1984 for proceedings against the
US citing their support for military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.
These included armed attacks against Nicaragua, incursions into territorial waters, aerial
trespass, indirect and direct means to coerce the Nicaraguan government, operations involved
in mining Nicaraguan ports, attacks on ports, oil installations, and naval bases. Additionally,
Nicaragua requested a reward of 370,200,000 to cover damages, including killings of
Nicaragua nationals, resulting from violations of international law.

The US first requested that the case be removed from the list. This was denied by the Court
citing that the case would remain on the list until the ICJ delivered its final judgment. The US
refused to attend and the ICJ decided that it would still decide the case by request of
Nicaragua and because the US only decided not to participate after provisional measures had
already been finished.

El Salvador attempted to file a Declaration of Intervention, but the Court denied the
declaration due to lack of relation to the current phase of proceedings on August 15, 1984

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the International Court of Justice has the jurisdiction to entertain the plea
and claims of the Republic of Nicaragua?
2. Whether the United States of America is indeed guilty of having committed any
crimes against the Republic of Nicaragua?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the International Court of Justice has the jurisdiction to entertain the plea
and claims of the Republic of Nicaragua?

Yes. The International Court of Justice does have the jurisdiction to entertain the plea and
claims of the Republic of Nicaragua due to a treaty signed by both the United States of
America as well as the Republic of Nicaragua.
10

2. Whether the United States of America is indeed guilty of having committed any
crimes against the Republic of Nicaragua?

Yes. The United States of America is indeed guilty of having committed many atrocious
crimes against the Republic of Nicaragua. United States of America requires to answer for its
wrongdoings and it requires to pay and to suffer the brunt of what has happened and for the
United States of America to do that, they need to come to court and it is the counsels as well
as the Republic of Nicaraguas plea that the International Court of Justice direct the United
States of America to appear in the court and to answer and subsequently pay for its crimes
against the Republic of Nicaragua.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the suit initiated by the respondents is maintainable in a court of law?

The International Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the ICJ) has a set of certain
provisions and statutes, rules and regulations according to which it functions, knows as the
Statutes of the Court.
These Statutes of the Court are procedural in nature and contain all the actions which defines,
makes up and gives power to the ICJ.
11

One such provision is the provision under Article 36, Chapter II of the Statutes of the Court.
Chapter II deals with the competence of the ICJ, basically stating when the ICJ will have the
jurisdiction to entertain a case and when it wont; who can appear before the ICJ and who
cant; the type of conventions and treaties and custom which the ICJ can and cannot use to
give meaning and power to its judgements.
Article 36 - Paragraph I, Chapter II of the Statutes of the Court states that:The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters
specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in
force.
As given in the very first paragraph itself the jurisdiction of the court comprises of all cases
and all matters specially provided forin treaties and conventions in force.
It needs to be disclosed to the Honble bench that both the parties to the present case had
agreed to and signed a treaty called The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, in
the year 1956. And no action has till date been raised in order to revoke, cancel, nullify this
treaty. So, this treaty is still in force.
As per the first paragraph of Article 36, Chapter II of the Statute of the Court of ICJ and
according to the derivative explanation provided in the previous paragraph of this written
submission, the counsel for the petitioner would like to conclude that the ICJ indeed does
have the jurisdiction to try this case and to subsequently hear and respond to the plea and
claims of the petitioner.
Now, having proven that the ICJ does indeed have the jurisdiction to entertain this case, the
counsel for the petitioner would now like to move on to the issue of the crimes which have
been committed by the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as USA) against the
Republic of Nicaragua (Hereinafter referred to as the RoN)
2. Whether the United States of America is indeed guilty of having committed any
crimes against the Republic of Nicaragua?
Yes, the USA is indeed guilty of having committed numerous heart-wrenching crimes against
the RoN.

12

The USA never came to the ICJ to contest the claims of the RoN. This in itself points to the
fact that USA did not want to entertain the various questions which the ICJ would have asked
regarding the crimes had USA given ICJ the chance.
Since all these acts of terrorism, that are causing unrest in the RoN and are resulting in the
loss of civilian life and are running up an incredibly large and heft amount in damages, are
being caused by the various Intelligence Departments of USA, the only statement which any
representative of the country would have been able to make would have a total denial of the
knowledge of any such activity which would have made the USA look even more guilty and
would have warranted an even greater penalty and fine for their rash and harmful actions, not
to mention and international drop in their reputation which would have directly lead to an
equally large economic fallout, USA decided to play dumb.
Not just that, USA also decided to blame and derogate the stand and reputation of the ICJ in a
desperate attempt to garner some support in its favor. The counsel for the petitioner would
like to throw light on a particular letter written by the Agent of the USA. It is as follows:The United States is constrained to conclude that the judgment of the Court was clearly and
manifestly erroneous as to both fact and law. The United States re-mains firmly of the view,
for the reasons given in its written and oral pleadings that the Court is without jurisdiction to
entertain the dispute, and that the Nicaraguan application of 9 April 1984 is inadmissible.
Accordingly, it is my duty to inform you that the United States intends not to participate in
any further proceedings in connection with this case, and reserves its rights in respect of any
decision by the Court regarding Nicaragua's claims.
USA is basically stating that everyone on the bench who played a part in passing that
judgement does not know anything about law and that the officials of USA would have done
a better job. Well of course they would have done a better job. A better job of covering up the
truth!
The only time USA did show up to the ICJ was during the initial hearing. The hearing which
has been referred to in the letter of the Agent of USA. And even in this hearing USA did not
deny any of the charges regarding the various crimes that it has allegedly committed in the
RoN. USA simply asked the bench to dismiss the petition because the bench did not have the
jurisdiction to hear the case. USA also made it a point to point it out to the bench that there
13

was no real merit in the case of RoN and that it can be determined simply based on the prima
facie of the case.
USA was trying to discredit the claims of RoN from their very roots and yet USA did not
tackle the issue of being accused of criminal wrongdoings? It simply does not make sense.
The counsel would also like to point out that in the aforementioned initial hearing, a lot of the
facts which are background to the dispute had been dealt with, and it is those facts which the
counsel would now like to share.
Those facts, as an excerpt from the published report of the initial hearing are as follows:after an initial period in which the 'covert' operations of United States personnel and persons
in their pay were kept from becoming public knowledge, it was made clear, not only in the
United States press, but also in Congress and in official statements by the President and high
United States officials, that the United States Government had been giving support to the
contras, a term employed to de-scribe those fighting against the present Nicaraguan
Government. In 1983 budgetary legislation enacted by the United States Congress made
specific provision for funds to be used by United States intelligence agencies for supporting
'directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua'. According to
Nicaragua, the contras have caused it considerable material damage and widespread loss of
life, and have also committed such acts as killing of prisoners, indiscriminate killing of
civilians, torture, rape and kidnapping. It is contended by Nicaragua that the United States
Government is effectively in control of the contras, that it devised their strategy and directed
their tactics, and that the purpose of that Government was, from the beginning, to overthrow
the Government of Nicaragua.
Nicaragua claims furthermore that certain military or paramilitary operations against it were
carried out, not by the contras, who at the time claimed responsibility, but by persons in the
pay of the United States Government, and under the direct command of United States
personnel, who also participated to some ex-tent in the operations. They include the mining
of certain Nicaraguan ports in early 1984, and attacks on ports, oil installations, a naval base,
etc. Nicaragua has also complained of overflights of its territory by United States aircraft, not
only for purposes of intelligence-gathering and supply to the contras in the field, but also in
order to intimidate the population.
14

In the economic field, Nicaragua claims that the United States has withdrawn its own aid to
Nicaragua, drastically reduced the quota for imports of sugar from Nicaragua to the United
States, and imposed a trade embargo; it has also used its influence in the Inter-American
Development Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to block
the provision of loans to Nicaragua.
Even after bringing them up, these facts were left undisputed and no sort of counter facts
were presented by the Agent of USA in the initial hearing. Since then, USA has not made an
appearance in the ICJ and the counsel, with the permission of the RoN is asking the ICJ to
make USA listen to RoN and to provide RoN with a proper, viable, understandable, legal,
legitimate, and compensatory answer to the actions of the forces of USA.
Due to the widespread damage caused by the forces of USA in Nicaragua for no real or
apparent reason, other than to make the RoN and its Nationals suffer, RoN is bringing the
charges of the following violations against the USA and asks the Honble bench to agree with
the same.

a)

That the United States, in recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing, supplying and
otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding, and directing military and paramilitary actions in
and against Nicaragua, has violated and is violating its express charter and treaty obligations
to Nicaragua, and in particular, its charter and treaty obligations under:

Article 2 (4)3 of the United Nations Charter;

3 Article 2The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance
with the following Principles.
1.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in
good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations.

15

Articles 184 and 205 of the Charter of the Organization of American States;

Article 86 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States;

-

Article I, Third7, of the Convention concerning the Duties

and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife.

b) That the United States, in breach of its obligation under general and customary
international law, has violated and is violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua by:
- armed attacks against Nicaragua by air, land and sea;
-

incursions into Nicaraguan territorial waters;

aerial trespass into Nicaraguan airspace;

5.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present
Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or
enforcement action.

6.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with
these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to
settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures
under Chapter Vll.

Article 18 - Respect for and the faithful observance of treaties constitute standards for
the development of peaceful relations among States. International treaties and agreements
should be public.

5 Article 20 - No State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or

political character in order to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it
advantages of any kind.

Article 8 - No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

Article 1, Third - To forbid the traffic in arms and war material, except when intended for the Government, while
the belligerency of the rebels has not been recognized, in which latter case the rules of neutrality shall be applied.

16

efforts by direct and indirect means to coerce and intimidate the Government of
Nicaragua.

(c) That the United States, in breach of its obligation under general and customary
international law, has used and is using force and the threat of force against Nicaragua.
(d) That the United States, in breach of its obligation under general and customary
international law, has intervened and is intervening in the internal affairs of
Nicaragua.
(e) That the United States, in breach of its obligation under general and customary
international law, has infringed and is infringing the freedom of the high seas and
interrupting peaceful maritime commerce.
(f) That the United States, in breach of its obligation under general and customary
international law, has killed, wounded and kidnapped and is killing, wounding and
kidnapping citizens of Nicaragua.
(g) That, in view of its breaches of the foregoing legal obligations, the United States is under
a particular duty to cease and desist immediately: from all use of force - whether direct or
indirect, overt or covert - against Nicaragua, and from all threats of force against
Nicaragua;
from all violations of the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of
Nicaragua, including all intervention, direct or indirect, in the internal affairs of Nicaragua;
from all support of any kind - including the provision of training, arms, am-munition,
finances, supplies, assistance, direction or any other form of support - to any nation, group,
organization, movement or individual engaged or planning to engage in military or
paramilitary actions in or against Nicaragua;
from all efforts to restrict, block or endanger access to or from Nicaraguan ports;
and from all killings, woundings and kidnappings of Nicaraguan citizens.
(h) That the United States has an obligation to pay Nicaragua, in its own right and as parens
patriae for the citizens of Nicaragua, reparations for damages to person, property and the
Nicaraguan economy caused by the foregoing violations of international law in a sum to be
determined by the Court. Nicaragua reserves the right to introduce to the Court a precise
evaluation of the damages caused by the United States'

17

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issue raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited the counsel for petitioner representing the Republic of Nicaragua, humbly request
the Hon'ble International Court of Justice to:1. The Court is requested to adjudge and declare that the United States has violated the
obligations of international law indicated in this Memorial, and that in particular respects
the United States is in continuing violation of those obligations
2. The Court is requested to state in clear terms the obligation which the United States bears to
bring to an end the aforesaid breaches of international law.
3. The Court is requested to adjudge and declare that, in consequence of the violations of
international law indicated in this Memorial, compensation is due to Nicaragua, both on its
own behalf and in respect of wrongs inflicted upon its nationals; and the Court is requested
further to receive evidence and to determine, in a subsequent phase of the present
proceedings, the quantum of damages to be assessed as the compensation due to the
Republic of Nicaragua.
4. Without prejudice to the foregoing request, the Court is requested to award to the Republic of
Nicaragua the sum of 370,200,000 United States dollars, which sum constitutes the
minimum valuation of the direct damages, with the exception of damages for killing
nationals of Nicaragua, resulting from the violations of international law indicated in the
substance of this Memorial.

Or pass any other order that this court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice,
equity and good conscience.

Place: - The Hague

All of which is respectfully submitted

Ankush Chattopadhyay
Counsel for the Petitioner

18

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

Citing numerous treaties and conventions governing international law, after extensive
analysis, the ICJ ruled that the US had acted in violation of the territorial sovereignty,
political independence principles in addition to use of force and humanitarian law. These
tenets of international law have been violated resulting from US support to the Contra forces
in numerous forms, placing mines in the internal waters of Nicaragua, flying in their airspace,
and attacks on specific locations.

19

IMPORTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

The ruling did in many ways clarifies issues surrounding prohibition of the use of force and
the right of self-defence. Arming and training the Contra was found to be in breach with
principles of non-intervention and prohibition of use of force, as was laying mines in
Nicaraguan territorial waters.
Nicaragua's dealings with the armed opposition in El Salvador, although it might be
considered a breach with the principle of non-intervention and the prohibition of use of
force, did not constitute "an armed attack", which is the wording in article 51 justifying the
right of self-defence.
The Court considered also the United States claim to be acting in collective self-defence of El
Salvador and found the conditions for this not reached as El Salvador never requested the
assistance of the United States on the grounds of self-defence.

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Treaties and Conventions
1. The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, 1956;
2. Paragraph I - Article 35, Chapter II of the Statutes of the Court, ICJ.
3. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter;
4. Article 18 of the Charter of the Organization of American States;
5. Article 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States;
6. Article 8 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States;
7. Article I, Third of the Convention concerning the Duties and Rights of States in the
Event of Civil Strife.
8. Hague Convention VIII, 1907.
9. Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933.
10. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Books Referred
1. V.K. Ahuja, Public International Law, LexisNexis., 2016
2. Starke, Introduction to International Law, Oxford University Press, 2013
Websites Referred
1. https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup08/basicmats/icjnicaragua.pdf
2. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5
3. http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/international-law/international-law-keyed-todamrosche/chapter-2/military-and-paramilitary-activities-in-and-against-nicaraguanicaragua-v-united-states/
4. http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/?p1=4&p2=2
5. http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=6245
6. https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/case-study/icj-nicaragua-united-states-casestudy.htm
7. https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1928a.htm
8. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam03.asp
9. http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A41_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm
10. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/1

21