In the Nicaragua case, the ICJ discussed:

 The competence of the ICJ to give its determination based on customary international law in the
face of the Vandenberg reservation of the United States.

 The relationship between treaty law and customary international law.

 Elements of customary international law.

 The prohibition on the use of force as a jus cogens norm.

 Customary international law status of the principle of non-intervention.

US held the position of the multilateral treaty reservation of the US, wherein certain international laws
are barred to be used by the ICJ in the case of Nicaragua and USA (Vandenberg Reservation), and left the
court depending on customary and general principles of international law

US barred the icj from using customs and general principle since there is a similarity between them and
some provision of the treaties, but icj said that the customs and general principle are independent from
treaty law.

the Court distinguished two situations:

(a) Situations where the customary law principles were identical to treaty provisions; and

(b) Situations where customary law and treaty law rights and obligations differed in respect of the
same subject matter.

a. In the Nicaragua case, the Court relied on the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases to
support the assertion that principles of customary international law can exist side by
side with identical treaty law provisions and the latter does not supervene the former in
a manner where the former ceases to exist

also relied on Article 51 of the UN Charter to show that a treaty itself can recognize the
existence of customary international law on the same subject matter. The term
“inherent” in Article 51 recognized that customary law rights of self-defense existed
alongside treaty provisions.

With article 51 of the charter, as an treaty law, with the exercise of collective self-
defense, it must be reported immediately to the security council, the court held that this
is not available in the customary law, court indicated that the US failed to observe this
requirement contradicted her claim in acting in collective self defense.

b. The Court concluded that (1) this proves that customary international law continues to
exist alongside treaty law and that (2) areas governed by the two sources of law do not
(always) overlap and the rules do not (always) have the same content.