THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FACTS
The US – initially supportive of the new government – changed its attitude when, according to the United States, it found that Nicaragua was providing logistical support and weapons to guerrillas in El Salvador. Initial US support to these groups fighting against the Nicaraguan Government (called “contras”) was covert.
Later, the United States officially acknowledged its support. To establish jurisdiction Nicaragua had to show that it is a "State accepting the same obligation" as the United States within the meaning of Article 36 (accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the United States and itself).
It relied on a declaration made by it Pursuant to Article 36 (2) of predecessor of the present Court. ICJ 36(5): Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the PCIJ 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 ICJ. Since Nicaragua never ratified the Signature Protocol they were never party to the treaty. However the declaration made by them was still valid even though it did not have binding force.
ISSUE
Whether a declaration which did not have binding force falls under the ambit of article 36 (5) of the ICJ?
HELD
The phrase “still in force” used in article 36 (5) of the ICJ does not exclude a valid declaration of an unexpired duration made by a State not party to the statute of the PCIJ.
The declaration was unconditional and for an unlimited period - retained potential effect the moment it become a party to the UN Charter and the Rome Statute.
The court stated that with respect to transfer of powers from the PCIJ to the ICJ was made there was great emphasis laid on continuity so as to not nullify the progress made towards adopting a compulsory system.
Nicaragua can be deemed to have given its consent to the transfer when it signed the United Nations Charter.