There are many examples of why the United States is not exactly the protector of international law, but one that is quite glaring is the case of Nicaragua vs the United States decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1986. Nicaragua filed a claim in 1984 after the involvement of President Reagan and the United States military to provide weapons as well as training to overthrow the new regime in Nicaragua. Nicaragua contended the activities of the United States were in direction violation of the principles of international law as their status as a sovereign nation were being completed ignored by what came to be referred to as the Iran Contra affair.
When the ICJ handed down its decision it found the United States had violated customary international law by the ways it had used force against Nicaragua. The U.S. laid land mines in Nicaraguan ports, operated airplanes in Nicaraguan airspace to gather intelligence and committed numerous other acts of war towards that nation over a several year period. The U.S. claimed it was acting in collective self-defense, but Nicaragua was no threat to the U.S. and was in no position to launch an armed attack on its neighbor. The United States never appeared before the court during the merit stages of the case and refused to acknowledge the decision as they stated the ICJ had no jurisdiction over the case.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Nicaragua vs US".
Clearly, the United States acted as it did because of blatant self-interest. It did not want the new government to spread subversive ideas throughout the region and wanted the area under their control for economic and political reasons. Since Nicaragua was not capable of matching the might of the United States on any level, the U.S. just went in and took what it wanted. This situation, however, is no anomaly. The United States simply acted on its own behalf through the means of realpolitik. They did not do anything that had not already been done over the course of history and what has occurred after the principles of international law were established.
I think the merits of international law are tremendous and should garner a large amount of respect. All nations should try to work through international law as a means to solve their issues, especially in an era of increasing globalization. However, the strong will always bully the weak and since it is not mandatory to be adhered to, international law will always be flouted in the circumstances that would limit or condemn that nation’s behavior and used as a bastion when it supports their position. That is simply reality. Also, international law is as impartial as it can possibly be, but keep in mind the five members of the Security Council do hold more weight. Another reason international law is not perfect, is bias exists in all facets of the law just like in life. Everyone accrues biases based on their life experiences, no matter how difficult it is to keep them at bay. Politicians of international law are no different from the rest of the world’s citizen’s, so there will always be some measure of bias in any kind of law.
