U. S. to Boycott World Court Nicaragua Case : Calls Issue Political, Not Legal; Managua Denounces Decision

The United States, accusing the World Court of overreaching its authority and abandoning traditional judicial restraint, announced Friday that it will boycott further proceedings in a suit by Nicaragua’s leftist regime that demands an end to U.S. support of armed subversion against it.

The action means that if the 16-judge panel, headquartered in The Hague, decides to go ahead with the case, the United States will not present a defense and will not abide by the verdict.

“The conflict in Central America is not a narrow legal dispute; it is an inherently political problem that is not appropriate for judicial resolution,” the State Department said in a four-page statement. “The conflict will be solved only by political and diplomatic means--not through a judicial tribunal.”

The statement said the United States could not present an adequate defense in the case without disclosing sensitive intelligence information to “establish Nicaragua’s aggressions against its neighbors.”

“We will not risk U.S. national security by presenting such sensitive material in public or before a court that includes two judges from Warsaw Pact nations,” the statement said.

In response, Nicaragua’s Sandinista regime branded the Reagan Administration an “international delinquent.” Carlos Arguello, the chief Nicaraguan lawyer, said in The Hague, “From the legal point of view, the United States knows very well that what it is intending to do is completely against international law and treaties to which the U.S. is bound.”

Unlike the courts of individual countries, the World Court has no means of enforcing its orders. It has jurisdiction only to decide cases in which both sides consent to its judgment. In 1946 the United States issued a blanket acceptance of the court’s “compulsory” jurisdiction, becoming one of only 44 of the United Nations’ 159 member countries to do so.

The State Department on Friday emphasized that the United States will continue to recognize the court in other cases.

A senior State Department official, who discussed the case on the condition that he not be identified, stressed: “We are not saying that we are pulling out of the World Court. This type of case never should have been brought before the court.”

He said the U.S. government soon will file a revised document with the U.N. secretary general specifying that the United States did not agree to World Court jurisdiction in “political” cases.

The official said defendant nations usually refuse even to answer suits that they consider politically motivated. Iran ignored a U.S. suit during the 1979-1981 hostage crisis.

Nevertheless, it is widely believed that the walkout in the Nicaragua case will prove to be an embarrassment to the United States, which traditionally has advocated compliance with international law.

Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Latin America, called the action “an abandonment of our longstanding commitment to international law and order.”

“I am shocked and saddened that the Reagan Administration has so little confidence in its own policies that it chooses not even to defend them,” Barnes said. “This action should cause even the strongest supporters of the President to pause and reflect upon the policies of an Administration that violates international law and cannot be defended before an impartial, objective international body.”

Prof. Don Wallace Jr., an international law specialist of the Georgetown University Law Center, noted that the United States could have presented its contention that it has the right to defend neighboring El Salvador against Nicaraguan aggressors. “I’m not saying we would have won but it’s a respectable argument,” he said. “It’s tit for tat--you can defend your allies.”

Long-Run Damage Feared But Wallace, while expressing some sympathy with the U.S. dilemma, also voiced concern that the move Friday could prove damaging in the long run. “We have used the court a great deal in the past--even though the U.S. felt the dice were loaded against us in this case,” he said. “It’s in our long-term interest to see that the court and international law are given the vigor and vitality that only we can give it.”

The U.S. government, clearly acting on the basis of intelligence information, sought to head off the suit by announcing last April 6 that it would not accept the court’s compulsory jurisdiction for two years in cases involving Central America. Three days later, Nicaragua filed the suit accusing the United States of “military and paramilitary” aggression and asking the court to order Washington to stop.

The Sandinista government in Managua is under attack by rebels known as contras who have received major support from the United States. Nicaragua also has charged that the United States was behind the mining of its harbors last year.

In a hearing last October, the United States argued that the World Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, but the court rejected the American argument Nov. 26 and agreed to hear the case on its merits.

Hoping to avert a public relations defeat, the U.S. government mounted an attack on the court and its decision, which the senior official said “clearly is erroneous as a matter of fact and of law.”

In its written brief, the State Department said the Nov. 26 decision “represents an overreaching of the court’s limits, a departure from its tradition of judicial restraint and a risky venture into treacherous political waters.”

The department added: “We have seen in the United Nations . . . how international organizations have become more and more politicized against the interests of the Western democracies. It would be a tragedy if these trends were to infect” the World Court.

The language seemed to be a clear reference to UNESCO, the U.N. agency that the United States quit at the end of 1984. The U.S. withdrawal stripped the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization of about a quarter of its budget.

Paul S. Reichler, a Washington attorney who is a member of the legal team representing Nicaragua before the World Court, denounced the U.S. action Friday as that of an “international outlaw.”

“It is a clear admission on the part of the Reagan Administration that there is simply no legal defense for its covert war against Nicaragua,” Reichler said. “It’s like Al Capone telling a criminal court judge he doesn’t recognize the court’s jurisdiction and therefore should not stand trial.”

Referring to Iran’s refusal to abide by the court’s decision in the hostage case, Reichler said, “It appears that Ronald Reagan has chosen the Ayatollah (Khomeini, Iran’s leader) as his role model in that respect.”