World Court Rules U.S. Aid to Contras Is Illegal

The International Court of Justice ruled Friday that U.S. support for rebels fighting to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua violates both “customary international law” and a 1956 Nicaraguan-U.S. friendship treaty.

The Reagan Administration had said in advance that it would ignore the ruling, and the World Court, as it is commonly called, has no power to enforce its decisions.

By a vote of 12 to 3, the court also called on the United States to immediately cease its support for the contras, and by a 14-to-1 margin ruled that it should compensate the Nicaraguan government for economic losses incurred as a result of the conflict.

Commitment Urged

In the only unanimous decision among its 16 separate findings in the case, the justices urged both countries to commit themselves to the Contadora process, a 3 1/2-year-old diplomatic initiative of four Latin American nations to find a peaceful solution to the regional conflicts in Central America.

The judgment, which comes nearly 26 months after Nicaragua first presented its case, was depicted by the Nicaraguan government as a significant propaganda setback for the United States, almost certain to inflict some damage to America’s image in Latin America and elsewhere in the Third World.

However, the immediate, direct impact of the ruling is less clear-cut. Although the court is officially the legal arm of the United Nations, it has no effective way to enforce either its decisions or its jurisdiction. Its impotence was underscored by the Reagan Administration’s decision to reject its jurisdiction in the case.

It was the first time since 1946 that the United States had denied the court’s jurisdiction.

International Role

Still, the court’s judgments have played a role in shaping international pressure. Some argue, for example, that the court’s 1980 decision advocating release of the U.S. hostages held in Iran helped convince Tehran that it had few friends on the issue.

Friday’s decision is expected to have no direct effect on the Administration’s commitment to support the contras.

A major shift in U.S. Senate thinking because of the ruling is also considered unlikely. The Senate last March voted 53 to 47 in favor of $100 million in military and other assistance to the contras but must now study a revised plan for that aid passed earlier this week by the House.

The House vote, which followed intense personal lobbying by the President, approved an Administration package of $70 million in military aid and $30 million innon-military help to the contras.

U.S. Dismissal

In Washington on Friday, the State Department dismissed the ruling as erroneous and noted that the court has no power to order the United States to pay damages.

“The court is simply not equipped to deal with a case of this nature involving complex facts and intelligence information,” State Department spokesman Charles E. Redman said. “We consider our policy in Central America to be entirely consistent with international law.”

Redman said the court appeared to have based its opinion on “the incomplete and inaccurate version (of the facts) presented by Nicaragua.”

The United States did not present any evidence or arguments to the court after it decided not to recognize the court’s jurisdiction.

Nicaragua wasted little time in emphasizing its view of the judgment’s importance.

At a news conference after it was made public, Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Miguel D’Escoto hailed the judgment as “the best guarantee” for peace in Central America. He urged the United States to accept it.

‘Sovereign Rights’

“We hope that today’s judgment will have a sobering effect on the Reagan Administration,” he said, reading from a prepared statement. “As a result, we hope that the United States will choose to join the law-abiding nations of the world, honor its international commitments, desist from its policy of covert wars and respect the sovereign rights of all nations regardless of size.”

On a national radio broadcast, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega declared, “Justice is on Nicaragua’s side.”

“From this moment on, the United States government becomes a criminal, acting outside of the law,” Ortega said. “This is a moral and political victory for the Nicaraguan people.”

Answering questions later, D’Escoto said that he plans to discuss implementing the court’s ruling next week in New York with U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar and members of the U.N. Security Council.

“We’ll continue to do anything permissible by international law,” he said.

U.S. Veto Power

Theoretically, the Security Council can recommend any measure, including the use of military force to impose the court’s will, but this has never happened. Also, Redman noted Friday that the United States has the power to veto any action by the council

“The court’s decisions are not self-enforcing,” Redman said. “It doesn’t have the power to order anything.”

Among its 16 rulings on aspects of the Nicaragua case, the court:

--Rejected a U.S. claim that support for the contras was an act of collective self-defense on the part of the United States and other Central American countries against Nicaraguan aggression.

--Ruled that U.S. training, arming, financing, and other support for the contras was a breach of its obligation under international law not to intervene in the affairs of another state.

--Listed eight specific attacks on Nicaraguan ports, naval installations and shipping as a U.S. breach of international laws prohibiting the use of force against another state.

--Declared that the United States violated Nicaraguan sovereignty by authorizing or directing overflights of Nicaraguan territory.

--Decided that U.S. mining of Nicaraguan ports and territorial waters in 1984 was a violation of sovereignty, an unlawful use of force and an illegal interruption of peaceful maritime commerce.

--Found last year’s U.S. trade embargo against Nicaragua and the 1984 mining of Nicaraguan ports violated a 1956 Nicaraguan-U.S. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation.

In one of the few findings favorable to the United States, the court rejected Nicaragua’s argument that the United States must have carried out unhumanitarian acts because it encouraged such acts in a 1983 training manual that it produced for the contras.

Reparations Claim

While the court accepted Nicaragua’s application for reparations, it rejected a specific claim of $370.2 million, saying that it would decide on a figure if the United States and Nicaragua were unable to agree on one between themselves.

The only U.S. judge on the court, Stephen M. Schwebel, dissented on 12 of the 16 findings. He was joined in nine of those instances by Japanese Justice Shigeru Oda and British Justice Robert Jennings.

Other nations currently represented on the court include Italy, France, Argentina, Poland, Algeria, Senegal, Nigeria, Brazil, Norway, India and China.

An 18-member U.S. State Department legal team argued the initial jurisdictional phase of the case in April, 1984, but was not present during the substantive portion, which ran nearly 18 months.

The United States argued that the Nicaraguan insurgency was part of a regional political problem beyond the court’s scope and that Nicaragua’s case was little more than a propaganda ploy.

‘Collective Defense’

Redman, the State Department spokesman, repeated Friday that the Reagan Administration believes that its covert war against Nicaragua is justified as “collective defense” of U.S. allies against the Sandinista regime.

“Nicaragua is engaged in a substantial, unprovoked and unlawful use of force against its neighbors,” he charged. “The United States has assisted the victims’ response to Nicaragua’s intervention.”

As the court’s president, Nagendra Singh of India, read a 1 1/2-hour summary of the judgment, eight seats in the somber, oak-paneled courtroom reserved for the defendant nation’s legal team were empty, the glasses of water at each seat untouched.

The U.S. absence has been a serious setback to the court’s credibility as an accepted panel for adjudicating global disputes.

The dream of an International Court of Justice was largely the product of American idealism earlier this century, and the imposing Peace Palace that it still calls home was built just before World War I, mainly with funds donated by American steel magnate Andrew Carnegie.

Carter’s Petition

While President Jimmy Carter took the court seriously enough to seek its help in gaining the release of the Americans held hostage in Iran, the Reagan Administration has viewed it in a less positive light.

Shortly after Nicaragua announced plans to press its case in early 1984, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, dismissed the court as a “semi-legal, semi-judicial, semi-political body which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.”

Last year, the State Department charged that the court was being subverted by Nicaragua, Cuba and the Soviet Union who wanted to turn it into a political weapon.

Although the United States did not defend itself in the case, several Americans were involved on the Nicaraguan side. Two Americans, Harvard law professor Abram Chayes and Washington lawyer Paul Reichler helped to present the Nicaraguan case. Several young American law graduates conducted research for Nicaragua, and a New York public relations firm, Agendas International, handled its publicity.

Washington Conference

Chayes, a one-time State Department legal adviser, and Reichler held a a news conference at the Nicaraguan Embassy in Washington to discuss what they called the “landmark case.” They predicted that the United States will eventually have to pay more than $1 billion in damage claims.

“We have a basis for collecting damages in U.S. courts because the United States is bound by a treaty obligation,” Chayes said, referring to the 1956 treaty between the United States and Nicaragua. Establishing a claim under the treaty, he said, circumvents any attempt by Washington to avoid claims by refusing to accept the court’s jurisdiction.

Reichler, noting that Nicaragua has not yet presented a bill for damages, said nevertheless that losses of life and property from direct U.S. actions and damages from imposition of a trade embargo will add up to “well over” $1 billion--not counting claims for damages caused by the U.S.-financed contras.

Chayes said that, if the two parties cannot reach agreement on the amounts claimed, the court will determine the payment due. He said he expects the court to allow three or four months for each side to prepare its claims, with more time allotted in the unlikely event that the United States wishes to participate.

Times staff writer Doyle McManus, in Washington, contributed to this article.