As to the facts, the Court Nicaragua case it established that some incidents were directly imputable to the United States. In particular, it was submitted by Nicaragua that the United States was violating the prohibition of the use of force in international relations and the parallel rule on prohibition of intervention.
There was no evidential material presented by the United States in the proceedings on the merits, and it was not easy to substantiate the alleged assistance of Nicaragua to armed rebel forces operating in neighbouring countries, particularly in El Salvador.
Directly to be attributed to the United States were also several operations against Nicaraguan oil installations, a naval base and other facilities of the State of Nicaragua, carried out as direct actions of United States personnel, or of persons in its pay. The Court has however found [ Therefore, the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by the United States declaration under Article 36 para.
Neutral Powers which lay mines off their own coasts must issue a similar notification, in advance Art. For this conduct to give rise to legal responsibility of the United States, it would in principle have to be proved that that State had effective control of the military or paramilitary.
Article 3 which is common to all four Geneva Conventions of August 12, defines certain rules to be applied in the armed conflicts of a non-international character.
The reservation had excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court all "disputes arising under a multilateral treaty" which could affect third States which are parties to the treaty but which are not participating in the proceedings before the Court.
That the whole of IHL is customary law?