Advertisement

International Economic Law

  • Rainer Hofmann
  • Juliane Kokott
  • Karin Oellers-Frahm
  • Stefan Oeter
  • Andreas Zimmermann

Abstract

As already noted, Nicaragua has also asserted that the United States is responsible for an “indirect” form of intervention in its internal affairs inasmuch as it has taken, to Nicaragua’s disadvantage, certain action of an economic nature. The Court’s attention has been drawn in particular to the cessation of economic aid in April 1981; the 90 per cent reduction in the sugar quota for United States imports from Nicaragua in April 1981; and the trade embargo adopted on 1 May 1985. While admitting in principle that some of these actions were not unlawful in themselves, counsel for Nicaragua argued that these measures of economic constraint add up to a systematic violation of the principle of non-intervention.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Hofmann
  • Juliane Kokott
  • Karin Oellers-Frahm
  • Stefan Oeter
  • Andreas Zimmermann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations