Law Professor Prosecutes U.S. in World Court

Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

The U.S. stayed away from the hearings after declaring that the World Court did not have jurisdiction in the matter. And Chayes admits it is likely the defendant-in-absentia will ignore both the verdict and any damages the court awards.

Without the presentation of opposing arguments, Chayes said he is "very hopeful" of a decision favoring Nicaragua. But he added such a ruling would be of lasting importance despite the case's one-sidedness.

"This sort of thing has never happened before," he said. If damages are awarded, he added, they will likely be paid when relations between the two countries are normalized, at some point in the future. "If there is a dollar judgment, at some point in time and one way or another, that will be satisfied."

He said Chinese claims against the U.S. were met when the U.S. normalized relations in 1978 and Soviet claims were paid off for the same reason in 1934.

Chayes, who said he took the case in February 1984 at the request of a former student who is counsel for Nicaragua in Washington, D.C., also hopes the anticipated resolution will influence domestic decision-making.

"Contra policy will have to be reexamined once in a while" when President Reagan seeks funding, he said. "I believe when Congress begins to consider the issue again, the fact that this has all been declared illegal is going to be a factor."

Chayes was sharply critical of the U.S. decision to ignore the World Court trial. "They accuse Nicaragua of propaganda [in filing the case], but while we were arguing legality in a court of law, they released a 150-page brief [to the press, defending U.S. claims of Nicaraguan support for the El Salvador rebels]. It was the U.S. that was trying its case in the newspapers."