ABSTRACT
The Court's interpretation of the meaning of armed attack was inconsistent with the shared interpretation of the applicant and the respondent states in the case. A difficulty with the argument, in view, is that it requires reading the provisions of the Charter and the Statute as implicitly withholding from the Court the authority to render judgment respecting allegations of acts of aggression, while nothing explicit in the Charter or the Statute so prescribes. Nicaragua set out in its pleading the extensive practice of the United Nations and the considerable commentaries of scholars which tend to equate acts of direct and indirect aggression. The result was that the Court's judgment turned essential facts on their head, and found that no responsibility could be attributed to Nicaragua for acts in blatant violation of international law for which it indubitably was responsible.
