International Economic Law
International Economic Law
复制标题
国际经济法
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-662-37779-6_16
复制
发表时间：
1993
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Zimmermann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Hofmann;J. Kokott;K. Oellers;Stefan Oeter;A. Zimmermann
如前所述，尼加拉瓜还声称，美国应对“间接”干涉尼加拉瓜内政负责，因为美国采取了某些经济性质的行动，对尼加拉瓜不利。特别提请法院注意1981年4月停止经济援助; 1981年4月美国从尼加拉瓜进口的食糖配额减少90%;以及1985年5月1日实行贸易禁运。尼加拉瓜的律师虽然原则上承认其中一些行动本身并不违法，但认为这些经济限制措施加在一起构成了对不干涉原则的系统违反。
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.