The Sandinista dictatorship of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo has made a great fuss over the inclusion in its new constitutional reform of a special clause stating that no law, ruling, or resolution from foreign bodies and States shall have validity or jurisdiction in Nicaragua.
Supposedly, its immediate purpose is to reject or invalidate in advance any sanctions that might be approved at the upcoming extraordinary meeting of OAS foreign ministers, which will soon examine the dictatorship’s worsening totalitarian drift and the multilateral or unilateral measures that may be necessary to apply against it.
However, in general, the dictatorship’s aforementioned constitutional prohibition has the objective—likewise supposed—of neutralizing U.S. sanction laws that have been imposed on it, such as the so-called NICA Act and RENACER Act. The same applies to those approved by other entities of the international democratic community, such as the European Union, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
In reality, the formal prohibition against complying with foreign laws and sanctions already exists in the Nicaraguan dictatorship’s legal framework. But that law has not prevented sanctions from being issued, nor has it forced international governments and entities to refrain from imposing them. Nor will it be able to prevent them from imposing further sanctions on the Ortega-Murillo regime in the future.
It is sheer nonsense to say that foreign laws or the laws of other countries have no validity in Nicaragua. That is a truism—an obvious truth—something so clear and universally known that stating it is foolish or simplistic. That the laws of one country cannot be applied in others is a universal legal principle that has existed worldwide practically since the first laws were invented.
No State or government allows the laws of other countries to have validity or direct application within its borders. In the same way, no State or government can compel another to comply with its laws and mandates.
Any law student—or even any properly informed citizen—knows that one of the fundamental characteristics of law is that it has a specific scope of application, which is the territory governed by the political authority that enacts it. Only international laws, which are enshrined in international law treaties, conventions, and agreements, bind each specific country or State, and in general all parties to such legal instruments. But that is provided that the country or State participated in their drafting or ratified them in accordance with its domestic legal norms.
Furthermore, when a State denounces a treaty—that is, formally withdraws from it following the procedure established by the convention itself—it is not exempted from previously contracted obligations nor from compliance with acts approved while it was a party to the treaty.
Such is the case, for example, of the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship denouncing the OAS Charter and withdrawing Nicaragua from the hemispheric organization. Yet, the Nicaraguan State remains bound to comply with the American Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and the OAS Charter (which is its founding international treaty), in all relevant respects.
It is precisely for this reason that the OAS continues to deal with the situation in Nicaragua, condemning the dictatorship’s violations of Nicaraguans’ human rights. And for that very reason, it could, at the upcoming extraordinary meeting of foreign ministers, impose collective and unilateral sanctions on the dictatorship if it deems it necessary. And that would be done not only or primarily to punish it, but above all so that Ortega and Murillo reflect and understand that the best path for everyone—including themselves—is to pave the way for an agreement to restore democracy in Nicaragua.
