Iran Vs America Summary
ase Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. the United States of America)
II. [6 November 2003] ICJ 90
III. Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. the United States of America) Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161
IV. Facts:
a. The Islamic Republic of Iran sought to invoke the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction on the basis of a bilateral commercial agreement between the United States and Iran: Article XXI (2) of the Treaty of Amity, Economic, and Consular Rights.
b. This claim was brought about in response to the destruction of two National Iranian Oil Company’s oil complexes on October 19, 1987 and April 18, 1988 by several U.S. naval warships. The attack on October 19th resulted in the complete …show more content…
The Court had determined that its jurisdiction cannot be limited to the terms discussed in article XX (1) (d) or any other article in the treaty. The reasoning being that if the U.S. was granted claims under this specific article, the court would be basically justifying the use of force as an act of self-defense. These conditions of which, can be shown in international law. In Article 31 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which we can see some relevant aspects of international law being applicable, thus jurisdiction may be supported in accordance to the rules regarding treaty interpretation. In response of this, the Court was able to conclude that the requirements of customary international law were not met following the alleged attacks perpetrated by Iran. If this attack did meet customary international law requirements, Article 51 of the UN Charter would have justified the U.S.’s armed attacks on the oil platforms as attacks in pursuit of self-defense. However, as referenced in the Military and Paramilitary against Nicaragua case, the U.S. was also not able to determine their actions of “self-defense” as either proportional or necessary as evident in this case as …show more content…
Key rules of international law that were upheld were mainly ones regarding self-defense and as to whether or not it would be justified to respond with force. One very important reference the Court used was the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua. This case determined that using force in self-defense may only be warranted if in response to severe forms of force. In addition to this, the act of force must be also deemed proportional as well as necessary, as made reference in the Legality of Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons case. Also, Article 31 (3) (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was upheld by allowing the Court’s jurisdiction extension to also include rules regarding international law when in the process of interpreting treaty
II. [6 November 2003] ICJ 90
III. Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. the United States of America) Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161
IV. Facts:
a. The Islamic Republic of Iran sought to invoke the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction on the basis of a bilateral commercial agreement between the United States and Iran: Article XXI (2) of the Treaty of Amity, Economic, and Consular Rights.
b. This claim was brought about in response to the destruction of two National Iranian Oil Company’s oil complexes on October 19, 1987 and April 18, 1988 by several U.S. naval warships. The attack on October 19th resulted in the complete …show more content…
The Court had determined that its jurisdiction cannot be limited to the terms discussed in article XX (1) (d) or any other article in the treaty. The reasoning being that if the U.S. was granted claims under this specific article, the court would be basically justifying the use of force as an act of self-defense. These conditions of which, can be shown in international law. In Article 31 (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which we can see some relevant aspects of international law being applicable, thus jurisdiction may be supported in accordance to the rules regarding treaty interpretation. In response of this, the Court was able to conclude that the requirements of customary international law were not met following the alleged attacks perpetrated by Iran. If this attack did meet customary international law requirements, Article 51 of the UN Charter would have justified the U.S.’s armed attacks on the oil platforms as attacks in pursuit of self-defense. However, as referenced in the Military and Paramilitary against Nicaragua case, the U.S. was also not able to determine their actions of “self-defense” as either proportional or necessary as evident in this case as …show more content…
Key rules of international law that were upheld were mainly ones regarding self-defense and as to whether or not it would be justified to respond with force. One very important reference the Court used was the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua. This case determined that using force in self-defense may only be warranted if in response to severe forms of force. In addition to this, the act of force must be also deemed proportional as well as necessary, as made reference in the Legality of Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons case. Also, Article 31 (3) (c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was upheld by allowing the Court’s jurisdiction extension to also include rules regarding international law when in the process of interpreting treaty