TL; DR:
Iran brought a case against the U.S. after the U.S. attacked its oil platforms, claiming it broke a treaty governing their relations. The court had to decide whether the U.S. violated the treaty by attacking the platforms and whether the U.S. could justify the attack as self-defence. The court ruled that self-defence couldn’t be used as a justification, and later ruled that the U.S. didn’t violate the treaty in the first place, negating the need for a justification.
Facts: Under the context of the Iran-Iraq War, in 1987-88, the United States Navy engaged in military action in the Persian Gulf in support of Saddam Hussain and Iraq’s war against Iran. This military action resulted in attacks on three offshore oil platforms. Iran claimed that these attacks violated the purpose of the Treaty of Amity Articles I and X (1), and International Law. Furthermore, Iran claimed these violations cause obligations for the United States of America to pay Iran reparations. The United States argued that these attacks were “justified” and in “proportionate self-defence” to alleged damages caused to Navy ship USS Samuel B. Roberts by Iran, which had been damaged by mines placed 60 miles east of the coast of Bahrain. Notably, the court ruled on the use of force by the United States in case of two attacks on three oil platforms, with one attack while the oil platforms were under repair and not functional.
Procedural History: On 2nd November 1992, Iran filed a case in the ICJ against the US, in accordance with the jurisdiction of the ICJ enshrined in Treaty of Amity Article I and Article X (1).
In the preliminary proceedings submitted by the US, it claimed that the ICJ has no jurisdiction in the matter and that it acted in self-defence. Following proceedings, the Court’s judgement on 12 December 1996 ruled that it did have jurisdiction on entertaining claims made by Iran under Treaty of Amity Article XXI (2). This jurisdiction of the Court extended to rule upon Article X (1) and the issue regarding freedom of commerce and navigation laid in the treaty.
Oral Proceedings of the case took place from 1996-2003. The main argument of both parties is laid out as follows.
The United States made a counter on 10 March 1998, claiming that since the alleged attacks on the US ships constituted a violation of the same freedom of commerce and navigation, Iran is under obligation to pay the United States reparations.
The Court gave its concluding judgement of the case on 6 November 2003, concluding all legal issues raised by both High Contracting Parties to the Treaty of Amity. (see section Holdings and Rationale)
The Main argument of the Islamic Republic of Iran was that the US attacks on the Iranian oil platforms constituted a violation of the freedoms of commerce and navigation under Article X (1) of the Treaty of Amity, and that the United States owed Iran reparations for the same. The Iranian argument was also backed by Article I and how the US attacks on Iran violated this peace between the High Contracting Parties, and Iran’s sovereignty in the process.
The Main arguments of the United States of America was that it acted under self-defence as the US navy ships were damaged by mines placed and was attacked by Iranian forces. Supporting the self-defence claim, the US used Article XX, paragraph 1 (d) as grounds for actions defending its security interests. The US argument also made the distinction that since, a) the oil platforms weren’t functional at the time of the attacks and, b) US already blocked trade with Iran by an embargo, the freedom of commerce and navigation wasn’t applicable.
Issues:
- If the Court had jurisdiction over the case,
- If the attacks of the US constitute a violation of Article X (1) and of the freedom of commerce and navigation in the Treaty of Amity,
- If the attacks were justified and proportionate under the doctrine of self-defence,
- If the counterclaim of reparations made by the US was admissible,
Rule of Law:
Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, Iran-US, art. I; art.X (1); art. XX (1); art. XXI(2), Aug. 15, 1955, TIAS 3853
Article I is an affirmation of standing peace between the US and Iran,
Article X (1) mentions upholding of the freedom of commerce and navigation,
Article XX (1) lays out the conditions under which the obligations of the treaty aren’t admissible, under which subclause (d) talks about the need actions constituting restoration of international peace and protecting of the High Contracting Parties’ interests,
Article XXI (2) accepts the ICJ as the body to be referred to in case of a dispute, unless settled by other pacific disputes.
Holdings and Rationale:
a) YES, with 14 votes for, 2 votes against, the court ruled that it did have jurisdiction over the case, with Article XXI (2) of the Treaty of Amity establishing the ICJ as the body to refer to for the ‘interpretation or application’ of the treaty.
b) NO, with 15 votes for, 1 vote against, the court ruled that the attacks of the US did not violate the freedom of commerce and navigation set forth in Article X (1) because the oil platforms were under repair and not operational at the time of the attacks. Furthermore, due to an executive order imposing an oil embargo, there was no trade of crude oil at the time. Thus, freedom of commerce and navigation was not violated.
c) NO, the attacks couldn’t be justified as the US couldn’t establish enough grounds that it had been victim to attacks by Iran, to be entitled to use the right to self-defence as justification.
d) NO, since there was not any impediment to commerce and navigation, the counterclaim of reparations made by the US was rejected.
Ruling: The court denied claims of reparations from both parties, only providing an interpretation and application of the Treaty of Amity.
Conclusion:
While the decision is contested, even today by scholars, this case is an example of even something as standard as bilateral treaties can be of importance in situations of conflict between the parties, and how this leads to analysis of nuances in multiple principles, in this case, application of self-defence and use of force.