INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REJECTS UNITED STATES JURISDICTION OBJECTION IN OIL PLATFORM CASE
Press Release
ICJ/547
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REJECTS UNITED STATES JURISDICTION OBJECTION IN OIL PLATFORM CASE
19961212 THE HAGUE, 12 December (ICJ) -- Today, the International Court of Justice rejected the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction raised by the United States in the case concerning oil platforms (Iran v. United States). It found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the case on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran, signed in Tehran on 15 August 1955, which entered into force on 16 June 1957.The United States had argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction, on the one hand, because the Treaty of 1955, which contained commercial and consular provisions, was not applicable in the event of the use of force. The Court found in this respect that the Treaty, which does not expressly exclude any matters from the Court's jurisdiction, imposes on each of the parties various obligations on a variety of matters. Any action incompatible with those obligations is unlawful, regardless of the means by which it is brought about, including the use of force. Matters relating to the use of force are therefore not per se excluded from the reach of the Treaty.
Other arguments of the United States had related to the scope of various articles of the Treaty of 1955. The Court found in this respect that, considering the object and purpose of the Treaty, Article I should be regarded as fixing an objective (of peace and friendship), in the light of which the other Treaty provisions were to be interpreted and applied, but that it could not, taken in isolation, be a basis for the Court's jurisdiction. Neither could Article IV, paragraph 1, of the Treaty, the detailed provisions of which concerned the treatment by each party of the nationals and companies of the other party, as well as their property and enterprises, but which did not cover the actions carried out in this case by the United States against Iran, provide such a basis.
With regard to Article X, paragraph 1, of the Treaty, however, the Court found that the destruction of the Iranian oil platforms by the United States complained of by Iran was capable of having an effect upon the export trade in Iranian oil and, consequently, upon the freedom of commerce guaranteed in that paragraph. The lawfulness of that destruction could therefore be evaluated in relation to that paragraph.
- 2 - Press Release ICJ/547 12 December 1996
As a consequence, there existed between the parties a dispute as to the interpretation and the application of Article X, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of 1955; that dispute fell within the scope of the compromissory clause in Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty; and the Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
The full text of the operative paragraph reads as follows:
"THE COURT,
(1) rejects, by fourteen votes to two, the preliminary objection of the United States of America according to which the Treaty of 1955 does not provide any basis for the jurisdiction of the Court;
IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Judges Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren; Judge ad hoc Rigaux;
AGAINST: Vice-President Schwebel; Judge Oda;
(2) finds, by fourteen votes to two, that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of 1955, to entertain the claims made by the Islamic Republic of Iran under Article X, paragraph 1, of that Treaty.
IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Judges Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren; Judge ad hoc Rigaux;
AGAINST: Vice-President Schwebel; Judge Oda."
The Court was composed as follows: President Bedjaoui; Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins, Parra- Aranguren; Judge ad hoc Rigaux; Registrar Valencia-Ospina.
Judges Shahabuddeen, Ranjeva, Higgins and Parra-Aranguren and Judge ad hoc Rigaux append separate opinions to the Judgment of the Court.
Vice-President Schwebel and Judge Oda append dissenting opinions to the Judgment of the Court.
* *** *