Shifting Interpretation in International Court of Justice’s Decision in the Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America: A Deliberate Step?

On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States’ preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction “on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.”

Download Full-text

Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

10.1163/9789047413912_008 ◽

2004 ◽

pp. 86-88

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

United States Of America ◽

Islamic Republic ◽

Oil Platforms ◽

Islamic Republic Of Iran

Download Full-text

The Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) – Preliminary Objection

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s092215659700040x ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 541-551

Author(s):

Roger S. Clark

Keyword(s):

United States Of America ◽

Case Law ◽

Third Party ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

Islamic Republic ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Oil Platforms ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Islamic Republic Of Iran

The case-law of the International Court of Justice (Court) is replete with arguments about whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the particular dispute (or request for advisory opinion) with which the Court is faced. These arguments are framed at one level as matters of interpretation of the relevant instruments. But they typically play out as well a multiplicity of variations on the overlapping themes of sovereignty (the extent to which states have been prepared to concede decision-making to third-party settlement mechanisms) and justiciability (the extent to which they will accept that an issue may be governed by ‘law’ and thus be susceptible to resolution by judicial actors).

Download Full-text

Comparative Study of International Commercial Arbitration and International Law in Iran

Journal of Politics and Law ◽

10.5539/jpl.v9n7p242 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 9 (7) ◽

pp. 242

Author(s):

Soheila Hashemi ◽

Nader Mardani

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

International Law ◽

United States Of America ◽

The United States ◽

Islamic Republic ◽

Commercial Arbitration ◽

International Commercial Arbitration ◽

Two Factors ◽

International Trading ◽

Islamic Republic Of Iran

Arbitration is one of the most important solutions to end enmity and replace judicial inquest. As international trading is extended, referring to judgment to solve the conflicts caused by commercial contracts has been rapidly rising which is a result of judgment benefits over justice authorities. Fastness and efficiency, law inquest cost, compromise nature of selecting the referees, and professional selection are among the most evident specifications of arbitration. Furthermore, Iran’s involvement in the most significant judgment case of the last century i.e. the lawsuits filed between the Islamic Republic of Iran the United States of America after the victory of the revolution would double the essentiality of knowing this organization. Judgment may be either individual or organic (permanent) and also the number of referees needs to be one or three. The most important issue in the judge’s inquest is to follow two factors including independence and impartiality from the beginning until the end of the inquest process. Violating these characteristics or the lack of one of both or other descriptions predicted in the arbitration contract would result in its violation by one side of the conflict or both of them. In the present paper, a comparison is conducted between the commonalty and distinction of Iran’s international commercial arbitration in 1376 and international law.

Download Full-text