scholarly journals Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America): Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (I.C.J.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Chachko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
The U.S

On October 3, 2018, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous order indicating limited provisional measures against the United States. Iran initiated the case, Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. United States), after the United States announced its decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and revoke related sanctions relief for Iran. While the ICJ found that it had prima facie jurisdiction to hear the case—contrary to the U.S. position—the provisional measures it granted fell significantly short of the relief Iran sought. The Court also hinted that it might accept a significant element of the U.S. jurisdictional objection at the merits stage of the case.

scholarly journals Iran Initiates Suit Against the United States in the International Court of Justice, While Sanctions Take Effect

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-182
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

In the wake of President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reimpose sanctions, Iran instituted proceedings against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In its application, filed on July 16, 2018, Iran alleged that the re-imposition of sanctions constituted a violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Treaty of Amity) between Iran and the United States. In order to prevent “irreparable damages” to the Iranian economy, Iran simultaneously filed a request for provisional measures. After the ICJ issued an order unanimously granting limited provisional measures on October 3, 2018, the United States announced its intention to terminate the Treaty of Amity. The United States issued its first phase of sanctions on August 7, 2018, and the remaining sanctions took effect on November 5, 2018.

Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights; (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 1-83
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

1International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Conditions for the indication of provisional measures — Prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955, between Iran and the United States of America — Whether acts of which Iran complained falling within material scope of the 1955 Treaty — Article XX, 1(c) and 1(d) of the 1955 Treaty — Whether Article XX restricting the Court’s jurisdiction — Plausibility of rights asserted — Whether Article XX making Iran’s asserted rights not plausible — Whether rights invoked by Iran arising under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — Defence available to United States of America — Link between measures requested and rights whose protection Iran seeking — Real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Evidence of irreparable prejudice — Continuing character of irreparable prejudice — Urgency in the circumstances — Humanitarian concerns — Non-aggravation and non-extension of the dispute — Binding character of provisional measuresEconomics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Sanctions imposed by the United States of America against Iran — Territorial extent — Whether capable of affecting rights under the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955, between Iran and the United States of America — Provisional measures jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court: Garcia V. Texas

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-53
Author(s):  
David P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The U.S

On July 7, 2011, the United States Supreme Court declined to stay the execution of Humberto Leal García, a Mexican national who had been convicted some sixteen years ago in Texas of murder.1 Relying on the decision of the International Court of Justice (‘‘ICJ’’) in the Avena case,2 García contended that the United States had violated his right to consular notification and access under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (‘‘Consular Convention’’).3 He sought the stay so that the U.S. Congress could consider enactment of proposed legislation to implement the ICJ decision.4 In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected his argument, stating that ‘‘[t]he Due Process Clause does not prohibit a State from carrying out a lawful judgment in light of unenacted legislation that might someday authorize a collateral attack on that judgment.’’5 García was executed by lethal injection that evening.

scholarly journals Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. U.S.) (Judgment on Preliminary Objections) (I.C.J.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Diane A. Desierto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

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.”

scholarly journals Trump Administration Announces Withdrawal from Four International Agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-141
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Court ◽  
Trump Administration

In October of 2018, the Trump administration announced that the United States would withdraw from four international agreements. On October 3, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would withdraw from the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights with Iran. Later that day, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced that the United States was also withdrawing from the Optional Protocol to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). Both withdrawals were triggered by pending International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases grounded in these treaties that were recently brought against the United States. Two weeks later, in an escalation of the ongoing trade dispute with China, the United States gave notice of withdrawal from the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the international body charged with overseeing the international mailing system. Finally, on October 22, 2018, President Trump announced that the United States would be terminating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia. Unlike other withdrawals undertaken by the Trump administration, this latest round involved three Article II treaties to which the Senate had provided its advice and consent. In addition, the international commitments withdrawn from in this round were long-standing ones, with U.S. participation in the UPU going back as far as 1875.

International Court of Justice Rules in Favor of Germany and Against the United States in the LaGrand Case

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The U.S

In its judgement from June 27, 2001, in the LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), the International Court of Justice made a number of watershed rulings: (a) The Court established that Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations creates individual rights for foreign nationals abroad, and not just rights protecting the interests of states that are a party to the Convention; (b) The Court ruled that, beyond the undisputed failure on the part of the U.S. to take the measures required by the Convention, the application of an American provision of criminal procedure in the LaGrand brothers' cases (a provision that prevented the domestic courts from reviewing the implications of the Convention violation admitted by the Americans) itself constituted a violation of Article 36(2) of the Convention; (c) The Court, as a remedy in the case of future violations of the Convention, ordered the United States to provide a procedure for the review and reconsideration of convictions secured in circumstances in which the obligations of the Convention had not been observed; and (d) as a separate matter the Court ruled that its provisional orders, issued pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, have binding effect.

scholarly journals Revitalizing The U.S. Compliance Power

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Charnovitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

Although “[tjreaties are the law of the land, and a rule of decision in all courts,” the president and the courts may sometimes be powerless to achieve compliance with a U.S. treaty. That was the puzzling outcome of Medellin v. Texas. Even though the Supreme Court declared that the United States has an international obligation to comply with the Avena judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court invalidated the president’s memorandum directing Texas and other errant states to comply.

The world court lawsuits by the Republic of Iraq against the United States and the United Kingdom

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-216
Author(s):  
Francis A. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The People ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Republic

The article explores the author’s experience of crafting legal actions meant to bring a case against the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom for the genocidal conditions that arose from their actions against the people of Iraq from 1991 to 2003. Based on a similar effort, successfully brought to the International Court of Justice on behalf of the people and Republic of Bosnia in 1993, the strong potential for a legal and peaceful remedy to bring an end to Iraqi civilian suffering ‐ as well as the potential to avert a future war ‐ existed and drove the author to implore Iraqi legal action before the ICJ. Iraqi state officials, from the President’s Office to that of Deputy PM Tariq Aziz, through Iraqi diplomats in New York, were canvassed and engaged in an effort for the author to receive their support to act on Iraq’s behalf at the ICJ. Published here is the author’s recollection of this effort to prosecute international crimes against the Iraqi people as well as an overview of the ICJ case that while never brought forward, could have prevented the 2003 invasion and its aftermath.

The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for Closing the Clause

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary L. Scott ◽  
Craig L. Carr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Evolving System ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Ideal

The refusal of the United States to consider itself bound by the recent decision in the Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, coupled with the earlier termination of its adherence to Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, has sparked a small storm of controversy and concern. Part of this concern involves how the United States, presumably a law-abiding and law-respecting nation, could possibly bring itself to snub the International Court of Justice and, by extension, the ideal of international law. Another part of this concern involves the likely consequences of the United States move on the vitality of the Court as the focal institution of a slowly evolving system of international law. A less obvious concern, but arguably one of paramount importance, calls into question the wisdom of insisting that the ICJ retain its optional compulsory jurisdiction. It is this less obvious concern that we propose to discuss here.

Post-Avena Application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by United States Courts

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPHER J. LE MON
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Icj

Following the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Avena case, US courts have had a mixed record in applying the decision domestically. In this article, I examine the treatment by US courts of claims by criminal defendants alleging Vienna Convention violations, subsequent to the Avena judgment. First, I discuss the two limited decisions so far taken by the US Supreme Court regarding the Vienna Convention, and briefly explain several of the judicially-created rules that have prevented most US courts from reaching the merits of Vienna Convention claims. Next, I analyse the ICJ judgment in the LaGrand case, and provide an overview of the reception of that case by the US courts. After a summary of the Avena decision, I turn to the latest cases in which Vienna Convention claims based on Avena have been raised in US courts, focusing on the two most important decisions, and examining their contradictory rulings. As the US Supreme Court has now decided to hear an appeal in one of these cases, I conclude by arguing that the Supreme Court should take the opportunity to elucidate the role of the International Court of Justice in US law when the United States has consented to binding treaty interpretation by that court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document