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

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).

IV. OIL PLATFORMS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), MERITS, JUDGMENT OF 6 NOVEMBER 2003

2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
The Persian Gulf

On 6 November 2003 the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Case Concerning Oil Platforms,1 which involves multiple aspects of international law, most notably the issues of treaty interpretation, use of force, hierarchy of norms and the nature of international judicial competence. The case arose out of forcible action by US naval forces in the Persian Gulf against certain Iranian oil platforms.

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.”

The 1996 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-555
Author(s):  
Peter H. F. Bekker
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
World Health ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Health Organization

This Note summarizes the judicial work of the International Court of Justice during 1996, using the updated General List, pleadings filed, Orders and Judgments given and hearings held at the Peace Palace in The Hague to describe the Court’s current record.During the calendar year 1996, the Court was seized of one new contentious case: Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia). In 1996 a total of eleven cases appeared on the General List. Besides the new case referred to, the contentious proceedings before the full Court were Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. United States), Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. United Kingdom) and (Libya v. United States), Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), and Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria). Advisory proceedings were concluded in Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (request for an advisory opinion by the World Health Organization) and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (request for an advisory opinion by the General Assembly of the United Nations).

The Thirty—Third Year of the World Court

1955 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of

The history of the International Court of Justice in its thirty-third year is contained in narrow compass. It is chiefly confined to one judgment rendered by the Court in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed From Borne in 1943, and to the advisory opinion given by the Court on the Effect of Awards Made By the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. Apart from these, in the Nottebohm Case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the time for the rejoinder of Guatemala to be filed was extended for one month, to November 2, 1954. Action was taken by the Court ordering that the “Électricité de Beyrouth” Company Case be removed from the list at the request of the French Government; the Court also ordered that two cases brought by the United States against Hungary and the Soviet Union, relating to the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America, should be removed from the list for lack of jurisdiction.

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

scholarly journals Legal Nature of Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petro Halimurka ◽  
Ihor Zeman
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The article explores the legal nature of advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice. It has been established that advisory jurisdiction consists of at least two main elements – ratione personae and ratione materiae. The original power to request advisory opinions is given to the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Court’s case-law demonstrates that political aspects of question or political motives don’t give any grounds to refuse the request for an advisory opinion. The advisory opinions de jure are not legally binding. However, in practice, due to its quality and the status of the International Court of Justice, the advisory opinions are authoritative. In order for the advisory opinion to be authoritative, it is important that the Court’s position is not divided. Advisory proceedings in its form are similar to the proceedings in disputes, indicating the judicial nature of the advisory opinions. It has been found that in practice, the bodies that requested an advisory opinions of the ICJ, as a rule, follow them. An analysis of the interpretation and application by the Court of the international treaties in the advisory opinions demonstrates that the Court acts as the main judicial organ of the United Nations. There has been established the indirect influence of the ICJ on the formation of an international custom through the use of resolutions of the UN agencies as proof of opinio juris. In the advisory opinion Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations International Court of Justice has created a new rule of international customary law regarding the status of a legal entity in international organizations and, consequently, personal legal personality. It is also worth mentioning the advisory opinion Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, by which the Court has given an impetus to the development of international customary law in the area of reservations to multilateral treaties, in particular with humanitarian purposes. In the advisory opinion of the Western Sahara, the Court not only substantiated the universality of the principle of self-determination, but also clarified what features, in it’s opinion, should have the will of the people. In the advisory opinion Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons the Court substantiated that the rules of international humanitarian law became part of international customary law. Advisory opinion Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has contributed to the understanding of a number of norms as customary. In particular, the Court confirmed the customary nature of the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907. In addition, the Court noted that the obligation to respect the right of other peoples to self-determination was a commitment erga omnes. Key words: court; law; justice; dispute; advisory opinion; case-law; custom.

scholarly journals RETURN TO SENDER: LET THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE JUSTIFY OR QUALIFY INTERNATIONAL-CRIMINAL-COURT EXCEPTIONALISM REGARDING PERSONAL IMMUNITIES

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 596-611
Author(s):  
Sarah M.H. Nouwen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

AbstractThis article argues that it is important for the International Court of Justice to be given an opportunity, for instance through a request for an Advisory Opinion, to explain what exactly it meant when it suggested that the ordinarily applicable international law on immunities need not be an obstacle “before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction”. Two international criminal courts have built a structure of case law on this one obiter comment, which it seems unable to support.

The Fifty-Second Session of the International Law Commission

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-226
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission held its fifty-second session in Geneva from May 1 to June 9, 2000, and from July 10 to August 18, 2000, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Chusei Yamada of Japan. The Commission elected Professor Djamchid Momtaz of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kamil E. Idris of Sudan to fill the vacancies left by the death of Doudou Thiam of Senegal and the election of Awn Al-Khasawneh of Jordan to the International Court of Justice.

The 1996 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion and Non Liquet in International Law

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano J. Aznar-Gomez
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Legal Order

Following extensive debate by the great theoreticians of public international law earlier in this century,1 it might seem that the completeness of the international legal order is now a banal issue, which should be remembered only as an academic dispute.2It might have been so had the International Court of Justice not intervened, perhaps unintentionally, in its advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 concerning the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons3 In her dissenting opinion, Judge Rosalyn Higgins argues that “the Court effectively pronounces a non liquet on the key issue on the grounds of uncertainty in the present state of law, and of facts”.4 In her view, the Court thus interrupted a line of case law which, in theory, had endorsed the idea of the completeness of international law and which, in practice, made it unthinkable that an international judge or arbitrator should actually pronounce a non liquet.5

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document