USA “disappointed” with ICJ verdict on the case moved by Iran

The Hague/Tehran/Washington: The United States today (IST) expressed its disappointment over the verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that concluded that US laws permitting the turnover of assets of other Iranian agencies and to US victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism were inconsistent with the Treaty of Amity signed between Iran and the US on August 15, 1955, and which came into force on June 16, 1957. 

The court asked the US to make reparations and said it will decide that “failing agreement between the Parties (US and Iran) on the question of compensation due to the Islamic Republic of Iran within 24 months from the date of the present Judgment, this matter will, at the request of either Party, be settled by the Court, and reserved for this purpose the subsequent procedure in the case”.

Iran hailed the “Condemnation of the American government in confiscating the assets of Iranian banks and companies by the International Court of Justice”.

Tehran stated: “The fact that the Court’s ruling requires the US to make reparations for the losses is the key reason for the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s demand.”

While the United States commended the Court’s ruling related to Bank Markazi Jomhuri Islami Iran, Washington said it was disappointed that the Court concluded that the turnover of assets of other Iranian agencies and instrumentalities to US victims of Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism was inconsistent with the Treaty of Amity. 

“But broadly, we believe that today’s decision is a major blow to Iran,” the US claimed by pointing at the ICJ’s rejection of “the vast majority” of Iran’s case under the now-terminated Treaty of Amity. “Iran sought to use the Treaty to challenge payments to US victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism who obtained US court judgments against Iran. The decision today is a significant blow to Iran’s attempt to avoid its responsibility, in particular to the families of US peacekeepers who were killed in the 1983 bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut,” the US claimed. It stressed that “This is a major victory for the United States and victims of Iran’s State-sponsored terrorism”.

Iran hailed the ICJ ruling in the Certain Iranian Assets case on March 30, 2023, as “another proof of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s righteousness and the violations by the US government”.

It stated: “The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the ruling issued by the International Court of Justice shows the solidity of Iran’s arguments and the righteousness of Iran’s request.” It referred to the ruling where “the ICJ rejected all the defences and claims of the US government and dismissed Washington’s rationales”.

The case filed by Iran against the USA on June 14, 2016, concerned certain Iranian assets. In its petition, Iran accused the USA of breaching certain articles of the Treaty of Amity. It claimed to the USA’s (a) failure to recognise the separate juridical status (including the separate legal personality) of all Iranian companies including Bank Markazi, (b) unfair and discriminatory treatment of such entities, and their property, which impairs the legally acquired rights and interests of such entities including enforcement of their contractual rights, (c) failure to accord to such entities and their property the most constant protection and security that is in no case less than that required by international law, (d) expropriation of the property of such entities,  (e) failure to accord to such entities freedom of access to the US courts, including the abrogation of the immunities to which Iran and Iranian State-owned companies, including Bank Markazi, and their property, are entitled under customary international law and as required by the Treaty of Amity, (f) failure to respect the right of such entities to acquire and dispose of property, (g) application of restrictions to such entities on the making of payments and other transfers of funds to or from the USA, and (h) interference with the freedom of commerce.

The court in its verdict on March 30, 2023,

1. Upheld the objection to jurisdiction raised by the United States of America relating to the claims of the Islamic Republic of Iran under Articles III, IV and V of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, to the extent that they relate to the treatment accorded to Bank Markazi and, accordingly, found that it has no jurisdiction to consider those claims;
2. Rejected the objection to admissibility raised by the United States of America relating to the failure by Iranian companies to exhaust local remedies;
3. Found that the United States of America violated its obligation under Article III, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights;
4. Found that the United States of America violated its obligations under ArticleIV, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights;
5. Found that the United States of America violated its obligation under ArticleIV, paragraph 2, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, namely that the property of nationals and companies of the Contracting Parties “shall not be taken except for a public purpose, nor shall it be taken without the prompt payment of just compensation”;
6. Found that the United States of America has violated its obligations under Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights;
7. Found that the United States of America is under obligation to compensate the Islamic Republic of Iran for the injurious consequences of the violations of international obligations as mentioned in the abovementioned points 3 to 6.