International Law Review

International Law Review

An Analysis of the Objections Raised by the United States Regarding the Admissibility of Iran's Claim in the Case of Certain Iranian Assets before the International Court of Justice

Document Type : academic

Authors
Seyyed Fazlollah Mousavi 1
Amir Lohrasbi 2
1 Professor, Public Law Department, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 LLM in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
10.22066/cilamag.2024.2024021.2520
Abstract
In the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets, the United States lodged several procedural and occasional substantive objections in the preliminary stage with the aim of impeding the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from issuing a substantive ruling. These objections primarily centered around the Court's alleged lack of jurisdiction over the Case. Additionally, the United States questioned the admissibility of Iran's claim based on two fundamental charges: "Iran's abuse of court" and "absence of clean hands." These objections sought to undermine Iran's claim and its admissibility. Before delving into other claims, the ICJ addressed the objections raised by the United States, maintaining its established approach in recent similar cases. This article employs a descriptive-analytical methodology and draws upon library sources to not only clarify and refute the arguments and reasoning put forth by the United States regarding the admissibility of Iran's claim, but also to confirm the hypothesis that the Court adheres to its mainstream judicial policy on matters of "abuse of right" and "absence of clean hands." Moreover, the article characterizes the Court's current approach as consistent with recognized customary practices among international legal practitioners.
Keywords
Admissibility of Claim
United States of America
Certain Iranian Assets
Islamic Republic of Iran
International Court of Justice
Abuse of Court
Judicial Policy
Absence of Clean Hands

Subjects

  1. “Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America),” Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998.
  2. “Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America),” Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004.
  3. “Deborah Peterson, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.” (Civil Action Nos. 01-2094 (RCL), 01-2684(RCL)) (Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2007).
  4. “Dissenting Opinions of Judges Read and Azevedo,” Interpretation of Peace Treaties (second phase),” Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950.
  5. “Diversion of Water from the Meuse,” P.C.I.J., Judgment, 28 June 1937, Series A/B, No. 70.
  6. “Executive Order 13599.” Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions, Executive Office of the President, Feb 5, 2012.
  7. “Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction,” Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 31.
  8. “Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia),” I.C.J. Reports 1997.
  9. “Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia),” Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997.
  10. “Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening),” I.C.J. Reports 2012.
  11. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” Advisory Opinion. I.C.J. Reports 2004.
  12. “Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua United States of America),” Jurisdiction and Admissibility, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 439-440, para. 105., quoting from United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), I.C.J. Reports 1980.
  13. “Report on the work of the fifty-seventh session (2005),” General Assembly Official Records, 57th session, Supplement No. 10, A/60/10.
  14. “Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran,” 333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Harvard Law Review 117, 2 (2003).
  15. Curran, Vivian Grosswald. "The foreign sovereign immunities act’s evolving genocide exception." UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs23, no. 1 (2019): 46-75.
  16. Dugard, John, Special Rapporteur. “Sixth Report on Diplomatic Protection.” Fifty-seventh session of the ILC, A/CN.4/546, 2 May-3 June and 4 July-5 August 2005.
  17. Kreindler, Richard, "Corruption in International Investment Arbitration: Jurisdiction and the Unclean Hands Doctrine," Between East and West: Essays in Honour of Ulf Franke-edited by Kaj Hober, Annette Magnusson and Marie Öhrström, Juris Publishing, 2010.
  18. Llamzon, Aloysius, "Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation: The State of the Unclean Hands‟ Doctrine in International Investment Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha," ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 30, no. 2 (2015).
  19. S. Code § 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state, available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605.
  20. U.S. Code § 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state, available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605A.

  • Receive Date 29 February 2024
  • Revise Date 08 March 2024
  • Accept Date 16 March 2024