International Law Review

International Law Review

Realization of the International Responsibility of the United States for "not Recognizing the Legal Status of Iranian Companies" in the Case of Certain Iranian Assets

Document Type : academic

Author
Mohamad Setayeshpur
Assistant Prof. International Law Department, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran.
10.22066/cilamag.2024.2022206.2505
Abstract
The International Court of Justice, in the case of Certain Iranian Assets, by considering the scope of international obligations of the United States, including and in partcular the head of Article 3 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, has confirmed that the fundamental dispute between the parties is about the recognition of the legal status of foreign companies. The present essay by applying a descriptive-analytical method and through observing the precedents of the international judicial and arbitration tribunals and the Draft Articles of the International Law Commission on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, has proven that the actions of the United States Section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Law and Section 601(g)(1) of the Foreign Government Immunities Act in particular and their enforcement by their national courts are according to the customary internatonal law attributable to the United States and consequently this country has violated its treaty obligations. Thus, both elements required to establish the existence of an internationally wrongful act have been met and accordingly the responsibility of the United States has been . The Court, in line with the request of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has ordered compensation in favour of Iran as a result of such responsibility.
Keywords
International Responsibility
Primary Obligation
Secondary Obligation
Certain Iranian Assets Case

Subjects

  1. - Articles

    1. Ortega, Álvarez and Elena Laura, “The Attribution of Responsibility to a State for Conduct of Private Individuals within the Territory of Another State”, InDert, vol. I, (2015).
    2. Bordin, Fernando Lusa “Reflections of Customary International Law: The Authority of Codification Conventions and ILC Draft Articles in International Law”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 63, (2014).
    3. Buga, Irina, “The Impact of Subsequent Customary International Law on Treaties: Pushing the Boundaries of Interpretation?”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 69, (2022).
    4. Combacau, Jean and Denis Alland, “Primary and Secondary Rules in the Law of State Responsibility Categorizing International Obligations”, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 16, (1985).
    5. Fry, James “Attribution of Responsibility”, in André Nollkaemper, and Ilias Plakokefalos (edn.), Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law: An Appraisal of the State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, (2014).
    6. Meijknecht, Anna, “Hague Case Law: Latest Developments”, Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 70, (2023).

     

    - ICJ & PCIJ Cases

    1. Nuclear Tests, Australia v. France, Contentious, I.C.J Reports 1974.
    2. North Sea Continental Shelf, Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark, Contentious, I.C.J Reports 1969.
    3. Oil Platforms, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, Preliminary Objections, I.C.J Reports 1996.
    4. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: 1962), Belgium v. Spain, Contentious, I.C.J Reports1970.
    5. Certain Iranian Assets, Application Instituting Proceedings, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, I.C.J Reports 2016.
    6. Certain Iranian Assets, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, Preliminary Objections, I.C.J Reports 2019.
    7. Certain Iranian Assets, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, I.C.J Reports 2023.
    8. Certain Iranian Assets, Separate Opinion of Judge Tomka, 2023.
    9. Certain Iranian Assets, Press Release, No. 2016/19, 15 June, 2016.
    10. Certain Iranian Assets, Press Release, No. 2023/15, 30 March 2023.
    11. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), United States of America v. Italy, Contentious, I.C.J Reports 1989.
    12. Gabĉíkovo-Nagymaros Project, Hungary/Slovakia, I.C.J Reports 1997.
    13. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v. United States of America, Merits, I.C.J Reports 1986.
    14. Nuclear Test, New Zealand v. France, Contentious, I.C.J Reports 1974.
    15. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory, I.C.J Reports 1949.
    16. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, United States of America v. Iran, Jurisdiction or/and Admissibility, I.C.J Reports 1980.
    17. Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Series A09, PCIJ 26 July, 1927.
    18. Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Series A17, PCIJ 13 September, 1928.
    19. Phosphates in Morocco, Series A/B74, PCIJ 14 June, 1938.

     

     

    - Arbitral Awards

    1. Islamic Republic of Iran v. USA, IUSCT, Case A15(IV) and A24, vol. 32, 1996.
    2. Armstrong Cork Company Case, UNRIAA, Vol. XIV, 22 October, 1953.
    3. Case Concerning the Difference Between New Zealand and France Concerning the Interpretation or Application of Two Agreements, Concluded on 9 July 1986 Between the Two States and Which Related to the Problems Arising From the Rainbow Warrior Affair, UNRIAA, Vol xx, 30 April, 1990.
    4. Dickson Car Wheel Company, United States of America v. United Mexican States, UNRIAA, Vol. IV, July, 1931.
    5. International Fisheries Company, United States of America v. United Mexican States, UNRIAA, IV, July, 1931.

     

    - Documents

    1. ICJ Statute, 1945.
    2. Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, ILC, 2018.
    3. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), ILC Yearbook, vol. II, part. 2, 2001.
    4. A/71/80, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Compilation of Decisions of International Courts, Tribunals and other Bodies, UNGA, Report of the Secretary-General (2016).
    5. Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, Public Law 112-158, August 10, 2012.
    6. Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights Between the United States of America and Iran, UNTS Vol. No. 284, 1955.
    7. Deborah D. Peterson, Personal Representatives of the Estate of James C. Knipple et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, USA, District Court, Southern District of NewIran, USA, No. 10civ 4518 (BSJ), 15 March, 2012.
    8. Bank Markazi v. Peterson, USA, Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-770, 20 April, 2016.
    9. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441, 1602–1611, 21 October, 1976.
    10. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), H.R. 3210, Pub. L. 107–297, 26 November, 2002.
    11. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969.

     

    - Internet Resources

    1. https://www.cgov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/1905/text (Last visited: 2023.08.10).
    2. https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/ (Lastvisited: 2023.08.08).
    3. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title28/part4/chapter97&edition=prelim (Last visited: 2023.08.10).

  • Receive Date 05 February 2024
  • Accept Date 16 March 2024