International Law Review

International Law Review

Canada's International Responsibility for Violating Iran's State Immunity Due to the Seizure of Iran's Bank Accounts and Sale of Iran's Property to Enforce the Judgments of American Courts

Document Type : academic

Author
Vahid Bazzar
Ph.D. in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran,
10.22066/cilamag.2020.117842.1832
Abstract
In October 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided the seizure of Iran’s bank accounts and the sale of Iran’s property in Canadian territory to execute the US Court judgments in the so-called terrorism cases. Canada has violated Iran’s jurisdictional immunity by enacting Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (2012), and violated Iran’s enforcement/(or) executive immunity by executing US Court judgments, and has thus engaged Canada’s international responsibility. Iran can institute proceedings against Canada in the International Court of Justice by issuing a declaration of the acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, and it does not appear to be difficult to prove the wrongfulness of Canada’s action in the merits, given the ICJ Judgment in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (2012). In addition to the possibility of US entry to the (or) US intervention in the case as a third party and raising multiple claims, and the possibility of  a counterclaim, there will also be threats to Iran due to the declaration of the acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction and it is likely to trigger some claims against Iran within the scope of that declaration.
Keywords
Canada
Iran
Immunity
Terrorism
Responsibility
International Court of Justice

  • الف. فارسی

    ـ کتاب

    • بیگ­زاده، ابراهیم؛ «بررسی مبانی استثنائات وارده بر مصونیت دولت در حقوق بین‌الملل با تأکید بر اقدام کانادا برای نقض مصونیت ایران»، مجموعه مقالات همایش مصونیت در حقوق بین‌الملل، به اهتمام محسن عبدالهی، مجد، 1394.
    • شهبازی، محمدعلی؛ «بررسی مبانی استثنائات وارده بر مصونیت دولت در حقوق بین‌الملل با تأکید بر اقدام کانادا برای نقض مصونیت ایران»، مجموعه مقالات همایش مصونیت در حقوق بین‌الملل، به اهتمام محسن عبدالهی، مجد، 1394.
    • عبدالهی، محسن و میرشهبیز شافع؛ مصونیت قضایی دولت در حقوق بین‌الملل، اداره چاپ و انتشارات ریاست جمهوری، 1386.

     

    ـ مقاله

    • عبدالهی، محسن و جمال خندان کوچکی؛ «استثنای تروریسم در قوانین مصونیت ایران، امریکا و کانادا»، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، دوره 20، شماره 77، 1396.عزیزی، ستار و وحید بذّار؛ «دفاع مصونیت دولت پس از پذیرش ارجاع اختلاف به داوری بین‌المللی»، مجله مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره 49، شماره 2، 1398.
    • محبی، محسن و وحید بذّار؛ «اقدامات تأمینی (دستور موقت) دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری: الزام یا توصیه؟ نگاهی دوباره به رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه برادران لاگراند»، فصلنامه قضاوت، دوره 18، شماره 95، 1397.
    • نواری، علی؛ «مصونیت قضایی دولت و نقض حقوق بشر در پرتو عملکرد دولت‌ها، رویه‌قضایی و دکترین»، فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، سال 25، شماره 4، زمستان 1390.

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Articles

    • Cornell, Christopher. “Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran and the Doctrine of State Immunity under Canadian Law,” Law and Business Review of the Americas, Vol. 21, 2015.
    • Novogrodsky, Noah Benjamin. “Immunity for Torture: Lessons from Bouzari v. Iran,” The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2008.
    • Ryngaert, Cedric. “Embassy Bank Accounts and State Immunity from Execution: Doing Justice to the Financial Interests of Creditors,” Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, Issue. 1, 2013.
    • Terry, John and Shody, Sarah. “Could Canada Become a New Forum for Cases Involving Human Rights Violations Committed Abroad,” Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2012.

     

    - Instruments

    • United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3930.html [accessed 16 October 2020].
    • International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb8f804.html [accessed 16 October 2020].
    • Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, SC 2012, c 1, s 2, <http://canlii.ca/t/lgh1>  retrieved on 2020-10-16.
    •  State Immunity Act, RSC 1985, c S-18, <http://canlii.ca/t/lgjj> retrieved on 2020-10-16.
    • UN General Assembly, United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2 December 2004, A/RES/59/38, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4280737b4.html [accessed 16 October 2020].
    • United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a10.html [accessed 16 October 2020].

     

    - Case Law

    • Al Adsani v. United Kingdom [GC], Application No. 35763/97, Judgment of 21 November 2001, ECHR Reports 2001.
    • Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), I.C.J. Reports 2002.
    • Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States District Court, N.D. California., No. C 11-05807 CRB, 927 F. Supp. 2d 833 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
    • Brewer v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States District Court, D. Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-0534 (ESH), 664 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2009).
    • Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 2019.
    • Constitutional Court of Slovenia; Fang v. Jiang, High Court of New Zealand, [2007] New Zealand Administrative Reports (NZAR).
    • Cour de cassation, No. 03‑41851, 2 June 2004, Bull. civ., 2004, I, No. 158, p. 132 and Cour de cassation, No. 04‑47504, 3 January 2006; Case No. Up‑13/99.
    • Higgins v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States District Court, D. Columbia, Civil Action No. 99-377 (CKK), 545 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D.D.C. 2008).
    • Holland v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States District Court, D. Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-1924 (CKK), 496 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005).
    • Jones v. Saudi Arabia, House of Lords of United Kingdom, [2007] 1 Appeal Cases (AC) 270 ILR, Vol. 129.
    • Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Paris, 9 September 2002, and Cour de cassation, No. 02‑45961, 16 December 2003, Bulletin civil de la Cour de cassation (Bull. civ.), 2003, I, No. 258 (the Bucheron case).
    • Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy, Greece Intervening), I.C.J. Reports 2012.
    • Kalogeropoulou and Others v. Greece and Germany, Application No. 59021/00, decision of 12 December 2002, ECHR Reports 2002.
    • LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 2001
    • Margellos v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 6/2002, ILR, vol. 129.
    • Winicjusz Natoniewski v. Republika Federalna Niemiec – Federalny Urząd Kanclerski w Berlinie, Supreme Court (Civil Chamber), Case No. CSK 465/09,29 October 2010.
    • Tracy v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Information and Security), 2017 ONCA 549, Docket No. C62403, C62404, C62405, C62406 and C62407
    • Tracy v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States District Court, D. Columbia, Civ. No. 01-2517 (TFH), Aug 21, 2003
    • Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, case No. 11/2000.
    • Welch v. Islamic Republic of Iran, United States District Court, D. Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-863 (CKK), 545 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2008).
International Law Review
Volume 37, Issue 63 - Serial Number 63
October 2021
Pages 265-282

  • Receive Date 01 December 2019
  • Revise Date 09 January 2020
  • Accept Date 22 January 2020