The impact of the ICJ’s findings in the case of Certain Iranian Assets and Initiating legal proceeding against the United States in the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal.

Ali Ahadi Karnagh

Extended Abstract

1. Introduction

This research investigates the feasibility of filing a legal claim against the United States of America in the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal due to the seizure of the Iranian Central Bank's assets. The Iranian government initiated a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) following the confiscation of $1.7 billion of these assets, alleging violations of the Treaty of Amity between Iran and the U.S. On March 30, 2023, the ICJ dismissed Iran's claims related to the Central Bank’s assets, highlighting the sovereign nature of the bank's activities. Given the ICJ’s finding that the Central Bank’s actions were sovereign in nature—specifically, the regulation of national currency policy, which is considered part of Iran’s internal affairs—the question arises: Can the seizure of the Central Bank’s assets be regarded as interference in Iran’s domestic affairs, and on that basis, can a claim be brought against the United States before the Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal under the first clause of the Algiers Accords?

2. Research Gap and Objective

This study identifies a gap in addressing the international responsibility of the United States for violating the principle of non-intervention as stated in point I of the General Declaration of the Algiers Accords. By focusing on the ICJ’s assessment, the research argues that the U.S. actions against Iranian Central Bank's assets constitute illegal interference in Iran’s internal affairs under Point I of General Declaration Algiers Accords. The primary objective is to evaluate the viability of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in adjudicating this dispute and holding the United States accountable for breaching its international obligations.

3. Methodology

The research employs a legal analytical approach, drawing on case law from the ICJ, U.S. domestic statutes, and principles of customary international law. Additionally, a detailed review of the precedents established by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal is conducted. This comparative legal analysis aims to uncover actionable insights into how Iran can legally challenge the seizure of its assets and assert its sovereign rights in Iran-U.S Claims Tribunal.

4. Key Findings

The confiscation of the Central Bank’s assets has been carried out through executive orders and judicial rulings by the United States and is based on this country’s domestic laws. In its March 2023 ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the Central Bank's activities in the U.S. were sovereign in nature, not commercial. This finding indicates that, at the time its assets were seized, the Central Bank was engaged in sovereign functions. One of the most important roles of a central bank is to regulate monetary and currency policy, which falls under Iran's domestic affairs.The seizure of the Central Bank of Iran’s assets by the U.S. government effectively strips the bank of its primary tool for managing currency policy, thereby interfering in its operations and, consequently, in Iran’s internal affairs. The point I of the General Declaration of the Algiers Accords explicitly prohibits U.S. interference in Iran’s domestic matters. The Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes related to breaches of the Algiers Accords, including the point I the General Declaration of Algiers Accords. Therefore, it is possible to file a claim based on the violation of the principle of non-intervention with the Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal.



5. Contribution to the Field

This article seeks to propose an alternative legal avenue for pursuing the claim regarding the seizure of the Central Bank’s assets, in light of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) rejection of Iran’s claim concerning certain assets in its recent case. Based on the ICJ’s findings, the suggested alternative path is to bring the case before the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal.

6. Implications and Applications

The insights generated by this study provide a robust legal basis for Iran to pursue its claims within the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal. In addition, the findings serve as a resource for states experiencing comparable challenges, offering guidance on how to uphold principles of sovereignty and non-intervention through international adjudication.

7. Conclusion

The seizure of Iranian Central Bank assets by the United States violates the principle of non-intervention and constitutes a breach of Article 1 of the Algiers Accords. By undermining the bank's sovereign functions, the U.S. actions interfere with Iran’s internal affairs and impair its ability to manage monetary and financial policies. The Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal provides the most appropriate venue for evaluating this violation, interpreting the Algiers Accords, and determining the extent of U.S. international responsibility.

8. Keywords

Non-intervention principle, confiscation of sovereign assets, Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, international responsibility, Algiers Accords

Bibliography



-Books

1. Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Sanctions and Fundamental Rights of States: The Case of EU Sanctions Against Iran and Syria, Matthew Happold and Paul Eden, eds., Economic Sanctions and International Law, Studies in International Law, volume 62 (Oxford Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2016).

2. Roscini, Marco, International Law and the Principle of Non-Intervention: History, Theory, and Interactions with Other Principles (Oxford, 2024; online edn, Oxford Academic, 20 June 2024).

3. Michael N. Schmitt and NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, eds., Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, Second edition (Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

-Articles:



1. Azizi, Sattar, The Individual Opinions of the ICJ Judges in the Certain Iranian Assets Case: Exclusion of Bank Markazi from the Scope of the Treaty of Amity, International Law Review, Volume 41, Issue 73, Spring 2024/ pp. 157-180. (In Persian)

2. Corthay, Eric. "The ASEAN Doctrine of Non-Interference in Light of the Fundamental Principle of Non Intervention." Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, Spring 2016, 1-41.

3. Ghasemi, Gholamali. "Challenges of the Principle of Non-Intervention and Its Place in International Law." Afagh-e Amniat (Security Horizons) Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 33 (1395 / 2016–2017),143-172.(In Persian)

4. Milanovic, Marko, “Revisiting Coercion as an Element of Prohibited Intervention in International Law,” American Journal of International Law 117, no. 4 (October 2023): 601–50.

5. Sadeghi Haghighi, Didokht. "The Evolution of the Principle of Non-Intervention in International Law." Quarterly Journal of International Relations Studies, Vol. 4, No. 16, 1390 (December 2011), 93-127. (In Persian)

-Cases:

1. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005.

2. Bank Markazi v. Peterson et al., U.S. Supreme Court, 20 April 2016, 578 U.S. 1 (2016)

3. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran V. United States of America) Memorial of The Islamic Republic of Iran, 01 February 2017.

4. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran V. United States of America, Application Instituting Proceedings, Filed In The Registry of The Court on 14 June 2016.

5. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019.

6. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2023.

7. Colombian-Peruvian asylum case, Judgment of November 20th 1950 : I.C. J. Reports 1950.

8. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986.

.....