Background
The issue that are engraved in this case law is whether there had been any breach of the treaty of Amity or not? Whether the action of U.S.A. is an armed attack or not? Whether it is a case of self defence or not?
The matter in dispute is based on the provision of Treaty of Amity. Treaty of Amity was signed between Iran and United States of America on 1955 to enhance the friendly relation between the countries and to make some passage regarding trade and commerce between them (Rahimi & Motlagh, 2014). There were twenty-one Articles in that treaty of which Article X and Article XX is the focal point of this case. As per Article X, it was settled between them that there shall be liberty of trade between the contracting countries (Pauwelyn, 2016). According to Article XX of the Treaty of 1955, if any country takes any step for self-defence, the same cannot be regarded as wrongful.
This case is known as oil platform case (Ghaseminia, Daneshian, Soleimany & Afghah, 2016). It was first instituted by Iran on second day of November 1992 against United States of America. On 1987 and 1988, the U.S Navy had destroyed three seaward oil companies, which were owned by National Iranian Oil Company and were used for commercial purposes (Rabbani et al., 2014). Iran alleged that by these acts, America has breached the fundamental provision of Amity treaty signed between two countries in Tehran. Those oil platforms, namely Resalat and Reshadat were within the economic zone of Islamic republic and the installation capacity of these two platforms involved more than one hundred well that played an important role in the commercial lubricating industry of Iran.
On 1987, the U.S. navy attacked these platforms based on secret information about terrorist attack and blotted out those two platforms completely (Van de Graaf, 2013). Again, in the year 1988, America attacked another offshore oil field of Iran. Both the attack were resulted in severe destruction and caused detrimental effect on Iranian economy (Bagheri, 2013). Due to the attack, oil production from these two oil fields was completely stopped. The duo attacks were characterized by Iran as illegitimate and unjustifiable as against the treaty of Amity. Iran had to face too much trouble along with a huge economic mishap and filed case before International Court of Justice in the year 1992 (Almeida & Sorel, 2016).
On the contrary, America counter claimed that the attack was a form of self-defence. United States counter alleged that in the year 1987 to 1988, Iran attacked on U.S. flag and U.S. owned vessels by their commercial vessels and laid mine on the seabed. The subject matter of that counter claim formed part of the case and thus admitted by the court of justice in the year 1998.
International Court of Justice is an association of fifteen representatives from each member countries of United Nation to settle down the legal dispute submitted to it by member states and its function is to give advisory opinion to them (Graham, 2015). As both the countries, Iran and U.S.A. are the members of United Nation, they considered as the parties to International Court of Justice. During the public sitting in 2003, Iran contended that U.S.A. should bear all responsibilities regarding those attacks and must compensate Iran for it. On the other hand, U.S.A. countered that U.S.A did not breach any provision of the treaty and International Court should dismiss the case instituted by Iran.
Legal Issues at Stake
The International Court of Justice began to analyze the case by pointing out the respective allegation made by both the countries. The central focal point of the case is the provision of Article X and XX of the Amity treaty (Pauwelyn, 2016). Article X states that both the countries shall be at liberty in the case of trade and navigation. The conflict was first noticed in the Persian Gulf, a cosmopolitan route, where Iraq commenced attack upon Iranian oil tankers. The attack was subsequently known as Tanker War (El-Shazly, 2016). On the 16th October 1987, one Kuwaiti tanker was hit by a missile while refilling near American border and America was attributed the attack to Iran and based on it, U.S.A. had destroyed two Iranian oil field.
The treaty of Amity provides that if any dispute cannot be resolved by settlement between the parties, they have an option to submit their case to International Court of Justice for further settlement. The court upheld that the action taken by U.S.A. had infringed the freedom of trade between the parties and these attacks cannot be regarded as a part of self-defence. International court of Justice also upheld that the main dispute between the parties is related to the legality of the action taken by U.S.A., but neither of the parties had mentioned any provision of the treaty.
According to the rules confined under Article XX of the treaty of 1955, if any state took any action for self defence, that action could not be considered as wrongful. To resolve the question whether America is guilty or not, ICJ takes into consideration the facts that USA has never denied that arms were involved in the attack. It was also taken into consideration that those attack were attracted all the provision of Article 51 of United Nations charter or not. It is necessary to prove the fact by USA that Iran was responsible for the attack. USA ought to show that the attack by USA navy were necessary.
Conclusion:
After consider the evidence and examine the necessary facts, it was observed by ICJ that there were insufficient evidence to the contentions made by USA in respect of Iranian attack and burden of proof of the same was lying on USA. America was unable to prove that Iran had provoked the war for the first time. On contrary, ICJ upheld that mine laid down in the sea by Iran was at the time of tanker war without any intention to cause any harm upon USA. Thus, Iran is not responsible for any particular mine. As per the judges of International court of justice that United States of America had presented their claim is sort of generic in nature. The attack by USA on Iranian oil field are not justified and cannot be qualified as a matter of self-defence. The oil field of Iran plays a vital part regarding its economy and foreign trade and due to the attack, Iran’s economic condition was hampered seriously. It is not in any way justified that a country’s most relevant economic source can be destroyed by another country based on the excuse of self-defence. Further, at the time of attack, the oil platforms were under repairing and all trading in relation to trading of crude oil were postponed. USA further contended that Iran’s commercial freedom was neither hampered nor interfered by USA, but it is clear from the evidences that USA embargo has excluded there provision and made fundamental breach regarding treaty of Amity and international peace.
Treaty of Amity and Its Provisions
International Court of Justice also denied the provision of Iran. Iran made objection as against the counter claim made by USA on the point that USA had presented the claim in their counter petition without any previous negotiation and the dispute does not properly adjusted by way of diplomacy. Another allegation had contended that USA added some extra subject in the form of counter claim like freedom of navigation. Freedom of navigation is not the subject matter of this case. This case is based on America’s attack on Iran’s oil fields. But the court upheld that shipping attack or lying of mines are within the pretext of the case and thus USA has not exaggerate its jurisdiction in the counter claim and did not violate the provision regarding Article X of the treaty. Further, it is the responsibility of Iran to adduce necessary evidence to prove the allegation made by it against American embargo. Iran unfortunately failed to prove it and the court dismissed the petition made by Iran and pronounced judgment in the year 2003 (Schmitt, 2013).
The opinion of International Court of Justice regarding the case has few disabilities. The case was not treated as a matter of international responsibility, but as a matter of self-defence and International court of Justice has failed to refer the matter to international law commission. The decision made by the court includes some critical points over the issue. This case was a main lead to understand whether USA had encroached provision regarding the treaty or not. The case was under the provision of international trade and should had to be adjudicated with a special care. Legal aspect of international trade had emphasised on the legal framework of export-import transaction. It points out the most common legal difficulties relating to trade and commerce. Instead of look into the matter whether USA’s attack was justified for the self-defence, court was comparatively studied the attack on the basis that whether the case had attracted the provision of Amity treaty or not (Bodeau-Livinec & Giorgetti, 2016). A matter of breach of international responsibility became a case of general force and self-defence due to this miss-prediction of International Court of Justice.
Reference:
Almeida, P. W., & Sorel, J. M. (Eds.). (2016). Latin America and the International Court of Justice: Contributions to International Law. Routledge..
Bagheri, S. (2013). Uluslararas? Adalet Divan?’N?n Petrol Platformlar?’Na ?li?kin Karar?n?n De?erlendirilmesi (Evaluating the Decision of International Court of Justice Concerning the Oil Platforms).
Bodeau-Livinec, P., & Giorgetti, C. (2016). Developing International Law at the Bar. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 15(2), 177-189.
El-Shazly, N. E. S. (2016). The Gulf tanker war: Iran and Iraq’s maritime swordplay. Springer.
Ghaseminia, F., Daneshian, J., Soleimany, B., & Afghah, M. (2016). The Role of Stratigraphy in Growth Strata Studies: A Case Study from the Middle-Late Cretaceous Deposits in Persian Gulf, SW Iran. International Journal of Geography and Geology, 5(12), 249-258.
Graham, K. (2015). International Court of Justice. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 30(2), 361-370.
Pauwelyn, J. (2016). Defenses and the Burden of Proof in International Law.
Pauwelyn, J. (2016). Defenses and the Burden of Proof in International Law.Defenses and the Burden of Proof in International Law.
Rabbani, A., Zamani, M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2014). Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approaches by using linguistic variables for the performance evaluation of oil producing companies. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 7316-7327.
Rahimi, M., & Mohammadi Motlagh, A. (2014). Unilateral Economic Sanctions in the Light of International Law: Unilateral Sanctions on Islamic Republic of Iran.
Schmitt, M. N. (2013). Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge University Press.
Van de Graaf, T. (2013). The “Oil Weapon” Reversed? Sanctions Against Iran and US?EU Structural Power. Middle East Policy, 20(3), 145-163.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
