CORRESF'ONDENCE
CORRESF'ONDANCE636 AERIAI. INCIDENT
standardof e.r uJI;ciojudicial probity caseof non-appearanceshouId be
higher than when a Respndent appearsand dcfcnds its case in a contentiuus
pr&ing but does not raisequestionsof juridiction.
The Applimni ducs not deny chatif jiirisdictionalquestionare propmIy
raisedbythe Respondent, theCourt is entitled to decide them.but thasuch a
point in no way indicatesthat preliminaryobjections could be fiIedandif so
inuslbe dwidcd prior to the Hlingof the Applicant'sMemorial.
Ncither dos the Applicant aguc thatdcspitea properlyrais4 and [ilcdpre-
Iiminaryobjectionsubsequeiitto the Memorial, LhcRcspndent shouldbe com-
pelledto discu~xthe merits ofthe case. But itisin the extrerne10 arguc that
thcrc isa requirementbolh undcr the Statute and the RuIesthat prelirniiiary
objections could be 1iId and if so must be decided prior io thc filing othe
Mernoriai, Ifthe authority for preliminaryobjmiions Iikethat for provisiotial
masures, Article 41, had beeii providedin ~hcStatute it might be agued lo
ovcrridc the pmvisions of ArticIe 43of the Statute forthe submissionof the
Mernoria[.Article79 uT thcRuIcs,paragraph3. providingfor suspensionof the
proceedings on ~hc merits upon receipt of a pr~liminaryobjection is not
intendedto and hasnot suspended the filinof MemoriaIsand Counter-Memo-
rialsin the practimof the Court. But iftheRcspondcnt wishedtosuspend the
filingof its own Counter-Mernorial,rhishas ken tolented. Similarly,whcrcan
appIicantitselfraises theprclirninaryobjection itsright of filina Meniorial
thermfter could besuspendedaltliough it onIy happcncd oncc in the ~Murierury
Gutd case,1953 L CL 4445.
Sha btaiRoseniieinhisbook on Procedrveinrhe InienririonaCoilr: ifCan~men-
inrynit!fi1Y76R1ul~s 5j.thcJnrrrnrrr~<CdourtofJusfice,158,151(1983) state:
'As iswdl known, as is maintainedin this paragraphIIofArticle79 of
theRulcs],thcCourt'spraciice isonly to lakcformal preliminaryobjections
by thc rcspondeiitaf~erthe merits havc bcen laid beforeitin a pIeading,
norrnallytheMemoriaI,and itwiIIbcrare thatthe apphcülionalonc wiilhe
sufficientoeluciduttq:ucsiions of jurisdictior admissibilityInFishPries
J~~riscikii11972I.CJ 1811 (still under ihc 1946Rulesand in AegeanSeo
Contit~enrcl hey[1976 LC.I 42-43](underthe 1972Rules), ihc Courtafter
objectionshad been raiscd forrnallyin provisionalrneasureproceedings
decided thatthe firstpleadingsshould bedirect4 to thc questionoTjuris-
diction,bu1 iidid not disturb the normal order of those pleaditigs-
mernorialby theApplicant and cuunter-mcmorialby the respondent (if it
wished to defend itcase)."
TheRuleshavemaintaincdtheir essential featurIR thisrcgrd, "nameIy,that
in the normI casein which the respondentStarewishesto interruptproceedings
introduced uniIateraIlyby applicationitshorilddo soby putting its pleas for-
wardafterthe mcmorial has been fild''. IIaçt
"theCourt has ncverdisturbedthe normalordcr for the fjrsroundof ihc
wriltçn pleadings,even when ithas boenoficially informed at the earliest
stageof thc rcspondent in'enlionto contest the Court'sjurisdiclion.Thc
mosi it mightdo is. in Ihc intcrlocutoryorder fixingthe time-limits,to
describetherespondent Statc'siirstpleadinas its countcr-mcrnorialrpre-
lirninaryobjwiions."S. RosenneT ,he IAW und Practice ofthe Inlertiatiuiir;/
Courr, 417,451(2nd revisededitioti, 1985).
As C;eneviPvt: uyomar Statesin hertreatiseon Commentaire du NPgI~mrni de
h Gu; i~ircrriaiiondee3ti.cliudopi.2Ie 14avrii1975 4,98,508 {19831,it ducs
not appear that theCourt couId considcr the Respondenr's preiiminary objcc-638 AIXIAL INCIDENT
nary objection procedure may only bc invoked once (~Voriehh case, LC,J
Plcodings, Vol.II, p. 162)and theRespondent in the Aerinl Incidentof27Jtrly
1955, tCl Pieadings,p. 381,recogniz tedtitcouid prescnt no furtherobjec-
tions, the situationis far liom clcar in the Cniirt's practice.Thererore the
Respondenr's suggesled sequenceof filinand determination ofihc prcliminary
objectionsdom not scmc the interestsof sound administration of justicatal].
As the Respondent has not sctforth its contemplatedpreliminary objections,
it is dift?cuIOdetermine the extent of the necessaryargumcntvof the law and
facts.But it is clcar that such arguments wouldbe bctterunderstood when the
Mernorial is aIreadyfiled,relicvingthc Court from decidingwhich parts of the
Partie' submissionswith rcgard to the preliniinary objoclions artobe main-
tained Or cxcludcd. Moreovevert,he discussion of Iaw and facts, referreto in
Article79. pamgraph 6,of theRUIFS is lirnitctojuridiction, whiletheRespon-
dent has dm conternplated questionsof adinissibility and othcmisc
SimiIsrly thc Applicanfis not ina posirion tocomment in detailon whether
the assumed preliminary objections if and when filed shodd be nccessarily
dcterminedseparnreIy Fram the mcrits.Article 79,paragraph 7, of the Rules
stritechat thc Court shall "either uphoIthe objecrion, rejeit,or declarethat
the objection docsnot possess, in thecircumstanccsof the case, an exccclusively
prehminarycharacter". Priorto fhis 1972amendment, the Court rinderits prirc-
tirx as weIas that of lhc PcrrnanentCourt, incorporard in paragnph 5 of the
143531946Rulcs, had thc option to joiii tothemerits its dccisiun on the objec-
tions. It is bclicvthat droppingof thejoinder option in the 1972revision is
not to abolish it. thus wipinout avir(ua1lyconstant jurisprudence itself corre-
sponding to a widely felt need.
Baserion Articlc 48 ofthe Statute,the Court has an inherentpower to joiti
the preIiminary objection to the nieritç as thc PcrmancntCourt didbefore the
preliminary abjection procedure was includc id the Rules in1936 . rince vutr
pic.^(P C.f.J, SrrA/& No. 52). Thc point that the Courtrnight decide that in
the circurnstâncesof themsc the objection does not posxss an cxclusivelypre-
lirninarycharaclcr, wouId add nathing to wha!the Court already has power tu
do and which the Permanent Court kas donc. for instance in +J!ectrici~-Coin-
pany of Safi (FC.I.1, Set:AI8 Na 77)- The 1972revision isthus no more
than a statement of poIicy nut cnjoincd by the Statute.jurispriidenw anSiate
practice.Indeedas thc jurisprudence sliows, thejoinder powcr can have many
usefulapplications. Aholishingof thejoinùer or limiting to ajüdgment on thc
objection would require an explicit provision in the Statiite. For example in
Prince von Pfess(Sm Al& rVo. 52) and PunewzysSufhtiskis Railwy (Ser. AIH.
/Yu. 75) the pxliminary abjections werejoined to the mcrits iitthe form of
orders ratherthan judgments. Such authori~yisstill availablerinderArticle48 of
ihc Statutc. ke SRosenne, Proced~tteinZAC Internaiio Cnurt:A Coimnctirary
onthe 1978Huftiiofthe InternarionaiCotir!of ,fuslice165-156 (1983).
JüdgeJimknezde Aréchaga in his 1973arlicIerercrrcdto abûve(pp 13-15).
adrniis that thc joindeI>orverhas not bcenabotished although limiting itto
non-jurisdictional preliminary questions. But, as descrihed above. the Applicant
bcIicvcsthe joindepower shouid ptrsistwith regardto jurisdiciioasal timcs it
could also expeditethe pro~rcdings.
In fact in the cliof L'nitedSruresDiplotnaticaridConsuhr Sfufi inTehrr~n,
dcspitc thc IsIamicRepublic'sobjeclions to the jurisdiction, the Court joincd its
decision on thcmto the merits by orderingthc fiIingof hlemorial and Counrer-
Mcmorial. 1979 L i:.J73-24.
Itisalso noted ~hiitArricic 80 othe Rules on Counttr-Claimsmaintains the
joinder option regardingquestions of jurisdiction and adniissibilitywhile tisrenoreference as toapplicationof Article79 of thc Rulesrheretoin caseof pre-
liminaryobjections.aithoughits appIi~abiIicould be agued.
Basedon the foregoing,thc IslamicRepublicof Iran requeststhe Court to
allow the schedulingof thepleading on the basis of ArticIe43 ol'thStatuie
andArticle 44, paramph 4.and Article 45,paragraph I, ofthe Rulwof Court.
{Signed) MohainmadK. ESHR AGH.
3. THE AGENTOf TlIE ISLAMIC RFPLiBLlCOF [KAN
TO TIIL KEGISTRAR OF THE INTERNATIONALCOUKTOF JUSTICE
18Shahrivar 1371.
9 September1992.
1 havethc honour to =fer IOthe D:puty-Rcgistrar'sletterof 16Octobcr 1990
and the Registrar-slettersof 30 ûctolier 1990,6 March 199and 16April 1991,
togethe writh ihcircnclusures,relatitocertain corrcspondenceexchanged with
the InrcrnationalCivil AviatioOrganjzatioi "ICAO") in connetion with the
case concerni hg Aeriai Incident o3 JuIy 19158(IsluniicRcpublicoflrun v.
UfzirrJSIurrs uf Anlerifa).That wrrcspondence indicatesthat ICA0 isMn-
tcmplating submittingobscrvritionsin the case and that the Court may fix
timc-limits, undcr Articl69.paragraph3, of the Rulcs or Court, for such a
submission.
For the reasonsexplaincd below,the Isla~niRepublicconsiders that iwould
be inappropriatefor ICA0 tosubmitany observationsin the case. Awvrdingly,
thc Islamic Republicrespectfullyrequesthe Court notio setany tirne-Iimisor
the submissio ofnsuch observations.
The B~ckgronnd Siltdulion
In accordance with Article 34, priragraph3. of the Statuteof the Çorirt.
ICAO was nolifiedby theDeputy-Relis1rar:lsetteof 22May 1389 tliathecon-
struction of the 1944ChicagoConventionon Intcrnstional Civil Aviation, as
amended(ihe "Chicago Convention") and the 1971 Montreat Convcniion for
the Suppressi ofn UnIawfulActs ~gainstthe Safety of CivilAviation(the
"Montreai Convention")is inquesticn in thcase. ICA0 also has had cornmu-
nicatedto it copieof al1thewrittcnpleadingssubmittedin rhtcaseto date,and
was requested to furnish thcCourt with cerlified coptes of the Chicago and
MontrealConventions in English and Frcnch and a certifiedIisd partic so
thcsc Conventionsas of 17 May 1984.
Thc Dircctor ofthe I~gal Bureauof ICA0 duly responded withthe informa-
tion rcquestcdby Ietterdated26 May 1989.Regrettably,however, iitfiIasttwo
paragraphç of this lctter,the Directoradded his pcrsonal opinionon certain
legalaspectsof tfiedisputethariuprcsently &forethe Court.
On 30 May 1989,thc Dcputy-Regisrrarrespondcdto the Director's lettcr.
Quile carmtIy, the Deputy-Registrar indicated that while he would in duc
course be comrnunicarinçitstcstto theParties, he wasnot consigningilIO rhc
case-file"in so raasit relatetomaiters which failfur the Cour1itself to con-
sider".ln itsel h,isincident ii1ustra.e~tlie problcmsinvolvd havingICA0
subniitobservationsin thisrase
The IsIarnicRepubIicwas not informcdof' thiscorrespondenceuntil oneand
one-halfyears latewhen, by lctterd:ited30October 19W, the Ileputy-Rcgistrar64n AERIAL INCIDENT
encloscd a copyof a lerlerhe hadsent to the Agent of theUnitcd States in the
case, togetherwith cndosures constituting thecorrespondence exchanged with
ICAO '.
On thesame date. 30 October 1890.the Kegistriiralso addrcssedIetter tothe
Secretary Gencral of ICA0 drawing his attention, inter riliuto thefact undcr
Article 53of the Rules of Cour[, ihcplcading in the caseshould lx treatedas
confidential.
By the Regisirsr'sIctter dated 14 March 1991,ICA0 Brasinvitedto indicaie
whether it wjshed tosubrnitwriticn observations under Arricle69.pardgraph3,
of the Kiilesof Court on thisstage of thecase.This Articleprovides,inieraliu,
that;
"Thc Court,or the PresidenriTthe Court isnot Sitting.ma),,asrom the
dateon which tlie Regisi~arhas cornrnunicatedcopies of lhc wrjttenpro-
ceedingsand afterconsülting thechief administrativeoficer of the piiblic
internaiional organimtionconmrnwi, ftxa time-limituithi n hichlhc orga-
nizationmay sübmjitu lhc Court itsobservationsin writing."
Uykltcr daie2 d7 March 1991, the StxrciaryGeneral of ICA0 indicated that
he kIiçvcd it "unuld assisriheCourt inils cielibentions"forICAOLofiic writ-
ten observations.The SccrctaryGcneraI added that inorder to prepare such
obwnritions, "itwill bc essentialtotakeintv awount the observations and sub
missions of'the IslamicRepubiic of Iran on [hc prclirninarabjectionsfiid by
the Gnited States ofAmerica", and that kcausc thc Councilof ICA0 must be
appriseù ofanyproposed wntten observationsand confirm thern,ihc timc-limit
for siiçh observatioishouIdix tixcd no lcss than threemonths afterreceiptof
ihc IslamicRepublic's Observations and Subniissions2.
IriCanfenliuu~ -ases,the Pracrice Hus Been
,forI~tiernaiionrUrg;lliiizfirNotslo SuI~n~iUfbscrirrtiom
'I'heCourt'sjurispruden~e indicatesthat, inçontrast ta situationswhert:its
advjsoryopinion has been sought, in contentious casesil has hcn thc Court's
practicegenerallynot to invitc internationalorganizations to submit observa-
tions.but whereit was+ in cases whererhe decision of an internationalorganiza-
tivn is king hraught to ihe Court on appeal. ithas ben the prdciiccof such
organiwtionsto refrainfrom submittingohservationsproprio mru.
In theSourhWPSI nfrica case,forexample, the DircctorGeneral of theInter-
national LabourOffice wrote IO the Registrdrindicatingthat the Inicrnational
Labour Organisation aas iitthc Court'sdisposition to furnishanyin formation
which theCourtrnightrequesi in coitnectioiiwith ~hccase'.In thc cvent, how-
ever,the Court did not seefit torequesleither inrormationor observations.
More ro ~hc point, in tlie Appeul Relutilig10the JiirisJic.rionorh~ICA0
Coiuici{ case (the "Appeaf"case). the Court. acting under Articlc 57, para-
graph5, of the KuIes ofCourt thcn in force fixed a time-Iimjtfor ICA0 to
submit observarionson theconventionin issue.By lettcr datcd6 June 1977, the
Secretaiy GeileraIuf ICA0 stated its intentionno1tosiibrniany observations
in the followirigterms:
Alihough the Islaniic Kepublic was Iiitheriounofaibiscorrespondence,pyiar-
cntIy ihe United Sbies knewoliirxisicncc becausa,stlie Depuiy-Registrar'slerterof
30 October 1990indimtcs. iwassent IOthe US Agtnt in rezponsIoa request receivd
from rheUnitcd StateEmbassyin The 1lague.
Supru,pp. 281-613.j Notby the Rcgistryf
IC.1 PiendingsSoxih We~î Ajricu\'O\XII, pp543, 550. "Inconsidering the matter,1have notcd thai thecase broughtbefore the
InternationalCourt of Justiceis an appeal against the decision of the
Council or the InternationalCiviI Aviation Organization. and also that
copies of al1therelevantpromedingsin the Cuuncilhavealrcadybeen sub
mitted to the Court. Taking these considerationsiniriaccount,1 have the
honour to inform you that the InternationalCivil A\riatioOrganization
dues not intend to siibmit obscrvaiionson the above-mentionedques-
tions*''
This precedenenitdirecilyrdcvant Io thepreseni ça=. As willbc sccn kluw,
whetherar not the matter is deemtd robe before theCourt on appeal from an
action of the ICAO Councilis exc1u:iiveIforthe Court to decide.IIwould be
inappropriatefor ICAOtocomment ortakc any posirionon that. or any other
issue.
In the first place,imust be nnted that it wouldbewholly inappropriatcfor
ICAO fosubrnitanyobservationsco:~cerningthe Montreai Converirion. As the
IslamicRcpubIichar pointcd out in itswrittcn Observationsand Submissions of
today'sdare,ICA0 has virrualIynorcde to playunder thisConventionandubso-
Iritelno authority 10 interpretor applyils provision Dsuringthe proceedings
rclatingtothe destructionof Fiight IR555 belore ihe ICA0 Council. the Mon-
trealConvenrionwasnot dcbatedand, in factthe Presidcntof'rhe Councitin
his Statcment tothe Councildatd 9 Junc1989 docs not appear to haveenvis-
aged any roIeforICA0 toplayin intermofsubmittingobservationson thc Mon-
treal Convcniion2.
Furthermorc,with regard to the pssibiliiUTICAO submirringobservations
on theChicagoConvention. this would bc particulariyinapproprialcfurtherea-
sonsalluded to inthe Appeaicase.
The decisionof ICA0 not to subtriitits observationsin thcase pointsto a
principiewhichis cquaIly applicabIehtre: a forum of firsinstance should not
participde iiany mannerin an appcal hum ils originaprwcedings.This prin-
cipleisanalogous ta the nemo jdex tlclctriby which it isunivcrsallyaccepted
thntno one can be thejudge in hisovm case By cxtcnsioin n,arderto safeguard
the impartialna[urt:of the appealproceedings,no court or quasi-judicialbody
should contribute on issucsonappeal againstits own actions.The appesilability
of ]CAO'S actioiis shauld thus bc decided by thc Court with no interference
from [CAO.In other words. itwouldnot be appmpriate for ICA0 in essencc io
oerlify the appcalübilivl'its owtiactions.
As W,M. Reismanemphasizes in his commentary on the neniojd~,?rdoctrine,
"an arbitratorshould not have an intcrcstin ihe decision", an "iniercst"king
defined in the followingterins: .. the oiitcomcand cilecsoofthedecision will
have a direcitmpact on a value cherishedby the arbitraior,therebyimpugning
hisimpartiality"3.Onc of the interestsuggested by rheauihor isthatof "rec
titudc"or issue prcçliisionwhich applieswhere the arbitrator"hasmmmirted
hirnsc prorto this appointmcn~ toonc of rheviews a1issucin thcarbitration".
Such a situation is analogousto the ICA0 Council pürticipatingin a caseon
1C.J.PIeadVig~, ppeal RelurIO~hp JurisdiciujofncICA0 Cuicncip. 784.
Inthisregardthe IslamiKcpublicnotesthatICA0 kas ntisubrnittcnny ohrva-
tirininconncction witrhe caseconcçming Quesiioiof'Intcrprrrariand Appiicarion
of rheIY71 MunrrcciConfeiifimising 90m rhe AeririlIncidntLockfrhni,while the
Repisirasimilarlyctimrnunicirtd to IaAcwpy ofthepleadinp ortheprties thereto.
Orderof 14Apnl 1982,para, 14.
Se, \V.MichaetReisman, NulfirritiRevisivn- The Revirw undEnfirrrme oft
fniernuriondJi~dgm~nra~ndAwarCLNew Hrwcnand I.ondon(19711pp. 415 eskq. Article1.4 of the Rcgulations amplifiesthis point by providingihat "Slaff
mcrnkrs shailcxercicethe utmost discretionin rcgardto aIImatters ofofficia1
busincss." Thisimpiies that theSecrctariashoul no[ becorneinvoivedincon-
tentiousproceedings.
On the other hand.if ICAO, in the light of ilsstatusas a neutra1pubiic
international organization,were ntinethelesto lirniitsobservations tostrictly
decisioiiaIfactsand to avoid gratuitouscomments on lcgal or factuaI issiies
advanceciby either Partywhich are for thcCourt to decide,such observations
would bcsuperfluoussince aHdricunicnts, minutes and actions of ICA0 rele-
vant tu the case have alrcady ben frlcd with the Court by lhe Parties.In
short, the Couri has at its disposalthe information necessaryto decide thc
issueb scforeit.
ThePrvbicm oj':he ConjidPnrinlitof the Pfcndingund Ifocumen.nls
There is a furiherimportantreasor why it woüldbe inappropriate for ICA0
to submitany observaiions inthe casS.Thisconccrns the confidentiaIitof the
pleadingsand docum~nts under Article53 of the Rulcsof Court, a matterthat
the Registrar Iiasreferredto in his lettcr10 ICAO of 30 October 1989 and
6March 1991.
As the Presidenof the ICA0 Councilhas notcd, to theententthatany obscr-
vations arc preparcd,they would her.ubmittedto theCouncil forcumnient, In
the Iight of the conridcntialiofthe pleadings.however, it wouId obviouslybe
inappropriate for anyof the Pariics'positionsas et fo~orthn~hcirpleadings or
documenis to be relleciedin thosc commentslest such confidentiality hecorn-
promixd.
This was essentiallythe prohlem cncountered by the Secretary-Genera if the
Orpni~ation of Amcricnn States iiithecase wncerning Bodcr und Trmborder
Armed Aclions (iVicuraguav. han dura.^).Thcrc, the Registrarhad drawn thc
attcntian of the Secrrtary-General of the Organizationof AmericanStates to
the cascpursuant to Article34(3) of theStatuteof thc Court and had informed
him thai a tirne-limithad ken fixedby thCourt forany observatito hncOrga-
nizatiotirnighr wisto suhrnit.
The Scçretary-Gcncra If the Organizationdeclincd to subniitany observa-
rions.As the Court noted :
"By ciletterof 29 July 1987,the Secretary-General of the Organization
of Amcrican Statcs inhrrned the Registrarrhat inhis opinion ht would
not as SecretaryGeneral have rhc ouihority to subrnitobservaiions un
behalf of the Organization, and that the convening of the Permanent
Council of thc Organizatioiiwould requirc cach rnember State to he
providcd with copies of' the plzadings; lierocordcd his undcrsianding,
however.thatthe Court had noi:ifieal[partiesio thc Pact of BogorS of
the fact ihatthe proceedin gplxarcd to raisq euestions of the construc-
tion of that instrument."
Forthesame rcason, lhe SecretaryGeneral of ICAO shoulddeclincto submit
nb.wrvatimsin this casc.
'A sirni~ar~e~uirenieisfound in Rrgulation .Sof theSwR Regülarionsof thr
United Kations.The contcntjvunalure of rhçcasejsundcrswd in ~vnnecti<iw~tli
isxues ini.olviiigrheChiConvention by Artic87of the RulesoC0u1.t.
I.CJ Heporrs1988,p.72, para.7. The IslarnicRçpuMic rcqueststhal,in the Iight ortabove, theCourt decline
10 fixa tirne-limifor the suhmission of observationsby the ICA0 Council.
Siich observationswould be suprfluous, incquiiablecontrary to ~hcRuIes of
Court and contrary tothe üims of thc cmmpromissuryclausesunder the Court's
consideration.If,contrarto the IslarnicRcpublicsubmission,observationsarc
forth~riming.they shouldnot.in anyevent.he considerd by the Court.
4.'THE AGENTS OF TIIE ISMMIC REPUBLIC OF IRhY
AND THE UNI-r'EDSTATFS CrFAMERICA TO THE REGISTRAR
8 August 1894.
We have the honour to=fer to thecase concerning the deriai incident of
3 Juiy 1988(IskumicRepiiblicofIrcrnv. UniteStates ofAmerica) .
The partiesin thiscasehavecntcrcdinto negotiationsthat may Iead ioa fiil1
and finalsettlemcniof ihiscase. Talïing into consideration thcsc ncgotiationç,
the partiesraques1rhatthe Courrissuean urdcrunderArticle 48of the SIiittIt~
of ttic Courand Articlc 54oftheRulesof Cour[postponing sinie dithcopen-
ingaf thc oral proccedingsin rhis case. currenllschduled to commence on
September 12,1994. If the negritiationsdnoi resulin a full andlinai settle-
ment, either party,wiihwt theconsentoftheother party,may rcqucsttheCoiirt
to fix date forthe openine of oral proceedings.
{Sign~d) Conrad K. HARPER. (Sipedj Mohammad K. ESHRAGH
S.THE DEPLITY-REGIÇTRAR TO THE AGENT
DI- 'IIL UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
10 August 1994.
r have thc honour to acknowIedgkr:e<c:eipt of a joint letdated8 Augus[
1994 and reccivcdin the Registry on IAugust 1994,from the Agentsof the
Parriesinthe caseconcerniiigthederio1Incideo nff3 July 1938(IslutnicRepd-
lic ofIranv.Unitcd SratesojAmericczj.by whichthe Court is informcd:
(a) ihat theRrtics "have entered in1.onegotiationsthmrty leadto a fulIand
finalsetilemcntof thiscase";
(b) that "laking into consideraiionihese negaiicitions.partiesrequestthat
thc Court issue an ordcr undcr Ariicle48 of the Statuof die Court and
Article54 ofthe Rulesof Court postponing sinedie ihc opening of the un1
proceedingsin thiscasecurrentIy xhcduld tocommencc on September12,
1994.'; and
(cj thal "ifthe ncgoiiations dnot result in a fuand final settiement, cither
prty, without the conscntof ihc other paity, mareqiiesthe Cmurt ta fix
a date fortheopening of oraI procetrlings".
Copies of this letterhaveheen coinmuniçated to thc Mcmbcrsofthe Court.
On the iiisti-iictofthe President of thc Court, I rurthcrhaluerhonour
to inforrnyou that, duenote having heeritakenof the agrccmcntbctwe.cnthe
PartiesasJescribcd abovc the President hasdecided,puisuant toArrick 54 of645 AEKIALlNCIDENT
the Rulesof Court,thatthe dateof the opening of theoralprciceedingsisto be
postponôd siniceliu.Asin thecase of the decisiowherebyrheCourt previously
fixecthe date for the opening ofthe oral prmccdings,as agrc~dby the Parties
during a meeting with thehsident heldon 1March 1994. no Order isneeded
forthe purpose of the postponement nowroquestod.
1 am wriringinthe same terms to theAgent ofthe Islamic Repuhlic of Iran.
(Signedl Jean-Jacques ARSALDU
5. THE AGEKTS OF THE ISLAMIC REPL'BLlC OF lRAN
AND THE UNITED STATESOF AYERICA
We have the honour to refer tothe case concerning the Aeririulfncidcni oj
3 July f988 (Is/uitiRepubfic01 Irm v.UnitedStates ofArnericu).
The parties in fhis rase have enteredinto an agrwmenrinfi111ndfinal se!tk-
mcnt of this casc This agrccmcnt, rcflcctic ndthc attachcd dwumcnts l, is
hereby suhrnirtedto the Court. Taking into consideration this agreemeiit, the
partiesrequest that the Courtissuean order under Article48 of the Sratuteof
the Court and Article88 of the Rula ol'theCourt recording thediscoriiiriuarice
of thiscase,directingthai thecase be rcmovedfrom the Court's Iist, and indi-
cating thartheparties have entered into an agreement infuI1and finai settIernent
of al1disputes, differences,claims,counterclaims andinattersdirectIy or indi-
rectIyraisedby or capableof arisingont of,ordirectlyor indirectlrelatedtoor
conncctd wiih'this çasc.
See pp.649-61.inm.
Correspondence