SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC MOMTAZ
[Translation]
Jurisdiction of the Court  Claims relating to Bank Markazi’s rights under Articles III, IV and V of the Treaty of Amity  Jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court  Primacy of the criterion of the nature of the transaction over the criterion of its function  Article I of the Treaty of Amity —Article I as a lodestar for interpretation of the Treaty’s provisions.

SEPARATE OPINION, PARTLY CONCURRING AND PARTLY DISSENTING, OF JUDGE AD HOC BARKETT
Abuse of rights — Iran seeking to exercise rights conferred on it by the Treaty “for purposes other than those for which the rights at issue were established”.
Exhaustion of local remedies — Exhaustion of local remedies not futile.
Article XX (1) (d) — United States demonstrated that Executive Order 13599 necessary to protect its essential security interests.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH
Article IV, paragraph 2  Criteria for the assessment of the exercise of regulatory powers in matters of unlawful expropriation  Reasonableness  A measure of discretion enjoyed by the domestic authorities/regulator  Article X, paragraph 1  Broad interpretation of the freedom of commerce  Requirement for an “actual impediment”  Article X, paragraph 1, does not preclude regulatory measures with indirect or incidental effects on the freedom of commerce.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE NOLTE
1. I wish to explain why I voted against the finding that the United States has violated Article III, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Amity (I), and to make some observations relating to the jurisdictional objection concerning Bank Markazi (II).
I. Article III, paragraph 1
2. In my view, the United States has not violated Article III, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Amity.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA

DECLARATION OF JUDGE SALAM
[Original English text]
Disagreement with the Court’s conclusion on the characterization of Bank Markazi under the Treaty of Amity — Questionable interpretation of the 2019 Judgment — Problematic application of the criterion of the purpose pursued by Bank Markazi — Usefulness for the Court of being guided by the international law of immunities — Resort to the practice of the United States in characterizing Bank Markazi’s activities.

SEPARATE OPINION, PARTLY CONCURRING AND PARTLY DISSENTING, OF JUDGE ROBINSON
1. In this opinion I explain my disagreement with paragraph 236 (1) of the Judgment, in which the Court upholds the
“objection to jurisdiction raised by the United States of America relating to the claims of the Islamic Republic of Iran under Articles III, IV and V of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, to the extent that they relate to treatment accorded to Bank Markazi and, accordingly, finds that it has no jurisdiction to consider those claims”.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
Judicial expropriation  Criteria for establishing expropriation involving conduct of domestic court  Decisions of other international courts and tribunals  Court should have offered more comprehensive reasoning and justification.
1. I make this declaration to indicate what are, in my view, shortcomings in the Court’s reasoning on Iran’s expropriation claim under Article IV (2) of the Treaty of Amity. The passages in the Judgment concerning judicial expropriation in my view require greater depth of analysis.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE YUSUF