The following inform?tio nron tho Rogistry of tho Tntornational
Court of Justice has becn comunicnted ta tlxa Press:
Ta-day the Internntiona lurt of Justice doliverecl Its Judgmont
in the ?n,lo-lrminn 0i1 Company cc-c, which hcd been sul3.tted to it
by the United Kingclon Gover~~lent 'on Ihjr26th,1951, md ~rhich hcd bcen
the sub jûct ~f :..Oibjection on the .round of Inck of jurisdictio ny the
Goverfi~.ent of Iran.
By nine votas agninst; five, the Court declKyrrcdthc.t it L~cked
jurisrliction. Tlic Judpnt is followed by 3 oopnratc opinion iy SU
Arnold NccNair, ~'rosidcrit of thc Court, who, whilc concurrk~ in the
conclusion reached inthe Judg.~znt, for kich hù hnd votsd, ,zcldedsorrie
reasons of 1152otm which lmd lcd hin to th~~t c.inclusisn. The Jud&mdl?k
wns nlso followed Isy four dissentine opinions bg Juclges iilvarea,
Hnckworth ,ezd ?ad Levi Cnrnciro.
Dn July 5th, 1951, thc Court hnd indicztcd int~rin mccçures of
protection in this case, pinrling- its fim,l clzcision, stnting cxproçsly
th~.t the question of tlîe jurisdictioc n the mcrits wns in no wa,y pra-
0 juoiged. In its Judlnont of to-d;~ÿ'ç d?+t.tethe Court declares thot the
Ordcr of July ?th, 1951, censes to bo oper?,tive md thnt the provisionl.1
mec?sures Lupse at the smc tirno,
The Judgrncnt bcgiiis liy rccnpit~~~tink; the foîts. In April, 1939,
an ngreanÿnt w?,s concludocl b-twî~il the Covcrmdnt of Iran md the
h;lo-Ir,wi~.n Oil lompmy. in iiccrch ;gril md )i;~r1951> 1,q.w~werc
pnsçed in Trm, cnuncinting the principlo of the n~stionr.lis:~.tionof
the cil inclustry in Irw and estd~lishin~ procedurefor the enforcenant
of this principle. The result of tbese laws was fidispute between
1r:J.n ;?nthe Comp~my. The United I;inzcionadopted thc cause of the
lctter,~nd in virtue of its rigl~iiof diplomtic protection it
instj.tutec1procoedin~ before tho Court, whercupon Irnn disputedthe
C~urt s jurisdiction .
The Juclpn2nt rcfers to the principle nccordingto which the will
O of the Pnrtics is the basis of the Courkls jurisdiction, and it notes
thnt in tlio prcsînt case the jurisdictiondcpends an the Dechrations
~ccopting the canpulsory jurisdiatio onf the Court nndc by Iran and
by thc United !;in;,don underArticle 36, -p.?rû~;rap2, of the St&ute.
Theee Declnrations contzin the condition of reciprocily, gnd 2,sthat
of.Irm is mre linited, it is upon th:;t Decl;:r,rtiun thritthe Court
must S~,sc ICself.
,îccordin go this Declnrr-tion, the Courthns jurisdiction oiilg
when n dispu$erelntcs to the zp2licztion of .Itreilty or convention
ncceptcdby Iran. But Irm wintnins th:&, nccordiny to the r.ctud
wordin~ of the toxt,thc jurisdiction is limitedto troatioseubse-
~uiuentto the Ucclnrntion. Tho UnitodKin~clon nr.intoins, on the
contrary, thnt snrlior treoticsmy also comc intoconsidoration.
Ln the vicw of the Court, both c~ntontio~ls might,strictly speaking,
be rognrdod :~,scampntibls vrith the text . But the Court cmnot ùnse
itsolf 0i-3 purcly gramx,tic~l inter;>rot?tion: it rxust seek tha
inter;irotntion "hich is in hririrrnoiuith 2 nntuml rnd renson?.ble wny
of roadding the te&, hnving due rut;a,rd to the intoiition of h,n at the
thc when it f~:rinu~,tedthe D~cLnr?.tion. ;.natur:;l md rc~.sonnblc
way of recdinf; tho tcxt lcnds to tho conclusion thnt onlÿ treztj.~~
In order
sub~ec~uluentta the rctif j-cntion cone into conîidorntion.
to reach 7.nopposite conclusion, special wd clenrly ~stc?l,lished
rcnsons ,.,.reasans wouldbe rzquired: but the United Kjngdon ms not able to pro-
d~ce thm, On the contr2ry, ,it rLny be admhted thnt Iran bad spcicfal
rensons for drnfting her Declwntion jn n vcryrestrictivr ex-mer, and
for excluding the earlier troatios, For, ct thnt time, Iran had
dcnouncod al1 the trontics nith otIlcr States relating to the r6gi.m
of cq~itul~tions; she ias uncertain as ta the lepl effoct of thcse
unilnterad lenunc iations . In slich circums t~nces, it is unlilrsl;; th~t
shc should llnve been willjlrfi on hcr om initiative to ngee to sul~mj-2,
ta internaticna1 court disputes relntkng ts sll th2se trenties.
Morcover, the Irm%m lciCbyivrhich the iszjlis approvedand ncloptod the
DecL~.ration, bcf ore it iw.s rntElec1, provides o dccisiveconf irmtion
sf Jrnnfs intention, for it states th2t the trcntics md conventions
which corne jnto considaratfan xrc thosil which jltl-iGovernzncfit vfill
have ncccptcd aftcr the r?utificationll.
Thc enrlier trmties nxc thus excluded by the Ddclnrxtion ,nd ,
the Unitcd Kingdom cmnot thcrefore rely an them, It has invokcd
sone sübscqucnt t~saties: nalwly those of 1934 with Demrk md
Switzerlcnd, ti-ir?of 1337 with Turkey, by whicl? Ir:in h;i,under-
takcn to trent thc n7,tionnls ~f khoçc lowers in aceordnnce with the
princ lplcs md prxtice of orclinary lnt ernntionnl Law. The United
Einr;çbn clains t11at the I'agLo-Irnni,m'Oil Corr12ünyhas not been trertted
In accorllmce with those princil-iles a.nd that prnctice; 2nd in order
tci roly an the above-nentiunetd reutlcs, tilriugh conclucledwith thirà
pxrties,it f~unds itselfon the most-fnvcurcd-nati ciauso contnined
in two instrwnts thich it conclrlded with Irm: the trzaty of 1857
,~nd th2 cormercia loi?vci~tion of'1903. .
üt the two L~ttor treztkcs, ,
which for~i tha sole 1el:z.l conncctirin &.?%m the trc?$ies of 193.4md
1937, are anterior to the 13ccl~.rntion: the United Kingdon cmçit
thercforercly on thcn,and, cofisecluently, it c;~mot invoke t1e subse-
qucnt trcntics concludcd Ly Trzn ri th third Stntes.
Sut dtd thn scttlerrient of tho disput2bctwzcnIran ,and the United
Iiin~don, effcctcr? in 1333 tlirou~h the neclLation of the Lenpe of
Notions, rcsult iri2n :grce~.eiitbottecn the two Goverrim~nts which rmy
T~E United Kingdon nninLeins
be regnrded cs a trcnty or convention?
thntit Cid: it clcifis tl.inttlze,n,greenent si{;ned UI 1933 Isetwecr.1 the
United Ilin,;dcirn 2ntRe Cor?pa~~y 113d ficloilblcchnrncter: being zt once
a curiccssinrinry contrn~t and 2 truaty betwe:~~ the .Lm Stzt~s. In the
vim of the Court, th~.t iç not the case. The United Kingdm 5s not 2
pnrty to ti-icoiltrn.ct, which does not coristitute 2 13nk bctweon the
two Governrnents or in any vra'jretflxtc thc rclntions between them,
Under the contract, Iran cmat clab fron th2 Unitcd 1lin:;dox;i my
ri@ts which Tt rEy clnjmfrom thc Company,nor cm it b,eczlled
upon t;o 7erfcirr:tcwzrcls the United Kincdorn 2~ alsli~atlc~nswhich it iis
Sound tu pcrforr.~towarr?s the Vo;npnny. Tkiis juridiczl çituntian is
nat dtsrec! by .thefact thr,t thc conccssionary contract iIms negotiated
throuzh the guocl offices cf the Councilof thk Lengue of Estions,
zctin?+ ;,trou@ its rzpi~orteur. The Ur?_i.tcd ICir:;din submLtt5ng its
dispute with Ir,m ta the LeagueCouncik, %rasonly exerclsing its
ri&t of diplamtic protection 5n fnvciur of one of îts nntionals.
Thus thc Courta-rives at the conclusion thzt it locks juris-
dictian .
The Hzgue, July 22nd, 19'52.
- Judgment
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran) - Judgment