United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran) - The Court delivers its Judgment

INTERNATIONAL'.,COURO TF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.92 44 41. Cables: Intercourt, The Hague

Telex 32323.
Communiqa6

~nited States Diplornatic and Consul~~r Staff in Tehran
(~nited States of Airierica v. Pan)

The Co'wt delivers Jud.pient,

~iie followink 'infornation 5s nade avnilable to the press hy the
Registry of the ~nternationel Court of Justice:
..
e Today, 24 ~ay 1980, the Internationel Court of Justice delivered its
Judgment in the' case concerning United States Dipl~metic and Cons~ilar

Staff in Tehran.

The Court decided (1) that Iran has tiolated an? is still violating
obligations owed by it to the United States; (2) thst these violations
engage Iran's responsibility; (3) tha% the Goverment of Iran nust
immediately release the United States nationals hela as hostsges and
place the prenises of the Embsssy ii: the hnnds of the protecting power;
(14) that no member of the United Stztes c?ir>l@m2tic or consular staff may be
ke~t in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to
participate in them as a witnessg (5) that Iran is un&er an obligation
to make reparztion for the injury caused to the United States; ad

(6) that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between /
the parXies, shall be settlec? by the Court. (~he full text of the
operotive paragra~h is reproduced in the annex hereto.)

These decisions were adopted by la.rge innjorities: (1 ) and .
(2) - 13 v~tes to 2; (3) end (4) - unaninousij; (5) - 12 votes to 3;
(6) - 14 votes to 1 (the votes are recorded by nane in the annex) .

A separate opinion has been appended to the Judgnent by Judge Lachs,

who voted against operative parafgaph 5. 3issenting opinions have been
appended by Judge Morozov, who votetl against naragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6, and
by Judge Tarazi, who voted against parwraphs 1, 2 and 5 (a short suuu;iarj
of these opinions iç to be found in the annex to this comuniqué).

The printed edition of the Judgnent wi.11 become avsilable at sone time
during June 1980. (0rders shoulù bc addressed to the Distribution and Sales
Secticn, Office of the United Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, or the Sales Section,
United Nations, New York, ?:.Y. 100171 or en ag;,~royriate bookseller. )

An anal-ysis of the Judgment is given below. This analysis ha8 been
prepared by the ~egistr~ to assist the press acd cl~es not commit the Court in
any way. Itrcannot be quoted qainst the actuàl text of the Judgnent and
does not constitute an interpretntion of it . Analysis of the Judgment -.

Procedure before the Court (paras. 1-10)

In its Judgrnent, the Court recalls thet on 29 1$ovember 1979 the
United States of herica had instituted proceedings against Iran in a case
arising out of the situation at its Embassy in Tehran and Consulates at
Tabriz and Shiraz, and the .seizure and' detention as hostages of its
diplornatic and consular staff in Tehrsn.and-two nore citizens of the

United States. The United State's having'zt the sane time requested.the
indication of provisional measures, the Court, Oy a unanimous Order of
15 Decenber 1979, indicated, pending final judment, that the Einbassy
should immediately be given back and ..e hos.age... released (see Press
Communiqué No. ô0/ 1) .

The procedwe then continued in ,accordance 7.Jith the Statute and. Rules ,
of Court. The United Ytetes filed a Memorial;..end on 18, 19 and
20 March 1980 the Court held a public hearing at the close of which the
United States, in its final submissions, requested it to adjudge and
declare, inter alia, that the Iranicc Government had violated its

international legal obligitions to the United States and must:. ensyre
the imediate release of the hostages; ctfford the United States diplornatic
and consular personnel the protection and iriities to which they were
entitled (including i.munity from crlrninel .jurisdiction ) and provide then
with facilities tc! leave Iran; sub,niit the perçons responsible for the
crimes conmitte3 to the competent Iranian nuthorities for.prosecution, or
extradite then to the Unitcd St~tes; and pay,the United 'Stâtes reparation,
in a sum to be subsequently deternined by the Court:.

Iran took no part in the proceedings. It neither filed pleadings nor
was represented at the hearing, and no' subinissions were therefore.presented

on its behâlf.. Its position was however defined in two 1etters.addressed
to the Court by its Minister for Forci- Affsirs on 9 December 1979 and
16 March 1980 respectiveljr. In these the iinister mintsined inter alia
that the Court could not und should not take cognizance of the case.

The Fact s (paras. 11-32.)
.. ....
The Court expresses regret that Iran did not appear befcre it to 2ut
forward its erguents. The absence of Iran from the proceedings brought
into operation Article 53 of the Statute, under xhich the Court is
required, before finding in the Applicant'ç fsvour, to setisfy itself
that the allegations .of fact on which the claim is based are well Iounded.

In that respect the Court observes' that it has had nvzilable to it,

in the documents presente0 by the unitéil. States, a mss'ive body of
information fron. various scurces , iricluding nunerous official statements
of both 1rsni.i. and United States authorities . This in formtion, the
Court notes, is wholly concordant as to the nain facts and hzs al1 been
communicated to Iran without ev~king any denial. The Court is accordingly
satisfied that.the allegations of fzct on which the United States based
its clsim were well founded.
. .
~dmissibility (paras. 33-44 )

Under the settled .jurisprudence of the Court, 'it is bound, in

applying Article 53 of its Statute, to investigate, on its own initiative,
any preliminary question of admissibility or jurisdiction that may arise.

On.. . On the çubject of admissibility, the Court, ofter examining the

considerations put forward in the t~ro.letters frorc Iran, finds that they
do not disclose any ground for concluding that it could not or should not
deai. with th^ case. Neither does it find any incompatibility with the
continuance of judicial proceedings before the Court in the establishment
by the Secretary-General of the Vnited TJztions, with the egreement of both
States, of R Conpission given z maxidate to undertake a fact-findine;
mission to Iran, hem Iran's grievances 2nd facilitate the solution of
the crisis between the two countries.

Jurisdiction (paras. 45-55)
,<';.
Four instruments havj.nb been cite6 by t3e United Sttites as bases for
the Court.'.s jurisdiction to deel with its claims, the Court finCs that
three, nmely the Optional Protocols to the t~ro Vienna Conventions of
1961 znd 1963 on, respectively, Diplornatic and Cnnsular Delations, and the
1955 Treaty of hity, Economic Reiations, an6 Consuler Ri~hts between the ~nited
States and Iran, (10 in fact provide such foundaticns.

The Ccurt, however, does not find it necessnry in the present
Judgnent to enter into the question whether Article 13 of the fourth
instrument so ci.ted., mely the 1973 Convention on the .?revention and
Punishment of Crimes against Internatîonally Protected Persons including
Diplomatic Agents, rrovides a basis for the exercise of its jurisd5ction
with respect to the United Stotes ' claims .tkiereunder.

MERITS: Attributability tc the Iranian State of the acts complained of,
and vioiat.ion by Iran of certain ob1ipati.one (paras. 56-94)

The Court has dso, under Article 53 cf its Statute, to sztisfy
itself that the clains of the Applicarit =e well foundec'!. in law. To this
end, it considers the acts complained of in order tqdetermine how f<w,

legally, they nny be attributed to the Iranian State (CS distinct from
the occupiers of the Embsssy) and. whether they are ccnp~~tible or
incompatible vith Iran's ~blig~tions under treaties In fcrce or other
applicable rules of international lav.

(a). The events of 4 November 1979 (p~r&s. 56-68)

The first phase of the events urid.erlying the Applicant's claims covers
the arned attack on the United States kibas'sy carried out. on 4 November 1979
by Muslim Student Followers of the Iman'sPolicy (further referred to as'
"the milihnts" .in the ~uwent ), the overcunnin@;. of, its premises , the
.
seizure of its inmates as hostages, the appropriation of its property
and archives, and the conduct of the Iranian suthorities in the ,face of
these. occurrences.

The Court points out that the conduct of the militants on that
occasion could. be directly attributec?. tc the Iranian tat te only if it were
established that they were in fact actirlg on itc behalf. The informaticn
before the Court. did net suffice to establish tliis with due certainty.
However, the Iraaian State - wliich, as the Vtate to which the mission
wes accre&ited., was uhder obligation to take a3propriP;te steps to protect

the United States Embassy - did nothing to prevent the attack, stop it
bsfore it reached its cornpletion or oblige the rnilitcnts to withdraw
from the premises and relense the hosteges. This inaction was in contrast
wi.th the conduct of the Iranim zuthorities on çeveral similar occasions
at the same period, when tliey had teeri appropriate steps. It
constituted, the Court finds, a clear end serious viclation of Iran's
obli~a%ions to the United States iinàer Articles 22 (2), 24, 25, 26, 27
and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Cûn~rent,ion on Diplcrnetic Relations, of

Articles... Articles 5 and 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention or! ~onsular Relâ.tions, and
of Article II (4) of the 1955 Treaty. Further breaches of the 1963
Convention had been involved in failure, t.o protect the Cbnsuletes at
Tabriz and hir raz. . .

The Court is. thereforo led to coriclude that on 1-November 1979 the
Iranizn authorities were fuïly avare of their obligstiens under the
conventions in force, and also of the urgent need for action on their part,
that they haCi the neens at their disposal.to perforn their obligations,
but that they completely failed to dc so.

(b) Events since 4 Hovember 1979 (rmras. 69+9)

The second phase of the events underlying the United Statest claims
conprises the whole series of facts which occ,urred following the cccupation
.
of the ~nlba'ss~ by the militants. Though it was the duty of the Iranian
Goverment to take every appropriate step to end the infringement of the
inviolability of the Embassy premises and staff, and to offer reparation
for the damage, it did nothii-ig of the kind. Instead, expressions of
approvel were iimediately heard from nmerous Iranian authorities.
Ayatollah Khomeini himself procleined the Iranian State's endomenient of
both the seizure of the premîse!; and the detention of the hostages. He
described the Embassy as a "centre of ospionage"; declared th.& the
hostages would (trith some exceptions) re&in "under arrest" until the
United States had returned the forner Shah and his property to Iran,
and forbade all negotiation with the United States on the scbject.
Once
organs of the Iranian State had thus given approval to the acts conplained
of and decjded. to perpetuate them as e fieans of pressure on the United
States, those acts were trnnsformed into' ects of .the .Iranian State: the
militznts became agents of that Stete, which itself became internationally
responsi5le f0y.thei.r acts. During the six months wi~ich ensued, the
situation. mderwent nc meterial change : the Court 's Order of
15 ~ece&ber 1979.yas publicly rejected by Irzn, while the Ayatollah
declared that the detention of the hostages would continue until the new
, Iranian parliainent ha&.taken a clecision as tc their 'fate.

The Iranian authorities' decision t6 ccntinue the subjection of the
Rnbassy to occupation, and of its staff to detention as hostages, gave
rise to repeated and aultiple hréaches of Iran's treaty obligations,
additional to those already co,nnitted at the time of the seizure of the
Bnbassy ( 196~. Convention: '~rts. 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 ; ' 1963
Convention: inter alia, Art. 33; 1355 Treaty, Art. II (4) ).

With regard tc! the Charg6.dqaffaires and the two other kembers of
the United States mission who have been in the Iranian Pfinistry of
Foreig? Affairs since 4 Hovember 1979, the Court finds tnzt the Iranian
authorities have trithheid from them the protection and facilities necessary
to allow then to Ikave the.Ministry in safety. Accordingly, it appears

to the Court that in their respect there have been breaches of Articles 26
and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Con~renticn.

Taking. note, furtherm~re, that various Iranian aathorities have
threatened to have some of the hostages 'submitted to trial before a court,
or to compel then to bezr witness, the Court considers that, if put into
effect, that int.ention ~~ould constitute a breach of Article 31 of the
same Convention.

...
(c ) Possible. .. <.'.' .(c) Possible existence of special ~circmstances (paras. 83-89)

The Court considers that it should exainine the question whether the
conduct of tke Iranian Government night be justified by the existence
of special circwstances, fcr the Iranian Miriister for Foreign kffairs
hed alleged in his two letters to the Court that the United States had
carried out criminal activities in Iran. The Ccurt considers thût, even
if these alleged activities could be considered as proven, they would
not constitute a defence to the United States' claims, since diplonatic

law provides the possibiiity of '~reaking off diplomtic relations, or of
declaring persona non grata. nenbers of dipionütic or ccnsular missions
who may be carrjring or. illicit. activities. The Court concludes that ths
hvernment of Iren hed recourse to coercion agninst the United. States
Embassy cn6 its staff instead of making use of' tk;e normal nee,ns et its
di spo sa1.

(d) International responsibility (?aras. 90-92 )

The Court finds thet Ir.m, by committing successive and continuing
- breaches of the oblisations laid qon it 3y the Vienna Conventions of

1961 and 1963, the 1955 Treaty, and the applicable rules of general
international leLw, hes incurred responsibility tow,?rds the TJiiited States.
As a corisequence, there is an o5ligation on the part of the Ira~ian
State to sake reparation for the injury caused to the United States.
Since, hoprever, the 3rea.ches are still continuing, the forni and mount
of such regmation cannot yet be deternineci.

At the srme tiine the Coart ccnsiders it essential to reiterate the
observations it nade in its Crder of l5 Decemter 1979 on the inportance
of the 2rinciples of int.ernation.31 lsw governing dil->lon%tic and consular

reletions . Rfter stress in^ the lnrticulnr gravity of the case, arising
aut of the fact tht~t it is not an7 private ind.ividirals or grcup thzt
heve set ~.t naught the invl~l~bility of en i-rnbnssy, but the very gc~vernment
of the Statc to wliich the mission is accredited, the Ccurt draws the
attention of the entire international com1mitg tc the irrepcrable harm
that nay be ceused by events of the kind before the Court. Euch events
cennot fail to undernine c carefully ccnstructed edifice of lzw, the
naintentace of which is vital for the security uid well-being of the
internaticnai comunity .

(el United States ogersrtior; in Iran .on 24-25 Apil 1980

7p~rss. 93 and 94)

With regard t.;. the operaticn unrf.ertaken in Iran Dy UniteZ St&tes
military units on 24-25 April 1980, the Court says thst it cannot fnil
to eqress its concern. It feels .boimd t3 observe thût an o-eration
undertaken in those circmstances, firom ~rhatever motive, is of a kind
calcula,ted to ur-dermine respect for the jxdicial FrrJcess in interns.tiona1
relations. Bevertheless, the question of the lepality of th& operation
can have no bearing on the ewtluation of Iran's conduct cc
4 Novenber 1979. The findings reached by the Court are therelore not
af fected by that operati&n.

For these reasons, the Court gives the Cecision reproduced in full
in the annex hereto. Annex to mess Communiqué 8015

Operatiw Fart of Judgment

1. By thirteen votes 1 to two 2,

Decides that the IslarnicRepublic of Iran, by the conductwhich the
Courthas set out .inthis Judgment, has violated in severalrespect&
and 5s stili-violating,obligationsowed by it to the United States of
America under interriational conventions in fo13ce between the two countries,
as we11 as under long-estahlishee ru1e.s of general. international lar~;

Decides,that the violations af these obligations enga-g the
responsibilfty of-theIslamicRepublicof Iran towards the United States
of Ameriea und er international lawg .
*

Decidcsthat the Goverment of the Islamic Fiepublic of Iranmuçt

imrnediately take all steps to redress the situationresültingfrom the
eventç of 4 November 1379 and what followedfrom thesecvents, a~ to
that erd :

-(a) must inimediatclg 1;emriinatethe unlawful detention of. the United Seetes
Gharg4 d%ffaires and other diplornatic and consular staffand other
UnitedStatesnationals now held hostagein Iran, and must imrnediately
release each and every one and entrustthem Lo the protccting Power
(Article 45 of the 1961 ViennaConvention an Diplomatie Relations);

--) must ensurs thnt a11 the sald persons have the necessarymeans of
1ea;rkng Iranian temiitorg,includingmeans of transport;

(c) must irnrnediately place in the hands of the protectingPower the
e - prernises, properky,archives and documents of the United States Embassy
in Tehran and. of its Consulatesin Tran; +

; *~ornposed es follows: Pre~jfdant Sis Ru~nphkeg Wa.Mock;
~ice-Pre sdentElias ;
Judges Fora ter, Wos, Lachs, Morozov, Nagendra Sin&,
~uda,Moaler, Tarazi, Oda, Ago, El-Erian, Sette-Carnara and Baxter .,.,
1
'~rcsj-dent Sir HumphreyWoldaok; ~ick-~resident Bliûs; Judges Forster,
os, ~achs, Nûgendrs Singh, Ruda, MoslGr, Odo, Ago, El-Erian, Sette-Cmnra
aIflBaxter.
f
i 2 ..-
1 Judges Morozov and Tsrzzi. Lecidesthat no rnember of the United'States diplmatic or
consular staff may be kept in Iran to be subjected to any form of

judicial proceedings or to participatein them as a witness;

becid-es tha-t the Govemunent of the IslarnicFiepublic of Iran is
mder an obligation to make re'&ration to the Goverment of the
United States of America for .the "inury. cswed to the latter by the
evêntq of 4 November 1979 and wht foiiowed from these events;

6
6. ~y fourteen votes5 to one ,

Decides that the fclm and arnount of such reparation, failing '
agreement between the Parties, shall be settled by the Court, and
reserves for-thiapurposethe subsequentprocedure in the case.
*

-

'3~resident sir Humphrey Waldook ; Vice-Preçident Eliaç ;
Jud_ges Forster, Gros, Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago,
El-Erian,Sette-Camnra and Baxter . 1

' 4'~udgeç Lachs, &.~ozov and Tarazi .'

3~residentSir Humphrey Waldook ; Vice-President Elias ;
JudgesForster, Gros, Lachs, Nagendra Sin&, Ruda,Mosler, Tarazi,
O&, Ago, El-Erim, .Sette-Gamma Gd Baxter. Smry of ripinions appended to the Judmnt
I .

Jud~e Lachs indicated t11a-the v~ted againçt the first Part of
operative paragrsgh3, os lie fomd. it sedut~iizr,t. The responsibility
havine been established, .t*, whr@e .question ~f reparations shouid
have been left to the subsequent p60cedure, ~~cluding the qmstion
of fom and amount as provided by the Judgment,
6 , , >
<r . . ..<.i-
Trie opinion stresses the inportance of the Judgrnent for
diplomtic Iaw, and tkc raajor part of' it is devoted to the question
of the practical solution by r3lplofiatlc means of the diapute
between the Parties. Oacz the le@ issues have been clarified

by the JuQxent, the parties should takc speedy acti.on ,md make
maximumeffortsto dispel tension and niçtrust, mil in this s
third-party initiative my be in-portant. ~udie Lscks viçuali zes
e particularrole for the Secretary-GeneraP of the United Mations
in this respect and tha ~orlr of a specinlcomission or mediating

body, In view of the grwity c;fthe situation, the need for a
resolution is urgent.

In his ciissenting ûpinicin, Judge tIorozov rndicates that

cperative pnragraph 1 of the Judgaent 5s draflted in such a .
way that it is not linited to tks question of the violntizn of
the Vienna Coqventions of 1961 and 1963, but sis0 covess, if
read with somi paragraphs of the reasmine, the question of
dleged violations of the 1955 'Treaty cf Pmity,Eccnornic

Relations and Consular Fights between Irm aild the
Enited Sta+,es; %bis treaty, he 'b~liet-es, does no% provide
the parties with en unconditicna1 richt. to invoke the
coapulsory juris6ict;ion af the Court, and 211 the circunstances
the Court has in fsct nc coupetenceto conçidcr the alleged
violations.

,. .,
7, ,
. , -,,..l..
Fxthermre, - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ 9 ~ ~ 1 ~ t e s cohtteè
during the period of the ju&cid deliberations nany unlatxful

actions) cuiiilinatinl:in .the military invasion of the territory of
the Islamic Republic of Iran, and has therefore lost the legal. right
to refer to the Treuty in its relations with Iran, __L__-.rl...
. .
J~dge Morozov iroted against operztive pnrpdrstphs 2, 5 and 6
beceuse he had noted tnat a seriesof actions was undertaken by

the United Gtates of America againat Iran in the course of the
jucLcial del5beratioas, in partie-dm the freezing by the
Uni-teà States of very considertlble Iranian asset s, combiiled with
the intention, cleaxlyexpessed in a stûtcmnt made by the
President of the United States on 7 dpril 1980, to make use af
theçe assets ,. :ifgeed be, in accordance with decisions that -. -.
would be taken in the domestic frmework of the United States ;
lr
%hat mea~tthat the United States was acting as a "judge in its
own cause, In.JudgeMorozosfs view, the situation,created by
actions of the Uriited St~te~, in which the CcuA carried on its
judicial deliberations in the caçe.had no precedent iilthe whole
history of the administrati»n of international justiee ei tber
before the Court ar before my other international judicial

institution, The United States, having caused severe darage to
Ira, had lost tSe legal as well an the moral right to
reparationç Yxon Iran, as ment ioneri in operative saragrqhs
2, 5 ma 6.

Judge Moroaov alsa finds thst some parzgraphs çjf the reasuning

part of the Judgaent describe the circumstances of the case in
an incorrect or one-sided way .

He considers that, wjthout any ~rejudice to the exclusiie
cornpetence of the Securi ty corncil J the Court, fsom a pwelg
, legal point of vizw, could have drawn attention,to the
undeniable fact thatArticle 51 of ,the Unitedrbtions charter,'

establishingthe right of self-defence ta which the
Ufiited States of America referi-ed in conneetionwith the
events cf 24-25 April, -y be iavoked only "if an armed attack
occurs against a menber of the United Nations", and that there
is no evidence of =y amed attack h~ving occurred againsrt
the United States.

Judge ~%rozoG also stresses that scme indication should have '
been included in the Judgpent to the effect that the Court
considered that settlemnt CF the dispuee betweenthe
U~ited Statesand the Islmie Republic of Ira should be
reached exclusively by peaceful. wans, Judge Trzrazi voteù in fsvour of aplra6ive paragrapi~s 3 and 4

of tk~eJu-ent ,,because h~ consideredthst the seizure of the
embassy, and the detention au hostsges of those present in it,
constituted an act in brench of the provisions of the 1961 and 1963
Vienna Conventions on Diploniatic and Consular Re1ations.

On the other Mand Judge Tarazi ielt impelled to v~te against
ogerative paragraph 1, bccause he considercd that only the
1961 and 1963 Vienna. Ccnventions con~exrèd jwisdicti~n on the

Court iii the present case.

He also wted against peragrqiis 2 and 5, beceuse, in his
view, the Court, at the present stage of the proceedîngs and
considering the concomitant circunstance ,s codd not make mg
rding as to the responsibility of the ~overnment sf the
lslamic Republic of Iran,

On the otherhand Jud@ Tarazi voted in favclur of paragraph 4,
because he congidered that, In the event of any reparations
being owed, they should be determined and assessed by the
e International Court of Justice; it was not admissible fcir them
to be the subject of proceedings In courts of domestic
jurisdiction.