Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Decision of the Court

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF WSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel: +31 (0)70 302 23 23. Cables: Intercourt,
The Hague. Fax: +31 (0)70 364 99 28. Telex: 32323. E-mail address:

[email protected]. Internet address: http://www.icj-cij.org.

Press Release

Unofficial

No. 2003/38
6 November 2003

Oil Platforms
(lslamic Republic oflran v. United States of America)

Decision of the Court

THE HAGUE, 6 November 2003. Today the International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judicial organof the United Nations, delivered its Judgment in the case conceming Oil Platforms
(Islamic Republic oflran v. United States of America).

In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding on the Parties, the Court finds

first, by fourteen votes to two, thate actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil
platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to
protect the essential security interests of the United States of America under Article XX,
paragraph 1@, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economie Relations and Consular Rights between
the United Statesof America and Iran, as interpreted in the light of international law on the use of

force", but the Court "cannot however uphold the submission of the Islamic Republic of Iran that
those actions constitute a breachf the obligations ofthe United States of America under Article X,
paragraph 1, of that Treaty, regarding freedom of commerce between the territories of the parties,
and that, accordingly, the claim of the Islamic Republic of Iran for reparation also cannot be

upheld".

The Court further finds, by fifteen votes to one, that "the counter-claim of the United States
of America conceming the breach of the obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran under
Article X, paragraph 1, of the above-mentioned 1955Treaty, regarding freedom of commerce and

navigation between the territories of the parties, cannot be upheld; and accordingly, that the
counter-claim of the United States of America for reparation also cannot be upheld".

Reasoning of the Court

In its Judgment, the Court, after recalling the historyf the proceedings, observes that its
task is to determine whether or not there have been breaches of the Treaty of Amity, Economie
Relations and Consular Rights signed in 1955 between the United States and Iran and to draw the
appropriate consequences therefrom in light of the submissions of the Parties.

Iran contends that,n attacking and destroying on 19 October 1987 and 18April 1988 three
offshore oil production complexes, owned and operated for commercial purposes by the National
Iranian Oil Company, the United States violated freedom of commerce between the territories of
the Parties as guaranteed by the Treaty. It seeks reparation for the injury thus caused. For its part, - 2 -

the United States argues in a counter-claim that it is Iran which violated the 1955 Treaty by
attacking vessels in the Gulf and otherwise engaging in military actions that was dangerous and
detrimental to commerce and navigation between the United States and Iran. The United States

likewise seeks reparation for the injury suffered.

The Court begins by considering whether the actions by American naval forces against the
Iranian oil complexes were justified under the 1955 Treaty as measures necessary to protect the

essential security interests of the United States (Article XX, paragraph 1@, of the Treaty). The
Court states that it must interpret that provision of the Treaty in light of the relevant rules of
international law. It accordingly concludes that the United States was only entitled to have
recourse to force under the provision in question if it was acting in a self-defence. The Court

further states that thenited States could exercise such a right of self-defence only if it bad been
the victim of an armed attack by Iran and makes it clear that, if so, the United States actions must
have been necessary and proportional to the armed attack against it. After carrying out a detailed
examination of the evidence provided by the Parties, the Court finds that the United States bas not

succeeded in showing that these various conditions were satisfied in the present case, and it
accordingly concludes that the United States was therefore not entitled to rely on the provisions of
Article XX, paragraph 1(Q1ofthe 1955 Treaty.

The Court then examines the issue of whether the United States, in destroying the platforms,

impeded their normal operation, thus preventing Iran from enjoying freedom of commerce
"between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties" as guaranteed by the 1955 Treaty
(Article X, paragraph 1). It concludes that, as regards the attack of 19 October 1987, the Reshadat
and Resalat platforms were under repair and not operational and that at that time there was thusno

trade in crude ail from those platforms between Iran and the United States. Accordingly, in the
Court's view, the attack on those platforms cannat be considered as having affected freedom of
commerce between the territories of the two States. The Court reaches the same conclusion in

respect of the attacks on the Salman and Nasr complexes on 18April 1988, since ail trade in crude
ail between Iran and United States bad been suspended as a result of an embargo imposed by an
Executive Order adopted on 29 October 1987 by the American authorities. In light of the
foregoing, the Court finds that the United States did not breach its obligations to Iran under

Article X, paragraph 1,ofthe 1955 Treaty and rejects Iran's claim for reparation.

In regard to the United States counter-claim, the Court, after rejecting the objections to
jurisdiction and admissibility raised by Iran, considers whether the incidents attributed by the
United States to Iran infringed freedom of commerce or navigation between the territories of the

Parties as guaranteed by Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty. The Court finds that none of
the ships alleged by the United States to have been damaged by Iranian attacks was engaged in
commerce or navigation between the territories of the two States. Nor does the Court accept the
generic claim by the United States that the actions of Iran bad made the Persian Gulf unsafe for

shipping, concluding that, according to the evidence before it, there was not, at the relevant time,
any actual impediment to commerce or navigation between the territories of Iran and the United
States. The Court accordingly rejects the United States counter-claim for reparation.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva;
Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka; Judge ad hoc Rigaux;

Registrar Couvreur. - 3 -

Vice-President Ranjeva and Judge Koroma append declarations to the Judgment of the
Court; Judges Higgins, Parra-Aranguren and Kooijmans append separate opinions to the Judgment

of the Court; Judge Al-Khasawneh appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court;
Judge Buergenthal appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Elaraby
appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judges Owada and Simma and
Judge ad hoc Rigaux append separate opinions to the Judgment of the Court.

A summary of the Judgment is published in the document entitled "Summary No. 2003/2",
to which a summary of the declarations and opinions is attached. The present Press Release, the
summary and the full text of the Judgment also appear on the Court's website under the "Docket"

and "Decisions" headings (www.icj-cij.org).

Information Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretaryof the Court (tel: +31 70 302 2336)

Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officers (tel: +31 70 302 2337)
E-mail address: [email protected]