SECTION A
-
ORAL PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING 1NTER:iM
MEASURES OF PROTECTION
PUBLIC SITTINGS
heldat thePeacePalace,TheHague,on.June 30thandJuly 51h,I95r.
the President, M. Basdevant,9residing
SECTION A
PROCÉDURE ORALE CONCERNANT
LES MESURES CONSERVATOIRES
SRANCES PUBLIQUES
tenues au Palais de la Paix, La Haye, lesetjjuillet 1951
sous la firéside M. Basdevant, Président MINUTES OF THE SITTINGS HELD
ON JUNE 30th AND JULY )th, 19j1
YEAR 1951
ELEVENTH PUBLIC SITTING (30 VI 51, 10.30 a.in.)
Present : President BASDEVAN TVice-President GUERRERO ; Judges
ALVAREZH , ACKWORTH W,IAIARSKIZ ,ORICICD , E VISSCHERS ,ir ARNOLD
MCNAIR,KLAESTAD B,.AI)AWIR,EAD,HSUMO ; Registrar HAMBRO.
' Also present:
For the United Kingdom of'Great Britain and Northern Ireland :
Sir Eric BECKETTK , .C.M.G., Q.C., Legal Adviser, Foreign Office.
The Kight Honourable Sir Frank SOSKICE,Q.C., Rl.P., Attorney-
General.
Professor H. LAUTERPACHT Q,.C., Professor of international law at
the University of Cambridge.
Mr. A. K. ROTHSIE,Eastern Department, Foreign Office.
hlr. H. A. P. Iilsn~l<, Counsei.
Mr. D. H. N. Johnson, Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign Office.
In opening the henring, the PRESIDENTstated that the Coiirt was
meeting to consider the reqiiest for the indication of interiin measures
îf protection, filed on June zznd, 1951, by the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the
Empire of Iran, in the Anglo-Iranian OilCompany, Limited, case, which
had been bronght before the Court by Application of the Government
of the United Kingdom dated May 26th, 1951.
He called upon the Kegistrar to read, in the original text, the interim
measures of which the indication was requested by the United King-
dom Government.
The KECISTRAR read the relevant text of the request'.
The PREslnENr stated that on the day on wliich the request for the
indication of interim measures of protection was filed, a telegram was
of Iran, in order to transmit to him the submissions of the request.irs
In addition, and on the same date, a copy iitextenso of the request
was addressed to him by air mail.
Furtherniore, the Parties had heen duly notified, by telegram dated
June 23rd, of the date fixed for the opening of the present hearing.
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nor-
thern lreland was represeiitcd by :
Sec pp.5'-53. PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES SÉANCES TENUES
LES 30 JUIN ET 5 JUILLET 1951
ONZIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (30 VI51, ro k.30)
Présent: MM. BASDEVANT ,résiden; GUERREROV , ice-Présid;itt
ALVAREZH , ACKWORT WHI,NIARSKI,ZORIEICD , E VISSCHERs,ir ARNOLD
MCNIR, MM.KLAESTAD B,ADAWIR , EAD,HSU MO, juges;M. HA~IDRO,
Grefier.
Présentségalemen t
Pour le Royaume-Uni de Graiidc-Bretagne et d'Irlande dn Nord :
Sir Eric BECKETT , .C.M.G., Q.C., jurisconsulte du Foreign Office.
Le trés lionorable sir Frank SOSKICE,Q.C.,M.P., Attorney-Genernl.
Le professeur H. LAUTERPACHT Q,.C., professeur de droit intema-
tionalà l'université de Cambridge.
II. A. K. KOTHXIE,Eastern Department, Foreign Office.
M. H. A. P. FISHER,avocat.
Al.D. H. N. JOHNSONc ,onseiller juridique adjoint, Foreign Office.
Le PKÉSIDENTo , uvrant l'audience, déclare que la Cour se réunit
déposéelein22 juin 1951, par le Gouvernement du Royaunie-Uni des,
Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord contre l'Empire d'Iran, dans
l'affaire de 1'Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Limited, qui avait étéintro-
duite devant la Cour par une requêtedu Gouvernement du Royaume-
Uni en date du 26 mai 1951.
II prie le Greffierde donner lecture, dans le texte original. des mesures
conservatoires dont l'indication est demandée par le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni.
Le GREFFIERdonne lecture des passages pertinents de la demande'.
Le PRESIDENT rappelle que le jour mêmedu dépôt de la demande
en indication de mesures conservatoires, un télégramme aétéenvoyé
par le Greffier de la Cour au ministre des Affaires étrangeres de l'Iran,
outre, eàdla mêmedate, copie in extensode la demande a étéadressée
au ministre par lettre-avion.
D'autre part. les Parties ont étédîiment aviséespar télégrammedu .
23 juin de la date fixéepour l'ouverture de l'audience.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne ct d'Irlande
du Nord est représentépar :
VOU pp. 51-53399 SITTINGS OF JUNE 30th AKD JULY jth, 1951
Sir Eric BECKETTK , .C.M.G., Q.C., Legal Adviser, Foreign Office,
as Agent;
assisted by :
The Right Honourable Sir Frank SOSKICE,Q.C., Al.P., Attorney-
General,
Professor H. LAUTERPACHT Q,.C., Professor of international law at
theUniversity of Cambridge,
MI. H. A. P. FISHER, Memher of the English Bar,
Mr. D. H. N. JOHNSON, Assistant Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office,
as Counsel
The fifinister for Foreign Mairs of Iran had communicated to the
Court a telegram dated June 29th. 1951, in which he stated the reasons
for which his Government considered that the Court should reject
the request for the indication of interim measures of protection.
The President called upon the Agent of the Government of the
United Kingdom, or if he preferred, upon his Counsel.
Sir Eric BECKETT said that Sir Frank Soskice would address the
Court on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Sir Frank SOSKICEsubmitted the statement reproduced in the
annex '.
(The Court adjourned from I p.m. to 3.30 p.m.)
in the annexS'.KICE continued and coinpleted the statement reproduced
The Court rose at 5.50 p,m
(Signed) BASDEVANT,
President.
(Signed) E. HAMBRO.
Registrar.
TWELFTH PUBLIC SITTING (5 vil 51, 3.30 @.m.)
Present: President B,\SDEVAN TVice-President GUERRERO ; Judges
ALVAREZH , ACKWORTH \V,INIARSKIZ ,ORIEICD , E VISSCHERS,ir ARNOLD
MCXAIR,KLAESTADB , ADAWI,READ, HSU MC) ; Regislrar HAMBRO.
Also present :
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland :
His Excellency Sir PHII~IPNICHOLSK , .C.M.G., M.C., His Britaiiiiic
Majesty's Ambassador at The Hague ;
Seepp. 401-413.
' ., 4'3.425. SÉANCES DES 30 JUIN ET 5 JUILLET 1951 399
Sir Eric BECKETT,K. C. M.G., Q.C., jurisconsulte du ministère des
Affaires étrangères, ,
comme agent ;
assistépar:
Le très honorable sir Frank SOSKICEQ , .C., M.P., Attorney-General,
le professeur H. LAUTERPACHQ T.,C., professeur dedroit international
à l'université de Cambridge,
M. H. A. P. FISHER,membre du barreau anglais,
M. D. H. N. JOHNSONj,urisconsulte adjoint an ministère des Affaires
Ctrangères,
\
comme conseils.
Le ministre des Affaires étrangères de l'Iran a fait tenirà la Cour
un télégramme, endate du 29 juin 1951, dans lequel il expose les motifs
pour lesquels son gouvernement estime que la Cour devrait rejeter la
demande en indication de mesures. conservatoires.
Le Président donne la paroleà l'agent du Gouvernement du Royaume-
Uni ou, s'il le préfereà son conseil.
Sir Eric BECKETT annonce que sir Frank Soskice prendra la parole
au nom du Royaume-Uni.
Sir Frank SOSKICE présente l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.
(L'audience, interrompue à 13 heures, est reprise à 15 h. 30.)
Sir Frank SOSXICE poursuit et termine l'exposéreproduit en annexe'.
L'audience est levée à 17 heures jo.
Le Président de la Cour,
(Signé)BASDEVANT.
Le Greffier de la Cour,
(Signé) E. HAMBRO.
DOUZIl?hlE SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (5 vii 51, 15 h.30)
Prése?it: hfhl. BASDEVANT P,résident.; GUERREROV , ice-Préside;t
ALVAREZ H,ACKWORTH \, 'INIARSKZI,ORI~ICD, E VISSCHERs,ir ARNOLD
MCNAIR,hfM. KLAESTADB ,ADAWIR , EAD,HSUMO,jlcges ;M.HAMBRO,
Grefier.
Sont présentségalemen l
Pour le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord :
Son Exc. sir PHII.IPNICHOLSK , . C.hl. G., M.C., ambassadeur extra-
ordinaire et plénipotentiaire de Grande-Bretagne à La Haye ;
\loirpD. 413-425.400 SITTING OF JULY 5th, 1951
MI. D. H. N. JOHNSON, Legal Adviser (Research), Foreign Office ;
hlr. J. P. GARRANC ,ounsellor, British Embassy, The Hague :
hlr. R. W. SELBY, First Secretary, British Embassy, The Hague
The PRESIDENTi,n opening the hearing, stated that the Court had
met forthe reading of the Order which it had made on the Request for
Interim Measures of Protection, presented by the Govemment of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland on Juiie zznd,
1951 ,n the proceedings instituted by the Application of that Govem-
ment, dated May z6th, 1951 against the Imperia1 Government of Iran
conceming the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
In accordance with the provisions of Article58 of the Statute, the
Parties had been duly notified of the reading of thiser at the present
hearing.
An officialcopy of the Order would be handed to the Representative
of the Govemment of the United Kingdom who was present in Court.
The President added that the Court had decided that the English
text of the Order would be tlie authoritative text, but thathe would
read the French text.
The President read the French text of the Order 1.
He called upon the Kegistrar to read the operative part of tlie Order
in English.
The REGISTRAR read the relevant text.
The PRESIDEKT stated that Judges Winiarski and Badawi, declaring
that they were unable to concur in the Order of tlie Court, had appended
to thc Order the joint statement of tlieir dissenting opinion.
The President declared that the hearing was closed.
The Court rose at 4 p.m.
(Sig~led) BASDEVANT,
President.
(Signed) E. HAMBRO,
Registrar.
' See Reporis of Judgments, Advirory Opinions and Ordcrs p.~oo(Sales
No. 64). SÉANCE DU 5 JUILLET 1951 400
hl.D. H. N. Jo~ssos, conseiller juridique adjoin;
M.J. P. GARRANc ,onseilleà l'ambassade de Grande-Bretagne .i La
Haye ;
M.R. W. SELBY,premier secrétaire à l'ambassade du Royaume-Uni
à La Have.
Le PRÉSIDENTo,uvrant l'audience, annonce que la Cour seréunit pour
le vrononcéde l'ordonnance rendue par elle sur la demande en indication
demesures conservatoires. qu'a préséntélee Gouvernement du Royaiime-
Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, le 22 juin 1951, dans
l'instance introduite par requ&te de ce gouvernement, à la date du
26 mai 1951, contre le Gouvernement impérial de l'Iran, à propos de
I'Anglo-lranian Oil Company.
Il rappelle que, conformément aux dispositions de l'article 58 du
Statut, les Parties ont été dûmentprévenues qu'ilserait donné lecture
de l'ordonnance au cours de la présente audience.
Une expédition officielle de l'ordonnance est remise entre les mains
du représentant du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, présent à l'audience.
Le Président ajoute que la Cour a décidéque le texte anglais de
l'ordonnance ferait foi; ilen donnerait lecture en français.
Le Président donne lecture, en français, du texte de l'ordonnance '.
11invite le Greffiàrdonner lecture, en anglais, du dispositif.
Le GREFFIERprocède à cette lecture.
Le PRESIVENT indique que MN. Winiarski et Badawi, n'étant pas en
mesure de se rallier aux dispositions adoptéespar la Cour dans l'ordon-
nance, ont joint à celle-ci l'exposéde leur opinion dissidente.
Le Président déclare que la session est close.
L'audience est levéeA.16 heures.
Le Présideiit de la Cour,
(SignéB )ASDEVANT.
Le Greffier de la Cour,
(Signé ). HAIIBR~.
' Voir Recueil deArréls. Aois .conrulleliOrdortna~icerrg5p.roo (nide
ventc 64). ANNEX TO THE MINUTES
ANNEXE AUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX
STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE
[Public sittingofJz~ne30th. 1951, morning]
May it please the Court.
Before 1 hegin to state the grounds on which the Government of the
United Kingdom is asking the Court to indicate intenm measures, 1
wish to express to the Court the appreciation which the Government
of the United Kingdom feels for the prompt steps which you have taken
in conformity with the Rules of Court to assemble and consider our
Request. 1 need not labour the point that the Request for Interim
Aleasures which we have made is indeed of the greatest urgency. The
Court will have read in our Request of the situation which actually
exists at the moment in Iran, and 1 shall have at a later stage iii my
speech to recite further facts and incidents which have occurrednce
the Request was filed.
The Court will recall that the Government of the United Kingdom,
in the Application which it made to the Court on 26th May 1951,
reserved the riglit to request the Court, in accordance with Article.41
ought to he taken to protect the right of the Government of the Unitedh
Kingdom that its national, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Limited,
should enjoy the rights to which it is entitled under the concession
granted by the Iranian Government in 1933. The Government of the
United Kingdom did not at that time think it proper to make such
a reqiiest to the Court, because it still hoped thaa settlement by
agreement might he reached between the Iranian Government ancl the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Company agreed to send a special
delegation to Tehran for conversations with the Iranian Government,
and the Iranian Government had agreed to receive this delegation.
The Government of the United Kingdom wished to do nothing which
could possibly prejudice the conversations and reduce the chances of
reaching a settlement. The Company's delegation arrived in Tehran
on 11th and 12th Juue, and the conversations began immediately.
At an early stage, however, it became apparent that the Iranian
but merely insisted that the Company should accept the oil nation-
alization law of 1st May 19j1referred to in paragraph 4 of the Uiiited
Kingdom Application, and should CO-operatein carrying out its terms
without any alteration ad. As the Court will appreciate, the Compaiiy
was iinable to accede to such a proposal, since in the first place it is
its contention (as it is the contention of the Government of the Uiiited402 STATEJIENT BY SIR FR4P;K SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
King<loiii tliat th,: r93:$ Suiii.~iiti<~iiîniinoI>e :,nniillcd or :~ltq.rcJ
esccpt \vit11 tliciigrcciiiciit otli?L'onipnn!.or iiri(li.tli,1i:rrnsof the
Conventioii. xiid tlint the ;~nnullrnc>nt r ;iItcratioii \i.Ii~cIithc 1rtiiii.in
Government lin; 1>iirportetItu ~iiact 1)) tlie oil ii;itiuiiali~.;itionlnu is
3 brc:icli of tlic Convention aiid coritr:in tu iritenintioiinl la\v ;and
in the second place, even if the Company \vas prepared to agree in
pnnciple to some form of nationalization, it could not agree to, or
CO-operatein executing, an enactment which refers ta the Company
as the "Former Anglo-lranian Oil Conipniiy" and purports to dispossess
it forthwith of its property and undertaking. The Iranian Government
was not prepired, however, to continiie the conversations with the
Company on any other basis and the negotiations thereforc terminated
on 19th June. It was then apparent tliat there was no possibility hy
negotiation of persuading the Iranian Government to refrain from
proceeding with the execution of the oil nationalization law and taking
steps in relation to the property aiid the undertaking of the Anglo-
Iranian Oil Company in Iran which might irrcparahly damage such
property and prejudice the Company. In these circumstances the
Government of the United Kingdo~n has no alternative but to lodge
an immediate request that the Court should indicate interim measures
of protection. ,
The Court will recall that in its Application of 26th May, the Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom asked the Court ta declare that the
Iranian Government is under a duty to submit the dispute between
itself and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to arbitration, and ta coinply
with any award of the arbitral tribunal. Altematively, the Govem-
ment of the United Kingdom asked the Court to declare that the
putting into effect of the Iranian Oil Nationalization Act, in so far as
it purports to effect a unilateral annulment or alteration of tlie terms
of the Convention, would be an act contrary to international law for
which the Iranian Government would be internationally responsible
and that hy rejecting arbitration in accordance with the Convention,
the Iranian Government has committed a denial of iustice aeainst
the Company contrary to international law. Further. the Gove&nent
of the United Kingdom asked the Court to declare that the Convention
cannot lawfully be aniiulled or its terms altered by the Iranian
Government otherwise than by agreemcnt with the Company or as pro-
vided in the Convention, and lastly to award satisfaction atid indem-
nity for acts committed by the Iranian Government contrary to inter-
national law. The right of the Governmcnt of the United Kingdom
for the protection of which the Court is now asked to indicate provisional
measures is the right that its national, the Company, should be treated
in accordance with international law and should have the full benefit
of its rights under the Convention. The Government of the United
Kingdom seeks, pending the decision of the merits of its Application,
to secure that no action should be taken by the Iranian Govemment
capable of excrcising a prejudicial effect in regard ta the execution of
a decision in favour of the United Kinedom. The Dresent actioiis and
threats of the Iranian Government are &ch that if'they continue they
may render it impossible or at the least very-difficult to execute a .udg.
ment in favour of the United Kingdom.
It may be for the convenience of the Court if, at the outset, 1 give
a short account of the facts which have led us to make the present STATEhIENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
403
request. As the Court will know, the Concession convention of 1933
was concluded between the Iranian Govemment and the Anglo-Iranian
Oil Company after negotiations carned out in Tehran. These negotia-
tions were instituted following on the cancellation by the Iranian
Govemment of a previous concession and the submission hy the Gov-
emment of the United Kingdom of the dispute arising therefrom to
the Council of the League of Nations. The concession was operated
for many years after 1933 and any differences which arose were settled
by negotiation between the Iranian Government and the Company.
In 1948 conversations took place with a view to concluding a supple-
mental agreement to take accoiint of certain changes in the economic
situation since 1933. and in July a supplemental agreement was signed
under which thc royalties and other sums payable to the Iranian Gov-
emment were to be greatly increased. This agreement could not come
into effect until it had been approved by the Iranian Parliament. No
decision was taken on the agreement prior to the dissolution of Parlia-
ment in July 1949. A new Parliament was convened in Febmary ,1950
. which in June 1950 referrcd the agreement to a parliamentary corn-
mission reported against the agreement and in January 1951 the Plajlis
confirmed the report of the commission. In March 1951 the chairman
of the commission (who is now the Prime Minister of Iran) proposed
that the oil industry throughout Iran should be nationalized. In March
the hlajlis instructed the commission to study the question of nation-
alization and on the 26th April the commission approved the text of
a Bill giving immediate effect to the principle of nationalization. The
Bill was passed suhstantially in the terms proposed and became law
on the 1st May.
The events which followed up to the zrst June 1951 are set out in
the appendix to the Request forthe Indication of Provisional 31easiires.
which was presented on the zznd June, and 1 need not repeat them.
Since that Request was filed the course of events has been as follows.
1 ..ve them chronoloeicallv. Thev al1 show the Iranian Govemment
cnforcing its oil ii;itioGlizaiion In\;,,oiistii~gthe Cornpari) frr,iiizontrol,
re<1111rinlic Coiiip:iiiy'scml~loyecsto bccome ser\,aiits of the Sntion:il
Irariiari Oil i:ornli:~n),,the 13ritislipersi.riiit:ldrclilittr;iri;ferred
iiitliis rn:inncr, oil prodtiction drul>l)iiig;ind indt,cd ttie t,egin<if:
tlic coiiseqiiences i<l.iswcrc forcsh:ido\rcd in the I:nitcd Iiin~-loin
Govemment's request of the zznd June.
On June 13th. the Company's general manager was asked by the
temporary board of management of the National Iranian OilCompany
for a statement of export sales proceeds from 20th March 1951 to
11th June 1951, and to hand over to the tcmporary board 75 0/o of
al1cash received from the Iranian undertaking after 11th June.
On 13th June, the temporary board issued a Press advertisenient
in the Tehran Press calling on al1perçons importing Iranian oil to deal
only with that board Iienceforward.
On 19th June, at a meeting with the temporary bonrd, the Company
discharged for subversive activities.hom the Company had previously
On 20th Jnne, decrees were passed by the Persian Council of Ministers
to the following effect:404 STATESIEST Bi' SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 \'151
(a) No operational instructions issued by the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Com~anv manaeement shoiild be valid unless countersiened bv
the &mporary Goard. s,
Persian officialsshould take over the installations of the Kerman-
shah Petroleum Co., Ltd. (a subsidiary of Anglo-Iraiiian Oil
Company), at Kennanshah and Naft-i-Shah in West Persia.
Persian officials were to assume the supervision of the Anglo-
Iranian Oil Company's Tehran Office and its sales organisation
in Persia.
(d) The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company information departments in
Persia should be closed.
(e) The name of the National Iranian Oil Company should take the
place of the name of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on al1
Company name boards in Iran.
(1) Al1Anglo-Iranian Oil Company revenues received froin interna1
sales in Iran should be depositecl in Government accounts.
On zrst June, a largc crowd of persons forced their way iiito the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's principal office at Tehraii, destroyed a
large electnc sign on the premises bearing the Anglo-Iraiiian Oil Compa-
ny's name ; another crowd demolished the signboard of an Anglo-
Iranian Oil Company's sub-officein Tehran, and other crowds in Tehran
of its road oil tankers.aiiian Oil Company's inonogram sign on certain
On the same day, Persian police forcibly closed the siib-office at
Tehran rented by the Anglo-lranian Oil Company for the use of its
information department and stopped al1 postal mail to and from that
sub-office.
On zrst June, the oil Company's name board was removed hy the
police from its general office at Khorramshahr.
On the same day, the Company'sgeneralmanager (Mr.Drake) received
letters addressed to him personally by the temporary board of the
National Iranian Oil Company containing instructions which included
the following :
(a) To refrain from granting leave to members of Iiis staff.
(b) To inforrn all concerned that orders issued by the Anglo-Iranian
Oil Company were not valid without countersignature by the
National Iranian Oil Company managing board.
(c) To dissolve the Angl--Iranian Oil Compan. In.ormation Depart-
ment at Abadan.
(d) To delete the name "Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" on al1 instal-
lations in South Iran.
(e) To hand over the proceeds of al1sales of oil in Iran to the local
Government office representing the Persian hlinistry of 1* "inance.
On the ~1st June, a Bill was presented to the hfajlis witli "double
urgency" against persons engaging "treacherously or with ill-intent in
activities in connection with the operation of the Persian NationalOil
Industry". The text of the Bill is as follows :
"For a vear from the date of a~~roval of tbis law. anv Dersons
engaging <reacherously or with ill-;;tent in activities in coniection
with the operation of the Persian National Oil Industry, resulting
in cuttingaoil pipelines or rendenng unserviceable rélineries OÏ
facilities or transport of oil, or causing fire in oil wells or oil-storage STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51 405
tanks or cniisiiig destriicrioii of raiIo:,). lines. r;iilu.;i!.tunncls, r~il-
iv:iyhridges or rulliiigstuck. sli:illhccundcrnned to pcn;ilties rtinging
froiii tcrni)orarv imi~risonnieiir\vit11Ii;ird I:il,i>iirto cseciition. The
same pen~lties'willbe applied to instigaton and accomplices as to
those actually committing the crime. These offences shall be dealt
with by military courts."
It will benoted that the penalties under this Bill range from imprison-
ment with hard labour to the death penalty, and that offences uiider
"double urgency" Billltmeans that it may be debated and passed at onea
sitting of the Majlis. According to the latest reports it is likely that the
Bill will be debated on Sunday. 1st July.
On the night of the zrst/?znd June, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
printing works at Abadan were forcibly seized on hehalf of the Persian
Govemment delegation and the printers were compelled by threats to
print certain forms of receipt which were then removed by perçons acting
on behalf of the temporary board. These receipts contained an acknow-
ledgement that oil received on board tankers was received from the
National Iranian Oil Company, the consignee being responsible for
payment of the purchase price. The Persian authoritiesdemanded receipts
in this fonn from masters of oil tankers in port at Abadan for oil exports
with the threat that. if thev did not sian these documents in res~ect of
cargoes londed by thcm, port clcarancë \r,oiild be refiiscd Tlic ieneral
mtinliger refiised to comply biit auttiorizcd the issue by stiiys' c;iptains
of tokcn reccivts indicatine the amount of oil cxvorted in each casc.
reached between the general manager and the Persian authoritieswas
whereby the receipts demanded by the latter would be endorsed in the
following sense :
"While 1 do not admit on behalf of my principals any implications
in the ahove receipt that the National Iranian Oil Company has
any title to the oil nor do 1 admit any liability on the part of the
consignees to make payment for a particular shipment, 1 certify
that the above quantity has been shipped as stated."
On the 23rd June, thè Persian authonties demanded an oil receipt in
the following lems :
"National Iranian Oil Company Receipt for Shipments of Oil.
1, the undersigned, Captain of ss. ..... have received at
Abadan, as per bill of lading No. .... ......
tons of oil for the account of. ..... and deliveq to ...
... at destination port ......
Signed. .....
Master."
In reply to this demand the general manager of the Company was
empowered to autborize signature of such receipts provided the following
words were added : "1 have signed this receipt without prejudice to the
right of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company." This endorsement was subse-
qiiently refused by the Persian authorities.
30406 STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICIi (u.K.)-30 VI 51
On the same day, the ~3rd June, a iiumber of letten were addressed
personally to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's general manager, hfr.
Drake, by the temporary board of directors of the National Iranian Oil
Company. One of these letters claimed that Afr.Drake had not complied
an officetoideal with the export of oil products, including the collection
of receipts from tankers carrying oil. This letter usenton to call attention
to the fact that, on the zznd June, tankers had either refused to give
the required receipt or had wished to make certain reservations therein
which, it was contended, rendered the receipt invalid;it was claimed that
"this policy can mean nothing but ill-intentions and sabotage" and that
if any dela occurred in esport operations and if tankers refused to take
delivery 07 oil, the general rnauager would be held responsible. The
ailegation that the general manager had agreed to set up such an office
is, in point of fact, quite groundless.
The remaining letters addresscd to hlr. Drake on the ~3rd June
purported to give instructions :
(a) Nominating two Persians not in the Company's service to super-
vise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's information department
(described as "The former propaganda department") on behalf
of the National lranian Oil Company managing board.
(b) Directing that certain rail tank-cars of the Persian State Railway,
normally used at the Anglo-Ii-anian Oil Company's discretion for
the carriage of oils to Central Persia, should be filled immediately
with oil products.
(c) Directing application for oil cargoes to be made by au incoming
tankers to the National Iranian Oil Com~anv Board. and reauinne
an undertaking to sign without endorsement the ~ational lianian
Oil Company form of receipt for oils exported.
On the same day, the 23rd June, the sales manager at Tehraii was
instructed by the Persian Government to liand over to the National
Iranian Oil Company al1cash received frorn sales of oil in I'ersia aiid was
la011 the 24th June, similar directions were given to the distribution
managers at Ahwaz, Abadan and Masjid-i-Sulaiinan.
On the 25th June, the general manager, hfr. Drake, received a letter
from the temporary board of management referring to an enquiry
previously made whether he was willing to continue service under the
supervision of the board, and warning him that if he did not reply by
8 am. on the 28th June and also facilitate the activities of the temporary
board, he would be regarded as having resigned and would be rcplaced
by a nominee of the board.
On the same day,the 25th June, a further letter was received addressed
to the general manager by the temporary board of management of the
National Iranian Oil Company stating itiEeraliathat no cheques might
be issued by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company unless countersigned by
accountants nominated by the temporary board.
On the same day, the 2jth June, 31r. Drake, the general manager,
had an interview with the temoorarv board. at which the board refiised
to withdrau. their letter chargihg hi& with ;abotage. In the circuinstan-
ces, and in view of the terms of the Bill which 1 have read to tlie Coiirt,
the general manager left tlie country. STATE.\IEXT Bi' SIK FKAXK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 YI 51
407
Again on the same day, the 25th June, a large number of British
registered tankers were prevented from sailing from Abadan with
cargoes of oil unless they si ned receipts in a fom which was unaccepl-
able to the Angle-Irani C on pany.]
On 26th June, 13 tankers loaded with oil cargoes had to be instructed
to pump their cargoes ashore as othenvise the Iranian authorities an-
'ounced their intention of detaining them.
On 26th June, again the Customs authorities at Abadan refused to
allow certain aviation spirit storage to be refüled and in consequence
pumping of furtlier supplies of this spirit to Basra in Iraq by the Anglo-
IrOn 26th June, Persian soldiers were stationed on the jetty at Abadan,
whïch is used for conveying from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Compariy's
workshops on shore to ships in port machinery which has been undergoing
necessary repairs, and also marine stores necessary for the working of
the ships ; these soldiers interfered with the bandling of this material
and with the movement of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company employees.
At 9.25 in the morning on 28th June, five members of the temporary
board entered the office of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's general
manager at Kborramshahr and informed his deputy that they were
taking over the offices. The general manager's deputy was accordingly
obliged after protest to leave the offices in the hands of the Persian
aiithorities;his staff were also in consequence obliged to leave the build-
ing, from which they iiormally discharge their duties.
hlr. President and Members of the Court. 1have now set out the facts
as tliey Ii;i\,ciinfolded tliemsel\~r.sto 1\\.oiil<lnoiv Iructiini to th*:
of-jurisprudence which may seem to have a relevance in this cinnection.s
The Government of the United Kingdom have been compelled to make
this Request for Interim Measures of Protection at a stage at which the
Court has not yet determined whether it has jurisdiction to entertain
the Application submitted on 26th May.
1 will. therefore. first address myself to the question whether the
Court should indicate provisional measures without having previously
determined that it has jurisdiction to try the case on the merits.
\iTe have, Mr. President and Members of the Court, given careful
consideration to this question. In our submission there is no doubt
whatsoever that that question must be answered in the affirmative. It
must be answered in the affirmative having regard to the previous
iuris~rudencc of the Court in tliis matter: to the nractice of other
intcrkitioiinl trii~iii;.,iicltu tlic iin;iniinoiis viesr of'\~Iii,h;it.c
in\.esiiq:it~tliii<lii>:ition.'flicre .ire, in ndditiiiiiiiv siil)iiiissioii
theIt will bc convcnient, Mr. Prcsident;mdthMembers of the Court, if, in
the first instance,1 recall the jurisprudence and the pronouncements
of the Court on the subject. On 8th January 1927. the President of the
Court issued an order for interim measures of protection in the case
between Belgium and China arising out ofthe denunciation of the Trenty
of 1565 between those two countries. At the time when the order was
made, China had not expressly accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.
In making the order, the President indicated : "fwovisionally,pending
the finaldecision of the Courtin the case submitted by the Application of
November zgth, 1926-by whicli decision the Court will either declare STATEMEXT BY SIR FRASK SOSXICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
408
atself 10 have no jurisdiction or giue jztdgment on the merits....", the
various measures of protection. In the second Order in the same case,
the Court once more put on record the fact that the Order for Interim
Rleasures of Protection was made independently of the question whether
the Court had jurisdiction to deal with the case on the merits. It recailed
"that the present suit has been brought by unilateral application and
that. as the time allowed for the filina of the Counter-Case has not
expired, the respondent has not had an ~ppwtunity of indicnting whether
he acceptsthe Court'sjz~risdictionin this case". That is at page IO of the
record: -.
Another case in which an order relating to interim measures of protec-
tion was made before the Court accepted jurisdiction on the merits was
that made on 11th May 1933 in the case concerning the Administration
of the PririceuoizPless (Series A/B, No. 54, at page 153). Thelast recital
preceding the operative part of the Order was as follows:
"Whereas,furlhermre, the present Ordermust in no way prejudge
either the questionof the Court's jurisdiction 10 adjudicate upon the
German Government's A+plication lnslituting Proceedings of May
18th, 1932. or that of the admissibility of that Application."
Professor Hudson instances the Order made in this case as siibstantiat-
ing the proposition that the Court's ~urisdiction to indicate provisional
measures is not dependent upon a previous determination as to its
jurisdiction on the merits (Parmanelit Court of International Jlutice,
2nd edition 1943, p. 425. No. 12). The comment of the late M.Hammars-
kjold, the Registrar and subsequently Judge of the Court, on the case-
as an example of an order of interim protection prior to determination
of jurisdiction on the merits- is worthy of quotation.
After explaining that the particular Order made in that case could
in the circumstances be regarded asthe equivalent of an interim protec-
tion order. he continued aç follows (1 hope the Court wili excuse my
imperfect French accent; but 1 think it will be more convenient if 1cite
from the original text) :
"L'exposé des motifs de l'ordonnance explique qu'en rendant
celle-ci,ula Cour entend ne préjuger en rien la question de sa propre
compétencen. Elle a donc confirmé la doctrine selon laquelle elle
peut, le cas échéant,indiquer des mesures conservatoires avant
d'avoir constaté que le fondde l'affaire rentre dans sa jiirisdiction
...." (Zeitschrift für auslindisches offentliches Recht und Volker-
recht, V (1935)~p. 19.)
Finally, the concluding "recital" in the case concerning the Polish
Agrarian Heform and the German Minority (Interim Measiiresof Protec-
tion, Series A/B, No. 58) indirectly shows that jurisdiction in the matter
of interim measures is independent of assumption of jurisdiction on the
merits. There the Court dismissed the request of the German Govemment
for the indication of interim measures of orotection for the reason t~~t
tlie rzqiicst \vas too inde,Iti i1e~i;iuri~o\;,cYc'~.n tti;icase \vas esprcs-
scd to be "irrespective uf the qiicstion wtictticr it ni:iy bc cxpcdicnt fur
tlie Coiirt in other cÿses to cxtriisc its \io\vcr to nct pr,Jprio molit,and
without in ;<ny%va)p 'rejiidging tlic question of its ua.n jiiri;dictioii tu
adjiiilicate iipon thc Ccrmtin Govcriiiiicnt's ;ip~~licatiuiiiiiititiiting STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (TJ.K.)-30 VI 51 409
proceedings" (p. 179). M. Hammarskjold, in the article to whicli 1 have
just referred, treated that Order as illustrating the principle that the
indication of interim measures is indepeudent of the question of jiiris-
diction. Professor Hudson expresses the same view in his treatise on the .
Court (op.cit., p. 425. No.IZ),decided by the Mixed Arbitral Trihunals
which illustrate the same principle of the independence of interim
protection from any previous positive affirmation of jurisdiction. 1 will
not give a detailed account of these cases, and, with your permission,
Mr. President, 1 will confine myself to drawing your attention to the
relevant passages in one of the most instructive cases in this group,
namely, that of Couut Hadik-Barcoczy v. Czech State, decided on the
31st Januaxy 1928, by the Hungarian-Czechoslovak Mixed Arbitral
Tribunal. This was an action for the restitution of land which had been
expropriated by Czechoslovakia in pursuance of a scheme of agrarian
reform. Pending a decision on the merits, the plaintiff asked the Court
to issue an injunction restraining the defendant, (1) from altering the
legal condition of the property and in particular from alienating it ;
(2)from subjecting the property to measures of forced administration.
On Octoher 17th, 1927.the president of the Tribunal issueda provisional
injunction, pending the forma1hearing of both parties. At the hearing it
was contended by Czechoslovakia that the grant of an injunction would
preludge the question of the jurisdiction of the Court. The Tribunal
rejected that contention, and 1 will, if 1 may, cite from the Tribunal's
statement of the priuciples applicable :
"Il suffit que son incompétence ne soit pas manifeste,
évidente. II est cla- que dans ce cas le tribunal ne pourrait entrer
en matière :.... L'Etat défendeurprétend que cet article" (i.e. the
relevant article of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal) "n'est
point applicable en l'espèce;'les demandeurs, au contraire, répon-
dent qu'ils sont en bon droit pour l'invoquer. La question est
ouverte, et le tribunal peut aborder l'examen de la demande de
mesures conservatoires, sans préjuger la question de compétence,
en gardant au contraire toute sa liberté pour se prononcer sui. ce
point, lorsque l'instruction de la demande sera terminée et après
clôture des débats. Il eut et doit réserver l'éealitédes ~arties sur
ce point. Or, refuser de prendre des mesure<coiiserva~oires pour
le seul motif qu'une demande exceptionnelle d'incompétence a
étédéposée,serait ouvrir une voie bien simple à toute partie qui
voudrait éviter qu'il soit pris contre elle des mesures conserva-
toires, et ce serait rendre absolument illusoire la faculté assurée
au tribunal par l'article 33 de son règlement. II suffiraià la partie
défenderesse, qui se sentirait gênée,d'introduire une exception
d'incompétence pour empècher ainsi le tribunal d'assurer pendant
la durée du procès la conservation de l'objet di1 litige ou d'une
façon générale l'égalité depsarties en cours du procès.
soin, en vérifiant la légitimitéd'une demande de mesures conser-
vatoires, d'entrer dans l'examen des moyens invoqués par les
parties pour ou contre sa compétence au fond." (Revue générale
de Droit international public,Vol. 35, 1928.p. 65.)
1 should perhaps point out to the Court that Article 33 to which
reference is made in this passage conferred on the Tribunal in one410 STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
respect a somewhat wider jurisdiction with regard to interim orders
than Article 41 of the Statute of this Court, in that it was competent
for the Tribunal under Article 33 to make such an order before filing
the application instituting proceedings. But 1 submit that this difference
does not materially affect the statement of principle.
There are other cases decided by the hlixed Arbitral Tribunals which
their names: Ungarische Erdgas Aktiengesellschaft v. Gtat roumainust cite
decided on 4th July 1925, hy the Roumanian-Hungarian Mixed Arbitral
Tribunal ; FrédéricHenri v. SociétéRheinische Stahlwerke, decided on
30th Octoher 1920 by the Franco-Germai1 Mixed Arbitral Tribunal ;
Diebolt v. SociétéOsterreichischerVerein et $tut autrichien, decided on
26th March 1925 by the Franco-Austrian hlixed Arbitral Tribunal ;
The Gramophone Co., Ltd., v. The Dentsche Gramophon Aktieligesell-
schafland thePolyphonwerke Aktiengesellschaft,decided on 17th January,
25th March and 29th htarch 1922by the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral
Tribunal ;Frauenverein Sza~zotnlyv. Polish State, decided on 4th March
1925 by the Polish-Gennan Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, and Tiedemaim
v. État bolonais. decided on zrst Mav xazz,bv ,-e Po<ish-Gennan
Mixed ~kbitral ~rihunal.
1 will not, Mr. President, quote from the judgments in tbese cases,
because it would take me too lone to do so. Perha~s 1 mieht. however.
venture particularly to draw the ~brt's attention t'othe case of ~rauen:
uerein Szanotuly v. Polish State in which the principle is clearly
expressed.
The Court will find a statement of the effect of the decisiou of the
Mixed Arbitral Tribunals in this matter in the following passage in
Dr. Dumbauld's book on interim measures of protection :
"Another important principle emphasized in the jurispnidence
of the hlixed Arbitral Tribunals is that in order to grant interim
measures it is not necessas. to decide whetlier the tribunal has
jurisdiction in the main proceedings on its merits, but it suffices
that prima facie there is a possibility of a decision in favour of
the plaintiff and the tribunal's lack of jurisdiction is not manifest."
(Interim Measures of Protection (1932). p. 144.)
In the same work, Dr. Dumhauld states the principle as being of
general application. He says :
"5.Equally fundamental is the rule that the principal proceedings
(Hauptsache) are in no wise affected by intcrim measures. The
action in chief and the action with a view to security are alto-
gether independent of each other. In rendering its final judgment
the Court is not hound by its interlocutory decisions, and may
disregard it entirely.
6. Consequently jurisdiction to grant protection pendente lite is
not dependent upon jurisdiction in the principal action. From this
it follows that interim measures may be granted before a plea to
the jurisdiction is disposed of ;and that one court may provide
a remedy pendente lite in aid of an action of which another court
has cognizance" (at p. 186).
The author of another book on the same subject, published in 1932,
expresses the same view even more clearly. 1 refer to the monograph, STATEXENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKlCE (u.K.)-30 VI 51 411
in German, of Dr. Niemeyer, entitled Prouisio+zalOrders of the M'orld
Court. Their Object aiid Limits. He rejects emphatically the view that
a decision on jurisdiction is necessary before the Court can make an
order for interim protection. He says :
"This would necessitate an exhaustive examination of the case ;
it would make necessarv an examination of the evidence. In brief,
the exact situation wiuld arise which must be avoided : a pro-
tracted argument which woiild waste time, which would deprive
the provisional measures both of their true character and of their
urgency, and whicli would prejudge the eventual outcome of the
final decision which is in no way connected with the object of
provisional measures. A provisional order given in that way would
achieve onlv a neelieible deeree of its intended effectiveness. It
is, therefor4 clear yhat, for rëasons of practical couvenience, there
is no room for an examination of the question of iurisdictioii on
the merits in connection with a requeç't for interim protection."
(P. 70.)
In the latest edition, published in 1943. of his treatise on the Perma-
nent Court of International Justice, Professor Hudson summarizes the
legal positionas follows :
"Nor is jurisdiction to indicate provisional measures dependent
upon a previous determination of the Court's jurisdiction to deal
with the case on the merits." (At p.425.)
1 inay add, Mr. President and Members of the Court, that there is,
so far as 1 am aware, no writer who has on this question expressad a
view differing from that which 1 am now submitting to the Court.
Quite apart from the opinions expressed by writers on the subject,
there are, 1 suhmit, Mr. President, the strongest practical reasons to
support the view which 1 have presented to the Court. To concede to
a party the right to ask, before any interim order can be made, for a
decision on the question of jurisdiction-a matter which, as the
experience of the Court has shown, may necessitate weeks, if not rnonths,
of oral and uritten pleadings-would altogether frustrate the object
of the request for interim measures of protection. Undoubtedly. it is
conceivable that a party may abuse the right to ask for interim measures
hy asking for them in a case in which it is apparent that the Court
has no jurisdiction on the merits. If that were to happen. the Court
would find means to discourage any such abuse of its process. It in?y
wish to satisfy itself that there is a prima facie case for the exercise
of its jurisdiction. There is nosuch difficulty in the present case. E:oth
Parties have accepted the obligations of the Optional Clauseof Article36
of the Statute of the Court. In these circumstances, 1submit that tliere
can be no doubt that there is, at the very least, a prima faciecase that
the Court has jurisdiction. The principle that the decreeing of interim
relief is not dependent on a decision as to jurisdiction is recognized
in the municipal law of many countries. As such, it may be regarded
principle of law recognized by civilized States, and Dr. Dumbauld,eral
to whose monograph 1 have already referred, lists writers who show
the extent to ivhich this principle has become emhodied in the laws412 STATEMENT BV SIR FRAXK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
of vanous countnes (op. cit., p. 186, Xote 5). May 1 sum up my argu-
ment on this aspect of the case by submitting that my contention is
tnbunalspp;rby opinions of publicistse C;and by considerations of con-
venience and of common sense, and of the general principles of law
which the Statute prescribes as one of the sources of law to be applied
by the Court.
Mr. President and Members of the Court, hiving referred to the
question of jurisdiction, 1 propose now to discuss the effect of the
decision of the Permanent Court of International Tustice as showing
the general priiiciplcs govériiiiigrli~iii<lisnti<iiiof interim inc.isiirrs of
protection. In discussing tlicsc dccisions.1 \r.oiildremind tlie Coiirt tliiit
3 c~rtaiii caiition is necess;inzI>?cniithc Kiilesof tlie l'ern~;inentCuiirt
of International Justice wére altered from time to time and only in
one case, namely the case of the Electricity Conzpanyof So& and Bul-
garia (Interim Measures of Protection), Series A/B, No. 79, decided in
1939,did the Permanent Court of International Justice render a decision
on the basis of mles similar to Article 61 of the Rules of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice. In particular, 1.would point out that before
1931 it was possible for an order for interim measiires of protection to
be made without the parties being heard and even by the President
himself, if the Court was not Sitting. Since 1931 it has heen necessary
for the parties at least to be given an opportunity to be heard, and The
power of the President to make orders for interim measiires of protection
himself has been removed, althoiigh the President has still been left
with the power to "take such measures as may appear to him necessary
in order to enable the Court to give an effectivedecision" (Article 61 (3)
of the Rules of the Court). These changes are not without importance.
The result of restricting the power to order interim measures to the
full Court and of requinngthe parties at least to be given an opportunity
:O be heard has heen, 1 submit. to place the jurisdiction of the Court,
with regard to matters of intenm measures. on a wider basis.
The first request to the Permanent Court of International. Justice
asking for interim measures of protection came from Belgium in 1926.
On November 25th of that year Belgium filed an Application Iiistituting
Proceedings against China in the case of the Benuncialion of the Treaty
of November znd, 186j, between Belgium and China (Senes A, No. 8).
and included in her Application a request that the Courtshould "indicate,
pending jiidgment, any provisional measures to be taken for the pres,er-
vation of rights which may subsequently be recognized as belonging
to Belgium or her nationals" (page 5). On the 8th January 1927, the
President made an order protecting the rights of Belgium in regard
to three matters, namely treatment of nationals, protection agamst
sequestration of property and shipping, and judicial safeguards. The
President stated that "the object of the measures of intenm protection
contemplated by the Statute of the Court is to preserve the respective
nghts of the parties, pending the decision of the Court" (page 6). In
his view the rights in question were "those reserved to Belgium and
to Bel~an nationals in China. bv the Treatv of November 2nd. 1865,
in addytion to those resulting froh non-treaty law" (pp. 7-ô), and theSe
nghts might be prejudiced by certain actions on the part of the Chinese STATE>IENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
413
The ground on which the President in this case based the hnding
that the rights of Belgium'and Belgian nationals were prejudiced was
that, in the event of an infraction of these rights, "such infraction
could not be made good simply by the payment of an indemnity or by
compensation or restitution in some other material form". In principle
it is arguable that if rights are infringed in snch a manner that the
infraction can be made good by indemnity or hy compensation or
restitution in some other material form, when the Court has rendered
its decision, then there is no need for relief pendente lite. On the other
hand, to take this view is to take an extremely limited view of the
institution of interim protection in international law.
1 would submit that President Huber himself did not act on this
view when he made the Order in the Sino-Belgian case, au order in
which he iudicated protection against sequestration or seizure of
"made good simply by the payment of an inderiinity or by compen- be
sation or by restitution in some other material form". Moreover; this
view may have been proper at a time when, as \vas the case before
1931, the Court, and even the President alone, had the power to indicate
interim measures without the parties being heard, but it is no lon er
proper now that interim measures may be indicated only by the ull f
Court and only after both parties have becn given an opportunity to
be heard. Indeed, the Permanent Court of International Justice itself,
in the case of the Electricity Company of Sofia anrl Bulgaria (Series
A/13,No. 79) to whicli 1 shall rcfcr later, has taken the view that it is
in no way bound by such a restrictive interpretation of its powers
under the Statute.
[Pziblic sitli~igof Jzrne 3oth, Igjr,aflernoon]
hlr. President and Members of the court. When the Court rose this
morning 1 was citing riuthority ripon the principlcs on which the Court
exercises its jurisdiction with regard to the grant of interim relief.
The second case involving the question of interim measures of
protection which camc hcfore the Permanent Court of lntcrnational
Justice was the case concernirig the Factory al Chorzdw(Indemnities),
ation instituting proceedings concerning reparation which, she claimed,
was due from Poland by reason of the attitude adopted by the Polish
Government towards the Oberschlesische and Haycrische companies at
the time it took possession of the nitrate factor), at Chorzbw, which
attitude the Court had already, in its Judgment No. 7 dated zjth May
1926 (Series A, No. 7). declared to have been contrary to the Geneva
Convention of 1922. In its Judgment No. 6 dated 26th July 1927
(SeriesA, No. g), the Court decided that it had jurisdiction in the case
and laid down the well-known rule that "it is a principle of iriter-
national law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation
to make reparation in an adequate form. Reparation therefore is the
indispensable coml~lementof a failure to apply a convention and there
is no necessity for this to be stated in the Convention itself" (pa21).
On 14th October 1927, the German Agent submitted a request for
an interim measure of protection claiming that the principle of com-414 STATEMENT BY SIR FRAKK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
pensation had already been recognized and that only the maximum
sum to be paid by Poland was still in doubt. The German Agent further
argued that "unless payment be immediate, the amount of the damage
and of the compensation would considerably increase, and seeing that
the prejudice caused by a fiirther delay would actually be irreparable,
the German Government considers that an interim measure of protection
whereby the Court would indicate to the respondent government the
sum to be paid immediately, as a provisional measure and pending
final judgment, is essential for the protection of the rights of the parties,
whilst the affair is subjztdice".That is a quotation from page 6.
The German claim failed, and it is important to see why it failed.
It failed because, as the Court pointed out (page IO), "The request of
the Geman Government cannot be regarded as relating to the indi-
cation of measures of interim protection, but as designed to obtain
an interim judgment in favour of a part of the relief formulated in
the Application." Xow, in some municipal systems of law (such as
those of France, the Xetherlands, Italy, Spain and the Latin-Amencan
countries), the plaintiff in a case has the right to go before a Court
and ask for an interim judgment in favoiir of his claim. Further, under
these municipal systems of Iaw, the possibility of obtaining an interim
judgment of this sort is almost the only form of relief pendente lite
which is open to the plaintiff. Tliis, however, as was recognized by the
Permanent Court of International Justice in the case concerning the
Factory at Chorzdw(Indemnities), Series A, No. 12, was not thesystem
prescribed l>ythe Statute of that Court, as the Statute of that Court,
like the Statute of the present Court, spoke of "provisional measures
which ought to be taken to presernethe respectiuerights of either $arty".
Company of Sofia and Btrlgarin (Senes AIR, No. 79). means that,ctricity
pending the decision of the Court on the merits of the case, the parties
must "abstain from any measure capable of exercising a prejudicial
effect in regard to the decision to be given". The United Kingdom
Government rvishes to make it absolutely clear that it is not asking
the Court to deliver an interim judgment in favour of any part of the
claims formulated in its Application ;it is merely asking the Court
to indicate measures so thxt the respective rights of eitber Party be
preserved and that the dispute be not aggravated or extended.
In 1932 the well-known case concerning the LegnlStatus of the South-
Eastern Territory of Greenland (Senes A/B, No. 48) came before the
Court. 1 do not propose to deal with this case because the circumstances
of this case were so very different from the circumstances of the present
case. An interim order was refused in that case, but there were many
reasons for such refus:il which are not present in the case which the
Court is now considering. Amongst other reasons 1 may refer to the
view expressed by the Court that in the case of a claim to sovereignty
over a large and sparsely inhabited area the acts complained of could
not possibly prejudice the rights asserted by the parties.
The next case concerning interim measures of protection is the case
concerning the Administration of the Prince von Pless (Interim Measures
of Protection),Series A/B, No. 54. This casc, however, is not precisely
in point on this aspect of iny argument because in the eveiit it was
not necessary for the Court to make an interim order. 1 will therefore
not deal further with the circumstances of this case. STATEIIENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 1'151 415
1come now, Mr. President, to the case conceming the Polish Agrarian
Germany filed an Application on the 1st July 1933, ~nstitnting proceed-
ings against Poland conceming the application of the Polish agrarian
reform to the German minority in the voivodeships of Posnania and
Pomerania. In its Application the German Government requcsted the
Court "to declare that violations of the Treaty of June 28th. 19x9 (the
Minorities Treaty), have been committed to the detriment of Polish
nationals of German race and to order reparation to he made". On the
same day Germany filed a request for interim measures of protection.
The matter came before the Court on the 19th July 1933, and on the
29th July 1933, the Court issued an order denying relief. The rcason
given was that "the essential condition which must necessarily be
fulfilled in order to justify a request for interim measures, should circum-
stances require them, is that such measures should have the effect of
protecting the rights forming the subject-matter of the dispute sub-
mitted to the Court" (page 177). The German Application, however,
as interpretcd by the Court (Judge Anzilotti interpreted it differently
and that is why he dissented) asked the Court to find that certain
past acts of discrimination against the Polish nationals of German
race in the voivodeshi~s of Posnania and Pomerania amounted to a
violation of the Minoriheç Treaty and to order reparation to be niade,
whereas. in her request to the Court for the indication of interim
measures, Germany kas seeking to prevent al1future casesof the applic-
ation of the Polish agrarian reform law to the Polish nationals of German
race and to secure an immediate indication to the effect that Iience-
forth, and until judgment was pronounced, the said Polish law should
not be applied in respect of the said nationals. The Court, therefore,
came to the conclusion that "the interim measures asked for would
result in a general suspension of the agrarian reform in so far as concerns
Polish nationals of German race and cannot therefore be regarded as
solely designed to protect the subject of the dispute and the actual
object of the principal claim, as submitted to the Court by the Ayplic-
ation Instituting Proceedings" (page 178). that is to Say, the Applic-
covercd al1 future cases as weil. From this it followed that the request
for interim measures did not confine itself to the protection of the
rights asserted in the Application, but travelled wholly beyond it.
Judge Anzilotti, one of the four judges who gave dissenting opitiions
in that case, confessed that, although he agreed with the Court's con-
clusions, he was unable to subscribe to the reasons on which the Cjrder
was based. "If ever there was a case", he said, "in which the, Applic-
ation of Article 41 of the Statute would be in every way appropriate,
it woiild certainly be so in the case before us. Thc German Govern-
ment alleges that certain acts of expropriation, which have becn or are
being carried out, involve discriminatory treatment of Polish citizens
of German race. as compared with Polish citizens of Polish race and,
hence, that on this ground these acts are contrary to the Treaty of
June 28th. 1919 : founding itself on this reason, it asks that the expro-
priations now in progress should be suspended, as an interim measure
of ~rotection. until the Court has finally decided whetlier the said
exp;opriations are legal or illegal. If the szcmma cognitio, wliich is
characteristic of a procedure of this kind, enabled us to take into account416 STATEJIENT BY SIR FRAXK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI jI
the possibility of the right claimed hy the German Government, and
the possibility of the danger to which that right was exposed, 1 should
find it difïicult to imagine any request for the indication of interim
measures more just, more' opportune or more appropriate than the
one which we are considering" (page 181).
Pausing for a moment, Mr. President, at this point of Judge Anzi-
lotti's dissenting opinion, 1suhmit that the nexus in the case now before
the Court between the possible danger to the possibleright ofthe United
Kingdom is far closer than it was in the case which the learned judge
was consideriiig, and that the request which the United Kingdom
Government are now making is even "more just, more opportune and
more appropriate", to use the learned judge's words, than was Ger-
many's request in the case of the Polish Agrarian Reform.
If Germariy's request was dismissed in that case, it is essential, as
in al1 such cases, to understand the precise reason for the Court's
decision. The majority of the Court toolc the view, as we have seen,
that the German Application aimed at ohtaining ':a declaration con-
firming that, as alleged hy it, infractions have beencommitted in certain
individual caseswhere the measures in question havealready beeitapplied,
and, if necessary, reparation in respect of such infractions". whereas
the request for interim measures covered "al1future rases of the applic-
ation of the Polish agrarian reform law to the Polish nationals of
German race ...."(p. 178).Therefore, in the majority view, the request
for interim measiires was not sufficiently related to the case befCLion
of the Application was correct, "it is manifest that the interim measures
applied for would go far heyond the limits of the right that is in dispute"
(pp. 181-182). He denied, however, that this interpretation of the
Application was correct. He thought that Germany was really intending
"to ohtain from the Court a declaratory judgment, to the effect that
the Polish Gcwernment'scoizduct in the application of the agrarian
reform law was not consistent \plth its obligations under the Treaty
of June 28th. ~grg". (P. 182.) In other words, the issue was not "this
or that violation of the Treaty", but "the whole body of acts by which
the Polish aiithorities have applied the agrarian reform law" (p. 182).
"If such was the ohjcct of the claim in the German Government's
Application, it is quite comprehensible that it should have asked-as
interim measure of protection-that the application of the agrarian
reform to Polish citizens of German race. in general, should be
suspended" (p. 182). Judge Anzilotti finished by saying that, althoiigh
that was ivhat he thought the Application meant to Say, iievertheless
that document was not sufficiently clear. The request for interim
measures, therefore, should fail, but this "should not prejudice the
German Government's right to suhmit a fresh application indicating the
suhject of the suit with the necessary clearness and precisions, and to
follow it up hy a fresh request for the indication of interim rneasures
appropriate to the rights claimed" (p. 182). This no doubt because, in
Judge Amilotti's view, to use his words, "1 should find it difïicult to
imagine any request for the indication of interim measures more just,
more opportune or more appropriate than the one which we are con-
sidering' , namely the expropriation by Poland of estates helonging to
Polish nationals of German race. STATEIIEXT BY SIR FRAKK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51 417
In any event, what the case of the Polish Agrarian Reformillustrates
is not that a request for interim measures of protection is inappropriate
in the case of an expropriation law passed by a sovereign State-indeed
the contrary is true-but that, when the request for interim measures
cornes from the party which filed the application instituting proceedings,
the request for interim measures must not cover wider ground than
the principal action does. It must only ask for protection of rights
actually asserted in the case which has been put hefore the Court in
the application. The request of the United Kingdom in this case does
not ask for the protection of any rights which are not asserted iri the
Application. Thus, in its Application, the Governnient of the United
Kingdom asks the Court inter alia :
(a) To declare that the Imperial Government of Iran are under
a dutv to submit the disvute between themselves and the Anelo-
Iranian Oil Company to 'arbitration under the provisions of ~rti-
cle.zz of the Convention concluded ou 29th April 1933. between
the Imperial Government of Persia and the Anglo-Persian Oil
Company, and to accept and carry out any award issued as a
result of such arbitration.
(b) Alternatively,
(i)To declare that Article 22 of the aforesaid Convention con-
tinues to be legally binding on the Imperial Government of Iran
and that, by denying ta the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Limited,
the exclusive legal remedy provided in Article 22 of the aforesaid
Convention. the Imperial Government have committed a denial
of justice contrary to international law ;
(ii)To declare that the aforesaid Convention cannot lawfully
be annulled, or its terms altered, by the Imperial Governmeiit of
Iran, otherwise than as the result of agreement with the Anglo-
Iranian Oil Company, or under the conditions provided in Arti-
cle 26 of the Convention.
The measures which, in paragraph IO,sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), of its
indicate are vreciselv measures for the vrotection of the riehts thus
asserted in th'e~~~l&ation. -
The last case, Mr. President and Members of the Court, concerned
with interim measures of protection to come before the Permanent
Court of International Justice, was the case of the Electricib Company
of Sofia and Bulgaria (Series A/B, No. 79). On 26th January 1938,
Belgium filed an Application Instituting Proceedings against Bul ,aria
with regard to a controversy over rates hetween the Electricily tom-
pan? of Sofia and. Bulgaria (a Belgian national) on the one hand and
the Municipality of Sofia on the other hand. On 4th July 1938, Belgium
filed a request for interim measures praying that, as the Afunicipality
of Sofia had indicated that, in default of early payment of a sum
aiieged to be due from the Company, it \vas about to take legal proceed-
ings to collect that money, the compulsory collection by the Munici-
pality of Sofia of the said sum must be postponed pending the delivery
of judgment on the merits of the case by the Permanent Court of
International Justice. This request was withdrawn on 26th August
1938, because on 27th July 1938, the Bulganan Agent informecl the418 STATEMEXT BY SIR FRASK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
Court that the Bulganan judicial decisions, of which the Municipality
of Sofia was claiming the execution,were of a purely declaratory nature
and could not lead to the application of any measure of compulsion
against the Company.
On 1st August 1939, however, the Municipality of Sofia commenced
a petitory action against the Company hased on the previous decisions
of the Bulgarian courts. This led the Uelgian Agent, on 17th October
1939, to make a new request for interim measures on the ground that
'*the measures of execution with which the Belgian Company is
threatened are such as would not only seriously prejudice the Com-
pany's position but also impede the restoration of its rights by the
hlunicipality, if the Court were to uphold the Belgian Government's
claim" (p. 196).
Meeting under conditions of considerable difficulty, owing to the
outbreak of the Second \\'orld War, and despite the absence of the
Bulganan Agent, the Court, on the 5th December 1939, made an Order
in the following terms :
"The Court,
indicates as an intenm measure that, pending the final jiidginent
of the Court in the suit submitted hy the Belgian Application on
January 26th, 1938, the State of Rulgaria should ensure that no
step of any kind is taken capable of prejudicing the rights claimed
by the Belgian Govemment or of aggravating or extending the
dispute submitted to the Court." (P. 199.)
1 submit that this is the most complete statement of the principles
ou which the Court should act in granting intenm relief. I submit
stances which the Court is now considering. If the Iranian Government-
persist in the course of conduct which 1 have above outlined, the result
will be undouhtedly to prejudice gravcly the nghts which the United
Kingdom is asserting and upon whicli the Court will in due course be
askcd to pronounce. Furthemore, the conduct of the Iranian Govern-
ment is siich as to be calculated botli to aggravate and to extcnd the
scope of the dispute. In this connection 1 would like in particular to
refer tlic Court to those passages in the appendix to the Request in
which an account is given of tlic continuous hostile propaganda which
is directed against the Compauy and British personnel in Iran. But,
blr. President and hfembers of the Court, 1 would go a great deal
further than that. 1 would submit that if the statement contained in
the case of the Denunciation of the Treaty of Nouember znd,1865,
betwecn Belgium and China (Senes A, No. 8) to which 1 have previously
referred, namely that the Court should not decree interim relief wlien
damages will suffice, is the correct view in the present case, the result
of the condiict complained of will be to inflict irretrievable damage to
the prejudice of the United Kingdom's rights which cannot ~~ossibly
be compensated by any money paymcnt, or by any moncy payrnent
which it would be within the capacity of the Iranian Government to pny.
1will now address myself to this question. What 1 have now to Say
is in amplification of paragraph S of the Request for Intenm blessures,
and for the convenience of the Coiirt 1 will deal with these inattcrs
in the sequence in which they appearin that paragraph. STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
419
Loss of skilled personnel
hluch progress has been made in the training of Persian engineers,
engineering tradesmen and operators, but, in order to build iip produc-
tion and refining to its present level, the installation of a huge volume
of complicated engineering and chernical plant has been necessary.
Machinery includes turbines as large as 100,ooo h.p. each. The operation
and maintenance of this equipment calls for large numbers of highly-
experienced men who have been recruited in Persia, the United King-
dom and other countries during the last 20 or 30 years and have gradu-
ally acquired the experience necessary for their individual posts. Tbey
form a most highly-specialized team of experts, each with knowledge
of his own plant and, even more important, with knowledge of and
a confidence in the capabilities of his various colleagues. Were this
team to be broken up by the withdrawal of one section, the whole
operation must either come to a standstill in a very short periocl of
time or continue to opcrate, but in an undermanned condition, wtiich
would lead to serious accidents and irreparable damage to machinery
and plant such as boilers, furnaces, acid plants and so on.
Even an organized team of foreign technicians supplied, for example,
hy a major United States Company would have difficulty and take
considerable time in restoring operations to their iisual level; they
would need to be at least as numerous as the existing foreign staff
and it is unlikely that such a team could be provided. Independeritly
recruited foreian onerators (American. German, Romanian. Polish. etc.)
would not be-effêctive uniil a strong enough technical managemeni
had been formed, wbich might.be difficult for an entirely non-technical
administration to arran-e.
I:urtl~ermore. foreigii opcrators of st:inclinl: \i.oiild r:igii;ir:inty
of conrinuit). of ciiiployiiicn~ wliicli tlie 1'crsi:inscould not givc con\.in-
cingly while in breachof their main agreement.
Operating conditions pecz<liarto Iran
First, owing to the refinery aiid the fields in Iran being under the
same ownership and control, special methods and machinery have been
worked out and installed for the purpose of dealing with the vapours
associated with the crude oil both in the fields and in the refineries.
In oil-field operations elsewhere it is usual to extract these products
and collect them for separate sale or blending, but in Iran it is foiiiid
to be more economical to retain these valuable products in the crude
oil by means of special stabilization plants so that they do not appear
separately but are passed forward to the refinery to form an cssential
constituent of the aviation and motor spirit manufactured there. Wliile
this process does not cause nny particular dificulty, it involves
operating the main pipeline system with criide oil containing relatively
large quantities of gas whicli v:ipoiirize easily, with thc result that
any leaks or breaks occurring in the system result in extensive escapes
of highly inflammable and poisonous gas and special precautions must
be taken to sec that dangerous pipelines are not laid through populated
areas. Any deficiencies in operation are specially dangerous on this
aocount. The gas from most of the fields being operated is poisonous,
sc that it is not only the danger of fire which exists.420 STATEIIENT Bi' SIR FRASK SOSKICE (u.I<.)-30 VI j1
The operation of this elaborate stabilization equipment is required
for the retention of these gases in the crude oil. There are not nearly
enough skilled and experienced Persians to safeguard against serious
accidents in dangerous opcrations such as thcsc. The sort of accident
which might be expccted to happen at the oil fields is that failure of
an automatic controller, at the timc when separation takes place,
would lead to oil passing into the pipelines which are intended to carry
gas only. This oil would find its way into the gas-driven turbines as
a liquid, with the result that the turbine blades would be stripped and
the pumps put perrnanently out of operation. The gas, before entering
the turbine, enters a gnsfired heater which, unless properly maintained,
is liable to develop leaks which would rapidly lead to a major outbreak
of fire.
Second, the majority of the world's oil is produced from sandstone
reservoirs in which the oil is contained under conditions diffeiiiig radic-
ally from those obtaining in the limestone reservoirs in the Persian
oil fields. As a result, when the first limestone reservoir in Persia at
Masjid-i-Snlaiman was being developed between 1910 and 1925. a new
technique of oil production had to be worked out. The problem was
studied on a scientific basis in the years immediately following the
1914-1918 war, and by means of special measurements and ohserva-
tions and by adopting a system of production then new to the oil
industry, the significant characteristics of the limestone reservoirs,
which have subsequently been found to persist throughout the oil
belt in the Middle East (but for the recently discovered exceptions
at Kuwait and Basrah) were established. These characteristics led to
methods of production quite different from those existing elsewhere,
and it is only by a correct understanding of them that the control of
the reservoirs to give maximum recovery can be properly maintained.
The petroleum engineers recruited from the science schools of European
universities who originally solved these problems from first principles
are still in the management of the Company (either in Iranor London),
and it is due to their unique knowledge and experience that the fields
are controlled in a manner ensuring the highest recovery of crude oil,
free of water, from the various reservoirs.
Fire and other hazards
In the oil fields, a well out of control or a hurst pipeline can flood
residentialareas witli either hurning crude oil or poisonous gas. If the
well were a large high pressure one (and in this connection the Iranian
oil wells are the largest in the world and will not "sand up" as do wells
in many other fields after flowing wild for a few weeks), it is doubtful
ifcontrol could be regained at al; it would certainly cal1for the employ-
ment of foreign specialists. The loss of oil would, in any case, be
enormous and the fieldmight be depleted completely of recoverable oil.
A major fire in the Abadan refinery would be most serious because
it is the biggest single refinery in the world. The lack of skilled super-
vision must sooner or later lead to accidents of such magnitude as to
result in the whole production and refining systems heing put out
of action. The material crude oil and its products are mostly highly
inflammable and poisonous ; in fact, the operations of many processes
in Abadan are regarded to he of the same degree of danger-or even
more-than processes in an explosives factory. Freedom from accidents STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51 421
has tended to obscure this fact, but the danger nevertheless is ever
present, and a very few mistakes can lead to calarnities of a major
nature.
A great volume of water continually flows through the Abadan
outbreak of fire would release large quantities of highly volatile petro-
leum products into this water Stream, with the probable reçult of
setting fire to the river and the shipping in the port. In fact, shipowriers,
with this possibility in mind, would in al1 probahility refuse to send
their tankers into the port if the refinery and loading were in the
control of Iranian operators. Loading alone calls for careful attention
to detail and discipline not to he expected from Iranians until the
lapse of a prolonged period. The Abadan bazaar stretches dong a
portion of the water front, with a creek fed from the river surrounding
it, so that the danger of a large loss of life is not confined to
those working in the refinery.
Finally, in considering the scope of fires and explosions which can
occur along the lines indicated above, there is a very important point
to be borne in mind. Generally speaking, a fireon a piece of equipment
or a tank is limited tothat piece of equipment by someone in authority
giving instructions or acting himself to turn off the particular valves
or stop the particular pumps which control the supply of oil to the
scene of the fire. This calls for a detailed knowledge of the equipiiieiit
right through the refinery and an immediate decision being taken.
If such prompt steps are not taken, fire can spread right across the
refinery.
Consequencesof disru9ling an integrated enter@ise
Marketing organization
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company has huilt up a vat marketing
organization and through its owned and associated marketing com-
panies distributes its products overa wide range of markets in Europe,
Africa, Asia and Australasia. In addition, it operates an international
service for bunkerine throuehout the Eastern Hemis~here merchant
vessels of al1nationahies wGch it supplies from over a'hundred ports.
It provides at major airports a refuellin. service for international air
linës.
Without this world-wide marketing organization the continued
production and refining of oil in Iran would be valueless.
Danger in shutting down andresuming oil operations
The work of the British staff is largely associated with starting up
and shutting down and, if this operation is conducted by inexperienced
people. it is fraught with great danger. In this respect it is important
to note that the Abadan equipment is much larger than similar equip-
ment elsewhere, so that even the engagernent of skilled staff but lacking
in experience of Abadan would not remedy the absence of the
experienced British staff.
Apart from the actual danger. considerable hardship wiil be caused
to the Persian opulation. The oil fields have become, over the years.
large centres Of'population in areas which would otherwise be com-
pletely uninhabited owing to their desert nature. These populations
33422 STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51
are of course dependent for their livelihood on Company employment
but they are also dependent for their living conditions on tlie opera-
tion of public utilities, some of which form part of the oil production
system and al1 of which are in one way or another dependent on it.
in failure of thesc utilities which would cause at the least very great
distress and hardship to the fields' populations. The oil fields are very
fully electrificd and gas is iised everywhere for domestic and industrial
purposes. Failure in the supply of gas or oil would soon result not ouly
in a shortage of domestic fuel for cooking, heating, incinerators, etc.,
but also in stoppage of the electric generating plant. This in turn would
cut off thc fresh water supplies which, in many cases, are brought by
pipe from a great distance. There is no need toenlarge upon the disasters
which would result from interruptions to the water supplies in the
climatic conditions obtaining in the oil fields. Al1ice making, refriger-
ation for food prservation and air cooling would also stop. The popul-
ations concerned are very large ; for instance, the Masjid-i-Sulaiman
area contains at least 40,000 people.
Loss of markets aicd goodwill : absence of necessary sales organization
Oil products can rcach the consumer only through the medium of
the local distribution service which supplies him. The exporter of oil
products is thus dependent for bis ontlet on there being in the markets
a distribution service which will handle his oil. The Anglo-lranian Oil
Company has accordingly built up a distribution service through its
own and associated marketing companies operating over the Eastern
Hemisphere so as to provide a secure outlet for its production. There
is not available to the National Iranian Oil Company any comparable
distribution network such as has heen created over a long period by
the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to provide outlets for Iran's oil.
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is operating in the markets in com-
petition with other distribiitors, themselves backed by resources of
of business and the threat to the continuity of their supplies from then
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company will influence consumers to place their
business with other distributors. This factor is of importance, not only
in relatioii to inland consumers but also in relation to the very large
international bunkering business done by tlie Anglo-Iranian Oil Com-
pany; shipowners are particularly concerned to have the assurance
of availahilitv of suni~liesat the various Dorts at which thev call. The
threat to th; contih;ity of supplies is jhus severely detnmental to
the maintenance of the Ando-Iranian Oil Company's-business and
seriously damaging to its goodwill in the markets:
If the Court should desire itwe can file affidavit evidence in support
of the facts contained in the appendix to the Request and the further
facts which 1have described to the Court to-day. We could, for instance,
obtain the evidence of fiIr. Drake, the Company's general manager.
Further, we can file affidavits hy the Company's experts in support
of al1 that is said in paragraph 8 of the Request and in the portion of
my address this aftemoon dealing with the same matters. Perhaps
we may assume. however, that the Court does not require this swom
evidence unless 1 am informed to the contrary. STATENENT BY SIR FRASK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 VI 51 423
Exlent ofthe Company's zcndertakings
Nuch of the greatest part of the Company's business lies in the
production of crude oil in Iran, the refining of this oil in Iran into
marketable products (out of 32 million tons, 24 million is refined in the
Abadan refinery) and the shipping of the products, and the portion
of the crude oil which is not refined, to its marketing organizations
in various parts of the world.
The size of the undertaking is immense. An enormous expenditure
of wealth and labour has gone to create the ports, refineries, wells,
roads, accommodation and plant. Since the start of production in 19x2,
310 million tons of oil have been produced and 32 million tons were
produced in 1950. Exploratory work has dunng 40 years resulted in
the development of six producing fields and twice this number of areas
has been tested with negative results. As a result of the Company's
long experience of Persian producing conditions, it has been possible
to develop and prodiice from the fields at a very high rate ;one field
is now being developed to be capable of producing at the rate of 26 mil-
lion tons per annum or 51% of the 1950 world total oil prodiiction.
To give this production, 453 wells have been dnlled requiring 285
miles of drilling.
of large diameter steel pipe having been laid across the desert wastes.
Four pumping stations have been constructed and in al1 1,600 iniles
of motor road have been built.
The refinery at Abadan, the largest in the world, covers an area of
500 acres for the refinine ulant alone. but several sauare miles are
covered by the accompany;ng tank farms, housing aieas, townships
and tanker loading wharfs. .
Three maior Dorts have been constructed with a total of zo berths
to take tankers'up to a 30,000 ton dead weight. The combined ports
of Abadan and Khosrowabad handle 25 million tons per annum alone.
One of the biggest ports in Europe, Rotterdam, handles 16 miiüon tons
per annum. Abadan lies 40 miles from the river mouth and extensive
dredging and river conservancy work has been needed.
Al1 the activities described above have been carncd out in districts
practically devoid of inhabitants and possessing none of the resources
needed to support an industrial population. Therefore, in addition to
the facilities upon which the production, refining and transport of oil
depend, al1living facilities have also had to be provided.
The numbers employed at the beginning of 1951 amounted to 75,000
and it had been necessary to provide, in addition to houses in the
settled areas, water supplies, power supplies, shops, restaurants, food
supplies to a great extent, passenger, transport (2,500 road vehicles
and innumerable amenities.dairy farms and medical and public services
Mr. President and hlembers of the Court, 1 wish now to make a
few remarks on the actual interim measures of protection which the
Government of the United Kingdom has requested that the Court
should indicate. They are to be found in paragraph IO of our Request
filed on zznd June. They are there set out and drafted,1hope, in precise
legal language.1 do not propose to read them out in making this address.
In a word, al1 the submissions which we have made to the Court in STATE>~'ENT BY SIR FRASK SOSKICE (u.K.)-30 YI 51 425
to csercisc patience and forehearari<:eand to do nothiiig tliat woiild
essccrt~;ite :in :ilrc:idy difficiilt situatiItiis in this sllirthritthim
connected with the Company have sought to meet the trying and
dangerous conditions with which they have been confronted. It is
in that same spirit that both the Company and my Government will
endeavour lova.lv <o CO-oueratein the imulementation of anv measure
which this Court may indicate as appropriate to prcvent furth& damage.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT:1 take it that the statement of the United Kingdom
Govemment has heen concluded. ,
Sir FR~K SOSKICE : That is the case Mr. Prcsident.
The PRESIUENT:In those circumstances I should like to reserve the
nght of the Court to ask the Parties, in a form which the Court will
consider to be appropriate, for additional information which the Court
might consider to he desirablc. With this reservation I declare that the
oral proceedings are closed in the matter of the Request for the Indic-
ation of the Interim Measures of Protection. The Parties will be duly
informed of the date on which the Court's decision will be read in open
Court. The sitting is closed,
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on June 30th and July 5th, 1951, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding