Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASECONCERNING UNITEDSTATES DIPLOMATICAND CONSULAR
STAFFINTEHRAN
Judgment of24 May1980
In itsJudgmentinthecaseconcerningUl~itedStatesDip- votedagainstparag~aphs1,2,5 and6, andbyJudgeTarazi,
lomaticandConsularStaffinTehran, the Court decide(1) whovotedagainst paragraphs1,2 and5.
thatIranhas violatedand is stillviolatingalbligationsowed
by it to the UnitedStates; (2) thatthese viiolationsengaProcedure beforthe Court
immediatelyrelease theUnitedStatesnatiollalsheldas hos- (paras1-10)
tagesand placethepremisesof theem bass i!the handsof
theprotectingpower;(4)thatno memberoftheUnitedStates Inits Judgment, the Courtrecalls thaton 29 November
diplomaticor consularstaffmaybe kept in1Iranto be sub- 1979theUnitedStatesofAmericahadinstitutedproceedings
jected to anyformofjudicial proceediortoparticipatein EmbassyinTehran candConsulatesatTabrizandShiraz,ands
themasawitness;(5)thatIranisunderanobligationtomake the seizureand detention as hostagesof its diplomaticand
reparationfor theinjury causedtotheUnitedStates;and(6) consular staffinTehranand two morecitizensoftheUnited
that theorm and amountof suchre pa ratio^f^a,ilingagree-States. TheUnitedEitateshavingat thesame time requested
ment betweentheparties, shallbe settledbythe Court.(The the indicationofprovisionalmeasures,Court,byaunan-
fulltextoftheoperativeparagraphiseproduceb elow.) imous Order of15Ebcember1979,indicated,pending final
These decisionswereadoptedby largemajorities:(1)and judgment, that the Embassyshould immediatelybe given
(2)- 13votesa 2;(3)and(4)-unanimousl:y;(5)- 12votes backandthehostagc:~released(seePressCommuniqu6No.
to3; (6)- 14 votes to 1 (the votes are re4:oby name 8011).
below). TheprocedurethencontinuedinaccordancewiththeStat-
uteandRulesofCourt.TheUnitedStatesfileda Memorial,
andon 18, 19 and 3X)March 1980the Courtheld a public
hearingat the closeof whichthe UnitedStates,in its final
submissions, requested ittoadjudgeddeclare,interalia,
that the Iranian Governmenthad violatedits international
legd obligationstothe UnitedStatesand must:ensure the
A separate opinion was appendedtothe Judgmentby immediatereleaseof the hostages; afford theUnitedStates
JudgeLachs,whovotedagainst operative paragraph 5. Dis- diplomaticandconsularpersonnel the protectandimmu-
sentingopinionswere appendedby Judge Morozov,who nitiesto which theyereentitled(includingimmunitfrom
Continued on next pagecriminal jurisdiction) and providthem withfacilities to Agents, providesa basis for theexerciseof itsjurisdiction
leave Iran; submitthe penons respnsibbe for thecrimes withn:specttotheUnitedStates'claimsthereunder.
committedto the competent Iranianauthoriitiesforprosecu-
tion,or extraditethem to lhe United States; and pay the MERIT S:ttributabilityto the IraStateoftheactscom-
UnitedStatesreparation,in a sumtobe subsequentlydeter- plainedof,andviolationbyIranofcertainobligations
minedbytheCourt. (paras.56-94)
Irantooknopartinthe prtneedings.Itneitherfiledplead- The Courthasalso, underArticle53of its Statute, to sat-
ingsnor wasrepresentedatthehearing,antinosubmissions isfy itself thatclaimsofthe Applicantarewellfoundedin
werethereforepresentedonitsbehalf.Itspositionwashow- law.Tothisend,it considers theactscomplainedof inorder
everdefinedintwolettersaddressedtotheCow. byitsMin- to determinehowfar, legally,theymay beattributedto the
isterforForeign Affairson!December19'79 an.d16March IranianState(asdistinctfrom theoccupiersofthe Embassy)
1980respectively.InthesefteMinistermaintainedinteralia andwhether they arecompatibleorincompatiblewithIran's
thattheCourtcould not andshouldnottakecognizanceofthe obligationsundertreatiesinforceorother applicablerulesof
case. international law.
(a) Theeventsof4November1979
The Facts (para 5M.8)
(paras. 11-32) The firstphase of the eventsunderlyingthe Applicant's
The Courtexpresses regrc:tthatIran did notappearbefore claimscoversthe armedattack ontheUnitedStatesEmbassy
ittoputforward itsargumexits. heabsenw,ofIranfromthe carriedouton4November1979byMuslimStudentFollow-
proceedingsbroughtinto operationArticlet53oftheStatute, ers of the Imam'sPolicy(furtherreferredto as "the mili-
under which the Court is required, before findingin the tants" intheJudgment),theoverrunningofitspremises, the
Applicant's favourt,osatisfy itself thallegationsoffact seizureof its inmatesas hostages,the appropriationof its
onwhichthe claimisbased <arweellfounded. propertyandarchives,andthe conductofthe Iranian author-
Inthat respecttheCourt observes thatithashadavailable itiesinthefaceofthese occurrences.
toit, inthedocumentspresentedbytheUnitedStates,amas- The Court pints out that the conductof the militantson
sive body ofinformation fi~m various sources, including that occasion couldbedirectly attributedtotheIranianState
numerous official statementsof both lrariian and United onlyifitwereestablished thatthey wereinfactactingonits
States authorities. This information,the Court notes, is behalf. The information before the Court ddot sufficeto
whollyconcordantastothernainfactsand hasallbeencom- establish this with due certainty. However, the Iranian
municatedto Iranwithout evokinganydenial.l'heCourtis State--which, astheStateto whichthemissionwasaccd-
accordingly satisfiedthattht:allegationsoffacton whichthe ited,wasunderobligationtotake appropriatestepstoprotect
UnitedStatesbaseditsclaimwereweHfounded. the UinitedStates Embassy-did nothing to prevent the
attack, stopit beforeit reachedits completionor oblige the
Admissibility militantstowithdrawfromthepremises antireleasethe hos-
(paras.334l) tages.This inactionwas incontrastwiththe conductof the
Iranianauthoritieson severalsimilar occasionsat the same
UnderthesettledjurisprutienceoftheCow, itisbound,in period,whenthey hadtaken appropriatsteps.Itconstituted,
applyingArticle53of its Statute,to investigate, onitsown the Court finds,aclearandseriousviolationofIran's obliga-
initiative,anypreliminary questionof admissibilityorjuris-tionsto theUnitedStatesunderArticles22(2). 24,25,26,
dictionthatmayarise. 27 am1 29 of the 1961ViennaConventionon Diplomatic
Onthesubjectofadmissil>ilityt,heCourt,afteexamining Relations,of Articles5 and36of the 1963ViennaConven-
theconsiderationsput forw;ardin the twobettersfromIran, tionor~ConsularRelations,andof Article11(14)of the 1955
findsthattheydonot disclost: any groufarconcludingthat lfeaty. Further breachesof the 1963 Conventionhad been
it couldnotor should notde:dwiththecase.Neitherdoesit involved infailure toprotectthe Consulatesatabrizand
findanyincompatibilitywiththecontinuanceofjudicialpro- Shim.
ceedings before the Courtin the establishmentby the TheCourtistherefore ledtoconcludethaton4November
Secretary-Generaol ftheUnitedNations,withtheagreement 1979the Iranian authorits erefully awareoftheir obliga-
of bothStates,of a Commissiongivena mandateto under- tionsundertheconventionsin force, andalsoof theurgent
takeafact-findingmissiontoIran,hearIran'sgrievancesand needforactionontheirpart,thattheyhadthe means attheir
facilitatethesolutionofthecrisisbetween thetwocountries. disposal to perform theirobligations,but that they com-
pletelyfailedto doso.
Jurisdiction (b) Eventssince4November1979
(paras.45-55) (paras.69-79)
Four instrumentshavingteen citedbythe UnitedStatesas The second phaseof the events underlying theUnited
basesforthe Court'sjurisdic:tiontodealwiithitsclaims,the States' claims comprisesthe wholeseries;of facts which
Courtfinds thatthree,nameilytheOptionalProtmols to the occmd following the occupationof the Embassyby the
twoViennaConventionsof 11961 and 1963 tonrespectively, militants.Though itwasthe dutyoftheIranian Government
Diplomatic and ConsularRelations,and the 1955lfeaty of totake every appropriasteptoendtheinfringementof the
Amity,Economic Relations,and Consular Rightsbetween inviolabilityof the Embassypremisesandstaff,andtooffer
the UnitedStatesand Iran,do in factprovidesuchfounda- reparationforthedamage,itdid nothingofthekind.Instead,
tions. expressions of approval were immediately heard from
The Court, however, doas not findit necessary in the numenousIranianauthorities.Ayatollah Khomeini himself
present Judgmentto enterintothequestion whetherArticle proclaimed the IranianState'sendorsementof boththe sei-
13of thefourthinstrumentso cited, namely the1973Con- zureof the premisesand the detentionof the hostages.He
ventionon thePrevention andPunishmentofCrimes against descril~dtheEmbassyasa "centreofespitwage", declared
Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic that the hostages would (with some exceptions) remain"under arrest" until the United States lhadreturned the isnotanyprivate individualsorpups thathavesetat naught
formerShahandhisproperty toIran,andfoshadeallnegotia- theinviolabilityof an embassy, but the vergovernmentof
tionwith the UnitedStateson thesubject.Onceorgansofthe theState towhichthemissionis accredited,the Court draws
IranianStatehadthusgivenapprovaltotheactscomplained the attentionof the entire internationalcommunityto the
of and decidedtoperpetuatethemasa meamsofpressureon imparable harm that may becausedby eventsof the kind
theUnitedStates,thoseactswere transform.edintoactsofthe before theCourt. Such events cannotfail to underminea
Iranian State: the militantsbecame agents of that State, carefullyconstructed edifice of law, the maintenanceof
whichitselfbecameinternationallyresponsiblf eortheiacts. whichis vital for thsecurityandwell-beingof theinterna-
Duringthe sixmonths whichensued,thesituationunderwent tionalcommunity.
nomaterial change:the Court's Orde orf 19December1979 (e) UnitedStatesoperationinIranon24-25 April 1980
waspublicly rejectedby Iran, whilethe Ayatollahdeclared (paras.93amd94)
that the detentionof the hostageswouldc:ontinueuntilthe Wlthregardto theoperation undertakeninIranbyUnited
newIranian parliamenthadtakenadecisionastotheirfate. Statesmilitaryunitson24-25 April1980,theCourtsaysthat
The Iranianauthorities'decisionto continuethe subjec- itcannotfailtoexpressitsconcern.Itfeelsboundtoobserve
tionof theEmbassy tooccupation,andof its stafftodeten- that an operation undertakenin those circumstances,from
tion ashostages,gave risetorepeatedandmultiple breaches whatevermotive,isofakindcalculatedtounderminerespect
ofIran's treatyobligations,additionaltothose already com- for the judicialxss in international relations. Neverthe-
mittedatthe timeof the seizureof theEmtbassy(1961Con- less,thequestionofthe legalityofthatoperationcan haveno
vention:Arts. 22,24,25,26,27 and29; 1963Convention: bearingon theevaluationof Iran'sconducton4 November
interalia,Art. 33;1955Tkaty, Art. iI(4)). 1YJ9.The findings reachedby the Courtare thereforenot
With regard to the Charged'affairesaid the two other affectedbythatoperation.
membersof theUnitedStatesmissionwhohavebeen inthe
Iranian MinistryofForeignAffairs since4 November1979,
the Court finds that the Iranianauthoritiehave withheld
from them theprotectionand facilitiesnecessaryto allow
themtoleave the Ministryinsafety.Accordingly,it appears
tothe Court thatintheir respect there habeenbreachesof
Articles26 and 29ofthe 1961ViennaConvention. Forthesereasons, theCourtgivesthe decisionreproduced
Takingnote, furthermore,that various Iranianauthorities infullbelow:
have threatenedto have someof the hostages submittedto
trialbeforea court, or to compel them toIxarwitness,the
Courtconsidersthat, ifput intoeffect,thal:intentionwould
constituteabreachofArticle 31ofthesame:Convention.
(c) tbssibleexistenceofspecialcircumstances 1. Bythirteen votes'totwo,2
(paras.80-89) Decidesthatthe:IslamicRepublicof Iran,bytheconduct
The Court considers thatit shouldexaminethe question whichthe Courthas;setout inthisJudgment,hasviolatedin
whethertheconductoftheIranianGovernmlenm t ightbejus- severalrespects,andisstillviolating,obligationsowedbyit
tifiedby theexistenceof specialcircumstances,for theIra- totheUnitedStatesof Americaunder international conven-
nianMister forForeign Affairs had allegedinhis two let- tions in forcebetweenthe two countries, aswell as under
ters to the Court that theUnited States had canied out long-establishedrulesofgeneralinternationallaw;
criminalactivitiesin Iran. The Courtconsidersthat, evenif
these allegedactivitiescouldbe consideredlasproven,they 2. Bythirteen votes1totwo,2
would notconstitutea defenceto the United States'claims, Decidesthatthe violationsofthese obligationsengage the
sincediplomaticlawprovides the possibilityofbreakingoff responsibilityof the Islamic Republicof Iran towards the
diplomatic relations, or of declaringpersona non grata UnitedStatesofAniericaunderinternationallaw;
membersofdiplomaticorconsularmissionswhomay becar- 3. Unanimously,
ryingonillicit activities.The Court concludesthattheGov- Decidesthat the Governmentof the Islamic Republicof
ernmentof Iranhadrecoursetocoercion against theUnited Iranmustimmediately take allstepstoredressthesituation
StatesEmbassy anditsstaffinsteadofmakinguseofthenor- resultingfrom theeventsof4November1979and whatfol-
malmeansatitsdisposal. lowed from theseevents,andtothatend:
(d) Internationalresponsibility
(paras.%92) (a) must immediately terminate theunlawfuldetention
The Court findsthat Iran, by committing successiveand of theUnitedStatesCharg6d'affairesandotherdiplomatic
continuingbreachesof the obligations laid upon it by the andconsularstaffandotherUnitedStatesnationalsnowheld
ViennaConventionsof 1961and 1963,the 1955 'Reaty,and hostageinIran,andmustimmediatelyreleaseeachane dvery
theapplicablerulesofgeneralinternationallaw,hasincurred one andentrust theintothe protectingPower(Article45of
responsibility towards thUnitedStates.A$; aconsequence, the 1961ViennaConventiononDiplomaticRelations);
thereis anobligationonthe part oftheIranianStatetomake (b) mustensure thatallthesaidpersonshavethe neces-
sarymeansof leaving Iranianterritory,includingmeansof
reparationfortheinjurycausedto the Unitt:dStates. Since, transport;
amountofsuchreparation cannotyetbedeiirmined.the form and
*@omposed as follclwsPresidenSir Humphrey Waldock;Wce-
AtthesametimetheCourt considersitessentialtoreiter- Rude.Mosler, araz,la,Ago.El-ErianS.ette-CamrndBaxter.ngh,
ate the observations itmade in its Order 15 December 'PresidStir~umphrey aldock; ee-PresidEtli;udgesFoster,
1979onthe importanceoftheprinciplesofinternationallaw Gros,LathsNagmdra!lingh,Ruda,Mosler, da,Ago,El-Erian,
governing diplomaticandconsularrelations,.Afterstressing hm andBaxter.
theparticulargravityofthecase,arisingoutofthefactthat it 2~ulgosMommvandmi.
108 (c) mustimmediatelyplaceinthehandsoftheprotecting oftheterritoryoftheIslamicRepublicofIm, andhasthere-
Pbwerthepremises,property,archivesand~docuimeno fthe fore lostthelegal rightto referto thety in its relations
UnitedStatesEmbassyin TehranandofitsC!onsulate snIran, withIran.
JudgeMorozov votedagainst operativeparagraphs2, 5
4. Unanimously, and6becausehe hadnotedthataseriesofactionswasunder-
Decidesthatnomember oftheUnitedStatesdiplomaticor taken by the UnitedStatesof Americaagainst Iranin the
consularstaffmaybekepti11 Irantobesubjtxtedtoanyform courseofthejudicial deliberationsi,nparticularthe freezing
ofjudicial proceedingsortoparticipateinthemasawitness; by the United States of very considerable Iranian assets,
5. Bytwelvevotes3 to three: combinedwiththeintention,clearlyexpressed inastatement
Decides thatthe Governinnenotf the IslamicRepublicof made Ibythe PresidentoftheUnitedStateson 7 April 1980,
Iranisunderanobligation tomakereparationtotheGovem- to makeuseof these assets,if needbe, in accordancewith
mentofthe UnitedStatesofAmericaforthe:injurycausedto decisionsthatwouldbe takeninthe domesticframeworkof
the latterby the eventsof4 November19'79and whatfol- theUnitedStates; thatmeant that the UniteStateswasact-
lowed fromtheseevents; ingasa "judge" initsowncause.InJudgeMorozov's view,
6. Byfourteenvotes5 toone: the situation, created by actions of the IJnited States, in
whichthe Court carriedon itsjudicial deliberationsin the
Decidesthat theformandlamountofsuchreparation, fail- case hadno precedentinthewholehistoryoftheadministra-
ing agreement betweenthe Parties, shallbe settledby the tionof internationaljustice eitbefore theCourtorbefore
Court, and reservesfor this purposethesubseqluentproce- any other international judicial institution. TheUnited
dureinthe case. States, having causedseveredamageto Iran, had lost the
legal aswellas themoralrightto reparationsfromIran, as
mentionedinoperativeparagraphs2,5 and6.
JudgeMorozovalsofindsthatsomeparagraphsoftherea-
JudgeLachsindicatedtha~h tevotedagainstthefirstpartof soning partoftheJudgmentdescribethecirc:umstanceosfthe
operativeparagraph5, ashe found itredundlant. 'respon- casein anincorrectorone-sidedway.
sibilityhavingbeenestablisl~edt,hewholequestionofrepa- He considersthat, without anyprejudiceto the exclusive
rationsshould havebeen 1e:fito the subsequentprocedure, compe:tenceoftheSecurityCouncil,the Court,fromapurely
includingthequestionofforinandamountasprovidedbythe legalpint ofview,couldhavedrawn attentiontotheundeni-
Judgment. ablefactthatArticle51oftheUnited NationsCharter,estab-
The opinion stresses the importancof the Judgmentfor lishingtherightofself-defenceowhichtheUnitedStatesof
diplomaticlaw, and the major part of it is devotedto the America referredin connectionwith the events of 24-25
questionofthepracticalsol~ltiobydiplomiaticnneansofthe April, may be invoked only"if an armed attack occurs
disputebetweenthe Ruties. Once the legal issueshavebeen againstamemberoftheUnitedNations", and thatthereisno
clarifiedby the Judgment, the partiesshould lake speedy evidenceof anyarmed attackhaving occurredagainstthe
actionandmakemaximumc:ffortstodispeltensionandmis- UnitedStates.
trust, and in this a third-party initiativemay be important.JudgeMorozovalsostresses thatsomeindication should
Judge Lachs visualizesa particularrole for the Secretary- have been includedin the Judgmenttothe effect that the
GeneraloftheUnitedNatioin~ isthisrespectandthework of Court consideredthat settlemenotf the disputebetweenthe
aspecialcommissionor mediatingbody. In.viewofthegrav- UnitedStates and the IslamicRepublicof Iran should be
ityofthesituation,theneed:foraresolutionisurgent. reachedexclusivelybypeaceful means.
In his dissentingopinion.,udge Morozovindicates that JudgeTarazivotedinfavourofoperativeparagraphs3and
operativeparagraph1of tht:Judgmentis tlrafted in sucha 4 ofthe Judgment,becausehe consideredthat the seizureof
waythatitisnotlimitedtothequestionoftheviolationofthe theembassy,and thedetentionashostagesofthosepresentin
ViennaConventionsof 1961 and1963,but also covers, if it, constitutedan act inbreachof theprovi2iisf the 1961
read with some para phsd the reasoning, the questiof and 1%3ViennaConventionson DiplomaticandConsular
alleged violationso the 1955'Ikaty of Amity,Economic Relations.
RelationsandConsularRightsbetween hn andtheUnited On the other hand, JudgeTarazi felt impelledtovote
States;this treaty,heelievc:~,doesnot provide:theparties against operativeparagraph 1, becausehe considered that
withan unconditionalrightto invokethe c~ompulsorjyuris- onlythe 1% 1and 1963ViennaConventionsconferred juris-
dictionoftheCourt,andinthecircumstanc:es the Courthas dictionontheCourtinthepresentcase.
infactnocompetencetocorlsidertheallegedviolations. He tilsvotedagainstparagraphs2 and5,because,in his
Mermore, JudgeMorozovobserves, theUnitedStates view, theCourt, atthepresentstageof the proceedingsand
committedduring the period of the judicial deliberations consideringtheconcomitantcircumstances,could notmake
manyunlawfulactions, cul~iunatininthetnilitruyinvasion. anyrulingasto the responsibilityof theGovernmentof the
IslamicRepublicofIran.
'Preside~i~umphreyWaldock Vice-presidtiasJudgeForster,
antBaxter.draingh.Ruda,Moaler, da,Ago,El-EriSene-Camara On the otherhand, JudgeTarazi votedin favourof para-
JudgeLachs,Mmv andTauazi. graph 6,becauseheconsideredthat,intheeventofanyrepa-
'PresideSiHumphrey WaldockVice-PresidtlliJudgeFmter. rationsbeingowed,they shouldbedeterminedand assessed
Groe .achs,Nagendraingh,Ruda, oslc, ara, 3dA.go,ECErian, by the International Court ofJustice;it was not admissible
Sette-CamaandBaxter. forthemtobe thesubjectofproceedingsincourtsofdomes-
6~udgeMorowv. ticjurisdiction.
Summary of the Judgment of 24 May 1980