Summaries of Judgments, AdviNot an official document of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
ANGLO-IRANIAN OILCO.CASE(PRELIMINARYOBJECTION)
Judgmentof22July 1952
TheAnglo-Iranian OilCompanycasehadIxen submitted According tothis Declaration, the Courthasjurisdiction
to the Courtby the United Kingdom Governmenton May onlywhena dispute dates to the applicationof a treatyor
26th. 1951,andhad beenthesubjectof anObjectiononthe convention acceptedby Iran. But Iran maintains that,
groundoflackofjurisdictionbythe GovernmentofIran. accordingtothe actual wordingofthetext,thejurisdictionis
Byninevotesagainstfive,theCourtdeclaredthatitlacked limitedtotreaties subsequenttotheDeclaration.TheUnited
jurisdiction. TheJudgmentwasfollowedbya separateopin- Kingdommaintains,onthecontrary,thatearliertreatiesmay
ion by Sir Arnold McNair, Resident of the Court, who, alsocome intoconsid.eration.Intheviewof theCourt, both
whileconcurringinthe conclusion reachedintheJudgment, contentionsmight,strictly speaking,beregardedascompat-
for which he had voted, added somereasons of his own iblewiththetext.ButtheCourtcannotbase itselfonapurely
whichhadledhimtothatconclusion.TheJudgmentwasalso grammatical interpretation:it must seek theinterpretation
followed by four dissenting opinionsby Judges Alvarez, whichis in harmonywith a natural andreasonableway of
Hackworth,Readand LeviCarneiro. reading thetext,havingdueregard to theintentionofIranat
OnJuly5th. 1951,the Courthadindicated interimmeas- the timewhenit fornrulatedthe Declaration.A natural and
uresofprotectioninthiscase,pendingitsfinaldecision, stat- reasonableway of reading the text leadsto the conclusion
ingexpresslythatthe questionofthejurisdictionofthemer- thatonlytreatiesubsequenttotheratificationcomeintocon-
its was in no way prejudged. In its Judgmc:nt,the Court sideration.Inorderto reachan oppositeconclusion,special
declaredthat theOrderofJuly5th. 1951,ceasedtobeopera- and clearlyestab1ishe:reasonswouldbe required:but the
tive and that the provisional measures lapsat the same UnitedKingdomwasnotableto produce them.Onthecon-
time. trary it,may be admittedthat Iranhad special reasonsfor
draftingherDeclarationina very restrictivemanner, andfor
denouncedall the treaties with other States relatingto the
r6gimeof capitulations;she was uncertain asto the legal
effect of these unilateral denunciations.In such circum-
stances,itisunlikelyhatsheshouldhavebeenwilling onher
TheJudgmentbeginsbyrecapitulatingthe l'acts.InApril, owninitiativetoagreetosubmittoaninternationalcourtdis-
1933,anagreementwasconcludedbetweentheGovernment putesrelatingtoallthesetreaties.Moreover,the Iranianlaw
of IranandtheAnglo-IranianOilCompany.InMarch,April by whichthe Najlisqpprovedand adopted the Declaration,
and May, 1951,lawswerepassed in Iran, enunciatingthe before itwas ratified, providesa decisive confirmationof
principleofthenationalistion oftheoilindustryinIranand Iran's intention, itstatesthat the treatiesandconventions
establishingprocedurefortheenforcementofthis principle. whichcomeintoconsideration arethosewhich"theGovern-
Theresultof these lawswasa disputebetweenIranandthe mentwillhaveacceptedaftertheratification".
Company.TheUnited Kingdom adoptedthe ciauseofthelat-
ter,andinvirtueof its rightofdiplomaticprotectionit insti- The earlier treaties are thus exclbythe Declaration,
tuted proceedings beforteheCourt,whereupon Irandisputed andtheUnitedKingdomcannotthereforerely on them.Ithas
theCourt's jurisdiction. DenmarkandSwitzerl.and,andthatof 1937withlbrkey, byh
The Judgmentrefersto theprinciple according towhich which Ira nad undei-takento treat the nationalsof those
thewill ofthe Parties isthebasisoftheCourt'sjurisdiction, Powers in accordance: withthe principlesand practice of
and it notes thatinthe presentcasethejurisdictiondepends ordinaryinternationallaw. TheUnited Kingdomclaimsthat
ontheDeclarationsacceptingthe compulsoryjurisdictionof the Anglo-IranianOil Company has notbeen treated in
the Court madeby Iran and by the United K:ingdomunder accordance with those principlesand that practice; andin
Article36, paragraph 2,of the Statute. These Declarations orderto rely on thealmve-mentionedtreaties, thoughcon-
containthe conditionof reciprocity, and as that f Iran is cluded with third parties, it founds itself on theost-
morelimited,it isuponthat DeclarationthattheCourtmust favoured-nationclausecontainedintwoinstrumentswhichit
base itself. concludedwithIran: thetreatyof 1857and thecommercial
Continuedon nextpageconventionof 1903.Butthe two latter treaties,whichform Kingdomisnotapartytothecontract,whichdoesnotconsti-
thesolelegalconnectionwith thetreatiesof 1934and 1937, tutealinkbetweenthetwoGovernmentsorinanywayregu-
areanteriorto the Declaration: theUnited Kingdomcan- latetherelationsbetweenthem. Underthecontract,Irancan-
not therefore rely on them, and, conseque:ntly,it cannot notclaim fromtheUnited Kingdomanyrightswhichit may
invokethe subsequenttreatiesconcludedby Iranwiththird claimfromthe Company, norcan it be calleduponto per-
States. formtowardstheUnited Kingdomanyobliga~tionw shich itis
Butdidthesettlementof the disputebetweenIranandthe boundtoperform towardstheCompany.Thisjuridical situa-
United Kingdom,effectedin 1933through themczdiation of tion isnotalteredbythe factthat theconcessionarycontract
the Leagueof Nations,result in an agreeme:ntbetweenthe wasnegotiated through thegood officesofthe Councilofthe
twoGovernmentswhichmay beregardedasa treatyorcon- LeagueofNations,actingthroughitsrapporteur.TheUnited
vention?TheUnitedKingdorrimaintains that id t id:itclaims Kingdomin submitting its disputewith Iran to the League
thatthe agreementsignedin 1933betweenth~e UnitedKing- Council,wasonlyexercising its rightof diplomaticprotec-
dom andtheCompanyhada double character: being aotnce tioninfavourofoneof its nationals.
aconcessionarycontractand 13reaty betweenthetwoStates. ThustheCourt arrivesatthe conclusionthat itlacksjuris-
In the view of the Court, that it not the case. The United diction.
Summary of the Judgment of 22 July 1952