Comments of the United States on the Replies of Iran to the questions put by Judge Rigaux

COMMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ON IRAN'S REPLY TO THE

QUESTIONS PUT BY JUDGE R.IGAUXTO BOTH PARTIES

Premièrequestion: quel est le statut juridique de plates-formes pétrolièresaménagéespar
un Etat sur son plateau continental? Quelles sont les compétencesexercéessur ces installations?

Quelle est la différenceentre le statut des plates-formes pétrolièresselon qu'elles sont localisées
respectivement dans la mer territoriale d'un Etat ou en dehors de celle-ci?

Comments on lran's Reply:

1. The responses to this question provided by both parties demonstrate that the oil platforms at

issue in this case, which are located on lran's continental shelf and outside oflran's territorial

sea, are not located within Iranian territory, as understood under international law, as reflected in

the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law ofthe Sea. Article X, paragraph one, ofthe

1955 Treaty is concemed solely with commerce and navigation between the "territories" of Iran

and the United States.

2. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of its reply, Iran specifically recognized the distinction in international

law between a coastal State's territory, including its territorial sea, over which it enjoys

sovereignty, and its continental shelf, over which it enjoys certain, expressly enumerated

sovereign rights. While not challenging that central distinction, Iran continued to describe its

views about the scope of the rights accorded under international law to a coastal State for the

purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the continental shelf. The United

States of America reserves its position with respect to that description, as the precise delineation 2

of those rights does not touch upon the fundamental distinction in international law between a

State's territory and its continental shelf.

3. With respect to Iran's assertions in paragraphs 6 and 7 ofits reply, the United States has

shown that U.S. actions against Iran's oil platforms were not directed against installations that

were engaged in relevant "commerce" (see CR 2003/11, paras. 15.1-16.25 and CR 2003/17,

paras. 25.1-25.34).

4. Contrary to Iran's assertion in paragraph 7 ofits reply, the Court did not determine in its 1996

Judgment that the oil extracted from these oil platforms was in fact a part oflran's export trade

to the United States, and did not determine that the oil platforms were in fact protected by Article

X, paragraph one, of the 1955 Treaty. Indeed, in one of the paragraphs cited by Iran, the Court

expressly stated that "[o]n the material now before the Court, it is indeed not able to determine if

and to what extent the destruction of the Iranian oil platforms had an effect upon the export trade

in Iranian oil; .... " I.C.J. Reports 1996 at p. 820 (para. 51). COMMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ONlRAN'SREPLYTO THE

QUESTIONS PUT BY JUDGE R!GAUX TO BOTH PARTIES

Deuxièmequestion: selon les Parties, durant la guerre entre l'Iran et l'Iraq, le Koweït

était-ilun Etat neutre, un Etat non-belligérant ou un Etat cobelligérantde l'Iraq?
La réponse à cette question serait-elle différente,selon qu'elle ait éformuléedurant la
guerre elle-mêmeou aujourd'hui, compte tenu du complémentd'informations dont on dispose?

Comments on Iran's Reply:

1. The response of the United States to this question stated that at all times during the Iran-Iraq

War, Kuwait was a neutral, non-belligerent State. Notwithstanding Iran's earlier pleadings (see

CR 2003/13, paras. 21.36-21.39), its response to this same question now concedes that Kuwait

was not a belligerent.

2. Iran now appears to assert only that Kuwait violated its obligations as a neutral. We note that

the Diplomatie Note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State ofKuwait, submitted to

the Court with the U.S. answers on March 17, 2002, states: "The State ofKuwait remained

completely neutral and did not side with either of the parties involved in that war." In any case,

Iran no longer asserts that such alleged violations would have given it any rightto use force

against Kuwaiti flag vessels, let alone against vessels of other neutral countries trading with

Kuwait (or other Gulf states). During the oral pleadings, Iran seems to have confirmed that its

view is now that attacks on such vessels would be unlawful, notwithstanding the alleged

violations of the duties ofneutrality (CR 2003115,p. 54, para. 3). 2

3. Accordingly, Iran's allegation that Kuwait violated its duties ofneutrality is simply irrelevant

to this case. Even iftrue, it would not provide any legal excuse for Iranian attacks on U.S. or

other neutral vessels in the Gulf. It would not in any way diminish the right of the United States

under Article XX ofthe 1955 Treaty to protect its essential security interests or its right of self­

defense. It would not affect the validity of the U.S. Counter-Claim.

4. The United States reserves its position with respect to the other legal contentions advanced by

Iran in its reply, which need not be addressed in connection with this case.