Public sitting held on Monday 21 September 2020, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, a

Non corrigé Uncorrected

CR 2020/13

International Court
Cour internationale
of Justice
de Justice

THE HAGUE
LA HAYE

YEAR 2020

Public sitting

held on Monday 21 September 2020, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding,
in the case concerning
Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic
Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

VERBATIM RECORD

ANNÉE 2020

Audience publique

tenue le lundi 21 septembre 2020, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M.
Yusuf, président,
en l’affaire relative à des
Violations alléguées du traité d’amitié, de commerce et de droits consulaires de 1955 (République
islamique d’Iran c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique)

COMPTE RENDU

- 2 -

Present: President Yusuf Vice-President Xue
Judges Tomka
Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Gaja
Sebutinde Bhandari Robinson Crawford Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa
Judges ad hoc Brower
Momtaz Registrar Gautier

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

- 3 -

Présents : M. Yusuf, président
Mme Xue, vice-présidente MM. Tomka
Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade
M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde MM. Bhandari
Robinson Crawford Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa, juges
MM. Brower
Momtaz, juges ad hoc

M. Gautier, greffier

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

- 4 -

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is represented by:

Mr. Hamidreza Oloumiyazdi, Head of the Centre for International Legal Affairs of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Associate Professor of Private Law at Allameh Tabataba’i University,
Tehran,

as Agent and Advocate;

Mr. Mohammad H. Zahedin Labbaf, Agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Iran-United States
Claims Tribunal, Director of the Centre for International Legal Affairs of the Islamic Republic of
Iran in The Hague,

as Co-Agent and Counsel;

Mr. Seyed Hossein Sadat Meidani, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic
Republic of Iran,

as Deputy Agent and Counsel;

Mr. Vaughan Lowe, QC, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of
Oxford, member of the Institut de droit international, member of the Bar of England and Wales,
Essex Court Chambers,

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor Emeritus of the University Paris Nanterre, former Chairman
of the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de droit international,

Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Professor at the University Paris Nanterre,
Secretary-General of the Hague Academy of International Law, associate member of
the Institut de droit international, member of the Paris Bar, Sygna Partners,

Mr. Samuel Wordsworth, QC, member of the Bar of England and Wales, member of the Paris Bar, Essex
Court Chambers,

Mr. Hadi Azari, Legal Adviser to the Centre for International Legal Affairs of the Islamic Republic
of Iran, Assistant Professor of Public International Law at Kharazmi University, Tehran,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. Behzad Saberi Ansari, Director General for International Legal Affairs, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

H.E. Mr. Alireza Kazemi Abadi, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Islamic
Republic of Iran to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

Mr. Mohsen Izanloo, Deputy in Legal Affairs, Centre for International Legal Affairs of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Associate Professor of Law at University of Tehran,

as Senior Legal Advisers;

- 5 -

Le Gouvernement de la République islamique d’Iran est représenté par :

M. Hamidreza Oloumiyazdi, président du centre des affaires juridiques internationales
de la République islamique d’Iran, professeur associé de droit privé à l’Université
Allameh Tabataba’i de Téhéran,

comme agent et avocat ;

M. Mohammad H. Zahedin Labbaf, agent de la République islamique d’Iran auprès du Tribunal
des réclamations Etats-Unis/Iran, directeur du centre des affaires juridiques internationales de la
République islamique d’Iran à La Haye,

comme coagent et conseil ;

M. Seyed Hossein Sadat Meidani, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères
de la République islamique d’Iran,

comme agent adjoint et conseil ;

M. Vaughan Lowe, QC, professeur émérite de droit international (chaire Chichele) à l’Université
d’Oxford, membre de l’Institut de droit international, membre du barreau d’Angleterre et
du pays de Galles, cabinet Essex Court Chambers,

M. Alain Pellet, professeur émérite de l’Université Paris Nanterre, ancien
président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit international,

M. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeur à l’Université Paris Nanterre, secrétaire
général de l’Académie de droit international de La Haye, membre associé de
l’Institut de droit international, membre du barreau de Paris, cabinet Sygna Partners,

M. Samuel Wordsworth, QC, membre du barreau d’Angleterre et du pays de Galles, membre du
barreau de Paris, cabinet Essex Court Chambers,

M. Hadi Azari, conseiller juridique auprès du centre des affaires juridiques
internationales de la République islamique d’Iran, professeur adjoint de droit
international public à l’Université Kharazmi de Téhéran,

comme conseils et avocats ;

M. Behzad Saberi Ansari, directeur général chargé des affaires juridiques internationales,
ministère des affaires étrangères de la République islamique d’Iran,

S. Exc. M. Alireza Kazemi Abadi, ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire de la République
islamique d’Iran auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,

M. Mohsen Izanloo, adjoint chargé des affaires juridiques, centre des affaires
juridiques internationales de la République islamique d’Iran, professeur associé de droit à
l’Université de Téhéran,

comme conseillers juridiques principaux ;

- 6 -

Mr. Luke Vidal, member of the Paris Bar, Sygna Partners,

Mr. Sean Aughey, member of the Bar of England and Wales, Essex Court Chambers,

Ms Philippa Webb, Professor at King’s College London, member of the Bar of England and Wales,
member of the Bar of the State of New York, Twenty Essex,

Mr. Jean-Rémi de Maistre, PhD candidate, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Mr.
Romain Piéri, member of the Paris Bar, Sygna Partners,
as Counsel;

Mr. Seyed Mohammad Asbaghi Namini, Acting Director, Department of International Claims,
Centre for International Legal Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Mr. Mahdad Fallah Assadi, Legal Adviser to the Centre for International Legal Affairs
of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Mr. Mohsen Sharifi, Acting Head, Department of Litigations and Private International Law,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Mr. Yousef Nourikia, Second Counsellor, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran
in the Netherlands,

Mr. Alireza Ranjbar, Legal Adviser to the Centre for International Legal Affairs of the
Islamic Republic of Iran,

Mr. Seyed Reza Rafiey, Legal Expert, Department of Litigations and Private International
Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Mr. Soheil Golchin, Legal Expert, Department of Litigations and Private International
Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Mr. Mahdi Khalili Torghabeh, Legal Expert, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of
Iran,

as Legal Advisers.

- 7 -

M. Luke Vidal, membre du barreau de Paris, cabinet Sygna Partners,

M. Sean Aughey, membre du barreau d’Angleterre et du pays de Galles, cabinet Essex
Court Chambers,

Mme Philippa Webb, professeure au King’s College (Londres), membre du barreau d’Angleterre et du
pays de Galles, membre du barreau de l’Etat de New York, cabinet Twenty Essex,

M. Jean-Rémi de Maistre, doctorant, centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN),

M. Romain Piéri, membre du barreau de Paris, cabinet Sygna Partners,

comme conseils ;

M. Seyed Mohammad Asbaghi Namini, directeur par intérim, département des réclamations
internationales, centre des affaires juridiques internationales de la République islamique d’Iran,

M. Mahdad Fallah Assadi, conseiller juridique auprès du centre des affaires
juridiques internationales de la République islamique d’Iran,

M. Mohsen Sharifi, chef par intérim, département du contentieux et du droit international
privé, ministère des affaires étrangères de la République islamique d’Iran,

M. Yousef Nourikia, deuxième conseiller, ambassade de la République islamique
d’Iran aux Pays-Bas,

M. Alireza Ranjbar, conseiller juridique auprès du centre des affaires juridiques internationales
de la République islamique d’Iran,

M. Seyed Reza Rafiey, expert juridique, département du contentieux et du droit international privé,
ministère des affaires étrangères de la République islamique d’Iran,

M. Soheil Golchin, expert juridique, département du contentieux et du droit international
privé, ministère des affaires étrangères de la République islamique d’Iran,

M. Mahdi Khalili Torghabeh, expert juridique, ministère des affaires étrangères de la République
islamique d’Iran,

comme conseillers juridiques.

- 8 -

The Government of the United States of America is represented by:

Mr. Marik A. String, Acting Legal Adviser, United States Department of State,

as Agent, Counsel and Advocate;

Mr. Richard C. Visek, Principal Deputy Legal Adviser, United States Department of State, Mr. Steven
F. Fabry, Deputy Legal Adviser, United States Department of State,
as Co-Agents and Counsel;
Mr. Paul B. Dean, Legal Counsellor, Embassy of the United States of America in the Netherlands, Ms
Lara Berlin, Deputy Legal Counsellor, Embassy of the United States of America in the
Netherlands,

as Deputy Agents and Counsel;

Sir Daniel Bethlehem, QC, member of the Bar of England and Wales, Twenty Essex,

Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Professor of International Law at the University of Geneva,
member of the Institut de droit international,

Ms Kimberly A. Gahan, Assistant Legal Adviser, United States Department of State, Ms Lisa J. Grosh,
Assistant Legal Adviser, United States Department of State,
as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. Donald Earl Childress III, Counsellor on International Law, United States Department of State,
Ms Maegan L. Conklin, Assistant Legal Adviser, United States Department of State,
Mr. John D. Daley, Deputy Assistant Legal Adviser, United States Department of State, Mr. John I.
Blanck, Attorney Adviser, United States Department of State,
Mr. Jonathan E. Davis, Attorney Adviser, United States Department of State, Mr. Joshua B. Gardner,
Attorney Adviser, United States Department of State, Mr. Matthew S. Hackell, Attorney Adviser,
United States Department of State, Mr. Nathaniel E. Jedrey, Attorney Adviser, United States
Department of State, Mr. Robert L. Nightingale, Attorney Adviser, United States Department of
State,

- 9 -

Le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d’Amérique est représenté par :

M. Marik A. String, conseiller juridique en exercice, département d’Etat des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

comme agent, conseil et avocat ;

M. Richard C. Visek, premier conseiller juridique adjoint, département d’Etat des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. Steven F. Fabry, conseiller juridique adjoint, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

comme coagents et conseils ;

M. Paul B. Dean, conseiller juridique, ambassade des Etats-Unis d’Amérique aux Pays-Bas,

Mme Lara Berlin, conseillère juridique adjointe, ambassade des Etats-Unis d’Amérique
aux Pays-Bas,

comme agents adjoints et conseils ;

Sir Daniel Bethlehem, Q.C., membre du barreau d’Angleterre et du pays de Galles, cabinet
Twenty Essex,

Mme Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, professeur de droit international à l’Université de Genève ;
membre de l’Institut de droit international,

Mme Kimberly A. Gahan, conseillère juridique adjointe, département d’Etat des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

Mme Lisa J. Grosh, conseillère juridique adjointe, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

comme conseils et avocats ;

M. Donald Earl Childress III, conseiller en droit international, département d’Etat des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

Mme Maegan L. Conklin, conseillère juridique adjointe, département d’Etat des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. John D. Daley, conseiller juridique adjoint de deuxième classe, département
d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. John I. Blanck, avocat conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. Jonathan E. Davis, avocat conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. Joshua B. Gardner, avocat conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. Matthew S. Hackell, avocat conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. Nathaniel E. Jedrey, avocat conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. Robert L. Nightingale, avocat conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

- 10 -

Ms Catherine L. Peters, Attorney Adviser, United States Department of State, Mr. David B. Sullivan,
Attorney Adviser, United States Department of State,
Ms Margaret E. Sedgewick, Attorney Adviser, United States Department of State,

as Counsel;

Mr. Guillaume Guez, Assistant, Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, Mr. John R. Calopietro,
Paralegal Supervisor, United States Department of State, Ms Anjail B. Al-Uqdah, Paralegal, United
States Department of State,
Ms Katherine L. Murphy, Paralegal, United States Department of State,

Ms Catherine I. Gardner, Administrative Assistant, Embassy of the United States of America in the
Netherlands,

as Assistants.

- 11 -

Mme Catherine L. Peters, avocate conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

M. David B. Sullivan, avocat conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

Mme Margaret E. Sedgewick, avocate conseil, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,

comme conseils ;

M. Guillaume Guez, assistant, faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève,

M. John R. Calopietro, coordinateur de l’assistance juridique, département d’Etat des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique,
Mme Anjail B. Al-Uqdah, assistante juridique, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, Mme
Katherine L. Murphy, assistante juridique, département d’Etat des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, Mme
Catherine I. Gardner, assistante administrative, ambassade des Etats-Unis d’Amérique aux
Pays-Bas,

comme assistants.

- 12 -

The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is open. The Court meets this afternoon to hear the
second round of oral argument of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I would like to recall that in view
of the hybrid nature of the hearing in this case, the following judges are present with me in the
Great Hall of Justice: Vice-President Xue, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna,
Sebutinde, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam and Iwasawa; while Judges Cançado Trindade, Gaja,
Bhandari and Robinson, as well as Judges ad hoc Brower and Momtaz, are present via video link. I
shall now give the floor to Professor Vaughan Lowe. You have the floor.

Mr. LOWE:

INTRODUCTION: “REAL DISPUTE”

A. Introduction
1. Thank you, Sir. Mr. President, Members of the Court, you will have noted the points made by Iran
on Wednesday to which the United States did not respond, such as the correction of the United
States’ suggestion that Iran’s diplomatic exchanges in June 2018 were not concerned with the Treaty
of Amity¹. I shall not pursue those points here. I shall respond to the arguments made on Friday
concerning the alleged “real dispute” principle. Mr. Wordsworth and Professor Thouvenin will
respond to the arguments on third country measures, and Professor Pellet will address
the “Article XX” arguments. The Agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran will close and
make Iran’s final submissions.

B. The “real dispute” disagreement
2. There is a fundamental disagreement over the “real dispute” objection:
⎯ Iran, in broad terms, advocates a reading of compromissory clauses in treaties at face value.
⎯ The United States, in broad terms, advocates a restrictive interpretation of
compromissory clauses in treaties, reading into them a requirement that the dispute should not be
“very largely concerned” with any other legal instrument than the treaty.
3. Iran submits that the United States’ position is wrong as a matter of law, and
also, as applied to Iran’s case, wrong as a matter of fact. I take those points in turn.

1 CR 2020/10, p. 32, paras. 45-47 (Bethlehem).

- 13 -

4. Sir Daniel Bethlehem, taking issue with our summary of the United States’ position, took
particular care to set out the US view very clearly. He said: “In our contention, disputes that are
‘very largely concerned with’ an instrument other than the one whose jurisdictional
basis is invoked, cannot properly be brought within the scope of the compromissory clause in a
treaty.”²
5. Let me set out the Iranian view clearly: in our contention, all disputes that are within the
scope of the compromissory clause in a treaty are within the jurisdiction of the Court under that
compromissory clause, whether or not they could also be concerned ⎯ largely or not ⎯
with another instrument.
6. Iran says that the extent to which an instrument other than the one whose jurisdictional clause
is invoked may form part of the background of a claim is not relevant to the scope ⎯ the limits ⎯
of the Court’s jurisdiction under the compromissory clause that is invoked.
7. Claims whose pursuit amounts to an abuse of process or abuse of right may be
inadmissible; but that is a question of admissibility. If the Court has no jurisdiction, there can
be no “right” or “process” to abuse. If the Court has jurisdiction, it has
jurisdiction. But that question does not arise here: last week, the United States did not pursue
the argument that Iran had abused its rights or the Court’s process by invoking the compromissory
clause; and neither shall I.

C. Consent
8. The United States says that the architecture of international dispute settlement
rests on consent; and we agree. The question is, what did the United States consent to
in the Treaty of Amity? Article XXI (2) reads as follows:
“2. Any dispute between the High Contracting Parties as to the interpretation or application of
the present Treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, shall be submitted to the
International Court of Justice, unless the High Contracting Parties agree to settlement by
some other pacific means.”
9. “Any dispute . . . as to the interpretation or application of the present Treaty”. Where is the
qualification? Where is the limitation? Where does the supposed “real dispute” doctrine come from?

2 CR 2020/12, p. 13, para. 5 (Bethlehem).

- 14 -

D. No “real dispute” doctrine in the ICJ jurisprudence
10. Sir Daniel traced the doctrine back to the decision in the Electricity Company of Sofia

case and to this Court’s decisions in the Right of Passage case and the Germany v. Italy case³.

11. In Electricity Company of Sofia, Belgium had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction over “any
disputes arising after the ratification of the present declaration with regard to
situations or facts subsequent to this ratification”⁴. Bulgaria, the Respondent,
argued that although the facts complained of by the Belgian Government all occurred after
Belgium’s ratification, the “situation” with regard to which the dispute arose predated
ratification⁵. The earlier situation was the (uncontroversial) establishment in the 1920s
of formulae for calculating electricity prices; the post-ratification facts, about which
Belgium complained, were the applications of those formulae in the 1930s. The Court said that the
dispute arose from the facts of which Belgium complained.
12. Sir Daniel draws from this the conclusion that when looking to see if a dispute is within the
Court’s jurisdiction one must look, not at the claims, but at the facts underlying the claim. He
said: “The identification of the subject-matter of a dispute does not turn on the source of the
rights that the Applicant claims. It turns on the source, the ‘real cause’, of the dispute.”⁶
13. In that case it did ⎯ because the Court’s jurisdiction was not over “any dispute” or “any
dispute concerning the application or interpretation” of a treaty, but over disputes “with regard
to situations or facts subsequent to this ratification”. The Court focused on the date of the
situation or facts concerned, rather than the claims, because that is what the temporal
limitation in the compromissory clause required. And it found that the relevant facts
were those which were the basis of Belgium’s claims.
14. Similarly, the Right of Passage case was concerned with a temporal limitation. India, the
Respondent, had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to “all disputes arising
after February 5th, 1930, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same
date”. The Court distinguished between the question of when the dispute arose ⎯ in 1954,
when India allegedly

3 CR 2020/12, pp. 16-17, para. 22 (Bethlehem).
4 Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belgium v. Bulgaria), Preliminary
Objection, Judgment, 1939, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 77, p. 81.
5 Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belgium v. Bulgaria), Preliminary
Objection, Judgment, 1939, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 77, p. 81.
6 CR 2020/12, p. 17, para. 23 (Bethlehem).

- 15 -

impeded the passage ⎯ and the date of the “situations or facts” from which it arose. But it held
that the dispute arose from “the facts of 1954 which Portugal advances as showing the failure of
India to comply with its obligations”⁷. As in the Electricity Company case, the Court said that the
dispute arose from the facts of which the Applicant actually complained.
15. These are decisions on limitations ratione temporis. They have no bearing on the
question whether a compromissory clause giving the Court jurisdiction over “any dispute” with no
limitations ratione temporis, and no limitation ratione materiae other than the requirement that
the dispute be “as to the interpretation or application of the present Treaty”, should be read down
in accordance with a supposed legal doctrine that requires the Court to discern the
metaphysical essence of a case.
16. I turn more briefly to the more recent cases cited by the United States.
Jurisdictional Immunities is another ratione temporis decision, on the question whether Italy’s
counter-claim ⎯ that Germany is responsible for having denied reparation to Italian
victims of war crimes in 1943-1945 and should pay reparation ⎯ was a “dispute relating to facts
or situations prior to” a 1961 Agreement that Germany said had settled reparation claims⁸. Germany
said the relevant date was 1943–1945; Italy said that its counter-claim originated in the
régime established by the 1961 Agreement, and Germany’s subsequent handling of
reparations. Unsurprisingly, the Court held that the dispute arose from the obligation to pay
reparation, which itself arose at the time of the violations in the 1940s⁹.
17. You’ll note certain similarities with the present case. There, violations of international law
occurred in the 1940s; an agreement aiming to settle them was made in 1961, and the question was,
in effect, whether the violations were extinguished in 1961 and a “new situation” created. The
Court said no.
18. Here, as Iran made clear in footnote 2 of its Application, it has long regarded
United States measures as violations of the Treaty of Amity. In 2015, an agreement aiming to settle

7 Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1960, p. 35.
8 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Counter-Claim,
Order of 6 July 2010,
I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 317, para. 17 and p. 318, paras. 23-24.
9 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Counter-Claim,
Order of 6 July 2010,
I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), pp. 319-321, paras. 26–31.

- 16 -

aspects of the wide-ranging dispute between the United States and Iran was concluded;
and the United States now says ⎯ with no basis in either fact or law ⎯ that the JCPOA created a
“new situation” such that Iran’s complaints that US sanctions violate the Treaty of Amity have
somehow been eclipsed by the JCPOA as if it contained some sort of waiver by Iran ⎯ which of course
it does not (as was noted in the JCPOA itself)¹⁰. Indeed, when the JCPOA was adopted, Iran stated
in a letter to the United Nations Security Council that “nothing in the JCPOA shall be construed .
. . as a waiver or a limitation on the exercise of any related right the Islamic Republic of Iran
is entitled to under relevant . . . international instruments”¹¹.
19. In Equatorial Guinea v. France, the Court identified the “various claims on which the Parties
have expressed differing views” and confirmed that the question was “whether this aspect of the
dispute between the Parties . . . is capable of falling within the provisions of the
[treaties concerned] and whether, as a consequence, it is one which the Court has
jurisdiction to entertain”¹². The Court adopted the same approach last November in
Ukraine v Russia¹³; and, indeed, in Oil Platforms, where the fact that the use of force was a
question very largely concerned with the United Nations Charter was not an obstacle to the
Court’s jurisdiction in respect of the Treaty of Amity¹⁴.
20. Yes, the Court has used phrases such as “real cause” in its judgments. It has not used them in
the way the United States suggests; and it has never established a principle that a
compromissory clause giving jurisdiction over “any dispute . . . as to the
interpretation or application of the present Treaty” must be limited to “any dispute . . . as
to the interpretation or application of the present Treaty that is not very largely concerned with
some other instrument”.
21. As Ms Gahan said on Friday ⎯ curiously suggesting that Mr. Wordsworth and I had got it wrong ⎯
on jurisdiction, the test is “whether the violations of the Treaty . . . pleaded by Iran do

10 JCPOA, Ann. II, fn. 14, available at
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/245320.pdf.
11 Statement of the Islamic Republic of Iran following the adoption of United Nations
Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) endorsing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, UN doc.
S/2015/550 (20 July 2015), para. 13.
12 Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2018 (I), pp. 315-316, paras. 67-70; emphasis added.
13 Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 8
November 2019, paras. 57 and 95.
14 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2003, pp. 180-183, paras. 37-42.

- 17 -

or do not fall within the provisions of the Treaty and whether, as a consequence, the dispute is
one which the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain”¹⁵.

E. The Treaty of Amity is in fact the real dispute
22. That is the position on the Court’s jurisprudence. The further point is that as a matter of
fact Iran’s case is based entirely on the Treaty of Amity and the claim that the
United States measures have violated that Treaty. That is apparent from its Application, Request
for provisional measures and Memorial. The requests for relief¹⁶ refer to the 8
May 2018 Presidential Memorandum¹⁷ and subsequent measures, in order to identify the measures
in question. How else should they be defined? There is a constantly evolving body of measures; and
it would have been absurd to say that Iran’s complaint that United States measures have violated
the Treaty refers to all measures that violate the Treaty.
23. Sir Daniel suggested that Iran’s case is all about the JCPOA because the relief requested in
Iran’s Application, if ordered, would require the United States to “reinstate the JCPOA sanctions
relief”¹⁸. But Iran does not ask for the reinstatement of sanctions lifted under the JCPOA.
24. Iran asks the Court to order the United States to “terminate the measures that
were implemented pursuant to or in connection with the U.S. Presidential Memorandum of 8 May 2018
and announced further measures”. This now includes 125 rounds of sanctions imposed
after 8 May 2018. The JCPOA relief related only to the sanctions listed in
its Annex II. The United States Treasury Department itself stated that Executive Order 13846
“broadens the scope of the sanctions that were in effect prior to” the implementation of the
JCPOA¹⁹.
25. Iran’s request for relief is based on the losses and damage it has suffered as a result of the
United States’ breaches of the Treaty of Amity; it is not asking simply for the reinstatement of
the JCPOA relief.

15 CR 2020/12, p. 23, para. 10 (Gahan).
16 AI, para. 50; MI, Submissions (following paragraph 10.34).
17 MI, Ann. 31.
18 CR 2020/12, p. 18, para. 28 (Bethlehem).
19 Available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/601.

- 18 -

F. The implications
26. The United States referred to the “wider systemic implications for resort
to compromissory clauses in treaties and for the judicial function in the face of the limitations
of the instrumental dimension of the case before you”.
27. The United States does not argue that Iran’s claims are not based on “the interpretation or
application” of the Treaty of Amity: it says that they should be dismissed because
the Treaty disputes are “very largely concerned with” an instrument other than the Treaty²⁰.
28. “Largely concerned” ⎯ how does that differ from the obvious fact that the JCPOA is an
important part of the factual background to Iran’s Application?

29. Is the fact that it is an “instrument” crucial? Would the position be different
if Iran’s claim of breaches of the Treaty of Amity were “largely concerned” with a
matter extensively discussed with the United States but not recorded in a published agreement ⎯
if it were an oral agreement or understanding?
30. It plainly does not matter to the United States whether the JCPOA is binding or not. The United
States does not refer to “another instrument to which Iran and the USA are parties”. The United
States says the JCPOA is not binding. Indeed, whatever sense of obligation
the United States may once have had in relation to the JCPOA, the United States withdrew from it²¹,
before this case was filed with the Court. It is arguing that Iran’s rights under the Treaty of
Amity are constrained as a matter of law by what it says is a non-binding instrument which it has
itself repudiated. This makes no sense.
31. In short, the United States asks you to dismiss this case on the basis of a limitation on its
jurisdiction that is not set out in the relevant compromissory clause, and does not
appear in the Court’s Statute or Rules, and for which you will search in vain in the
digests of the Court’s jurisprudence and the textbooks on international law.
32. It asks that you assert a discretion to deem disputes that are on their face quite plainly
within the compromissory clause of a treaty, to be outside your jurisdiction. It asks you to do so
on

20 CR 2020/12, p. 13, para. 5 (Bethlehem).
21 CR 2020/10, p. 20, para. 2 (Bethlehem).

- 19 -

the basis of vague, subjective notions of what is a “large concern” of the applicant State,
overriding the plain terms of the Application.
33. Iran submits that it is not the role of the Court to filter out cases brought before it on the
basis of political considerations, which is very obviously what the United States wishes the Court
to do.
34. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your patient attention and unless I can be
of any further assistance, I ask that you call Mr. Wordsworth to the microphone.

The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor Lowe for his statement. I will now give the floor
to Mr. Wordsworth. You have the floor.

Mr. WORDSWORTH: Thank you, Sir.

THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE WITH RESPECT TO THE SECONDARY SANCTIONS TARGETED AT
IRAN, AND IRANIAN COMPANIES AND NATIONALS, INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO BREACH OF ARTICLES IV (1) AND
(2),
V (1) AND X (1)

A. Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I will respond to the United States’ case that
its secondary sanctions fall outside the scope of the Treaty, focusing in particular on Articles
IV (1) and (2), V (1) and X (1) of the Treaty. I make three introductory points.
2. First, this case concerns a Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations. It does not concern a
bilateral investment treaty, restricted by a requirement that an investor have a defined investment
in the territory of the host State; and nor does it concern a bilateral trade agreement, concerned
solely with trade between the two Parties. For sure, US investment and free trade agreements of
today have evolved to contain multiple new and different restrictions on the protections they
accord; but the Court is concerned only with the 1955 Treaty of Amity. And, the reference to the
broad concept of “economic relations” in its title is one demonstration that it encompasses a scope
broader than trade and commerce directly between the two States, which is how the United States of
America now presents the Treaty.
3. And it is of course the Treaty provisions that are key. More than a dozen times on Friday, you
heard from US counsel that the Treaty is concerned only with trade and transactions between

- 20 -

the two Treaty Parties²², but that is to ignore one critical aspect of the Treaty,
which contains provisions concerned not just with trade but also with the treatment accorded by
one State to the nationals and companies of the other State, and their property. The Treaty
certainly does protect trade, for example in Article X (1) but, in separate provisions, it
expressly protects nationals and companies; their rights and their property too. Sanctions targeted
at harming the economic activity of Iranian nationals and companies are a form of
“treatment” accorded to those nationals and companies, whether they are primary or secondary
sanctions; for example, they impair the legally acquired rights and interests of Iranian nationals
and companies by unreasonable or discriminatory measures. Such treatment is expressly prohibited. I
made this point on Wednesday but there was no reply²³.
4. Second, the honourable Agent for the United States of America adopted, as no doubt he must, the
US line that “the focus of sanctions pressure is directed at the Iranian régime, and not the
Iranian people”²⁴. That line is of the greatest offence to Iranian nationals and
companies, which benefit from the express protections of the Treaty and yet, day by day, see their
businesses being destroyed. On the US case, it is apparently open to it publicly and repeatedly to
celebrate the severe economic harm that its measures cause to Iranian companies and nationals,
boasting for example in April 2019, that “[t]he Trump Administration has designated over
970 Iranian entities and individuals in more than 26 rounds of sanctions ⎯ more than
any other Administration in
U.S. history”²⁵; and yet, before you, it can somehow say that the real target is elsewhere or, in
the

speeches of Ms Gahan and Ms Grosh, that it somehow does not matter that the US
secondary sanctions are targeted so as to cause severe economic harm precisely to
Iranian nationals and companies²⁶.
5. But of course it matters ⎯ including because the Treaty is concerned with treatment as
well as trade. We made the point on Wednesday that the United States was wrong to assimilate the

22 CR 2020/12, p. 19, para. 34 and p. 20, para. 37 (Bethlehem); pp. 48-59 (Gahan).
23 CR 2020/11, p. 33, para. 20 (a) (Wordsworth).
24 CR 2020/12, p. 40, para. 10 (String).
25 Available at ge.usembassy.gov/maximum-pressure-campaign-on-the-regime-in-iran-april-4/;
emphasis (boldfaced) in the original. See also
www.state.gov/press-briefing-with-brian-hook-special-representative-for….
26 CR 2020/12, p. 21, para. 4 (Gahan).

- 21 -

entire Treaty to its Article X (1), which does concern commerce between the States’ territories,
and also that the Court had expressly interpreted Article IV (1) in the Oil Platforms case by
reference to the important absence of any equivalent territorial restriction²⁷, and the United
States on Friday had no answer to either point. And one reason that the US measures fall within the
Treaty is because they target all Iranian companies and nationals on the basis of alleged acts of
the Government of Iran, and therefore they constitute a form of collective punishment of the
Iranian people and their businesses, that is, the US measures are arbitrary
contrary to Article IV (1)²⁸. Again, the US counsel on Friday had no answer to that point,
and hence the deliberate misunderstanding of the relevance of our example on Total²⁹ and the
various other attempts to deflect your attention away from the indisputable point that the
so-called third country measures are targeted at, intended to cause and do cause severe economic
harm to, Iranian nationals and companies.
6. Third, both Sir Daniel and Ms Gahan were wilfully missing our point on Article IV (1) and the
Oil Platforms case which was, of course, that that case concerned use of force, not targeted
economic sanctions³⁰. Both counsel went back to Iran’s pleadings in Oil Platforms, but Iran made
its point on Wednesday expressly by reference to the Court’s Judgment, and in
particular the Court’s rejection of Iran’s then Article IV (1) case that economic harm arising
from use of force could fall within the fair and equitable treatment provision of the Treaty³¹. The
current case is very different, of course, because the Treaty provisions are overtly
concerned with protection against economic harm by economic measures such as sanctions.
7. And, on Certain Iranian Assets, whereas the United States again seeks to go back to Iran’s then
pleadings³², Iran now is simply taking note of what the Court decided, that an exterior rule of
international law could not be imported into the Treaty of Amity³³. There is no equivalent in our

27 CR 2020/11, p. 28, para. 5 (Wordsworth).
28 CR 2020/11, p. 32, para. 18 (Wordsworth); cf. CR 2020/12, p. 29, para. 10 (Grosh).
29 See e.g. CR 2020/12, pp. 21-22, paras. 4 and 8 (Gahan).
30 CR 2020/12, p. 19, para. 34 and p. 20, para. 37 (Bethlehem); p. 26, para. 21 (Gahan); cf. CR
2020/11, p. 30,
para. 10 (Wordsworth).
31 CR 2020/11, p. 30, para. 10 (Wordsworth).
32 CR 2020/12, p. 20, para. 36 (Bethlehem).
33 CR 2020/11, p. 30, para. 10 (Wordsworth).

- 22 -

Iran’s current claims. There is no attempt by Iran to “enlarge the scope of the
Treaty”³⁴, as the United States alleges, but merely it reads its provisions ⎯ quite correctly ⎯
as concerned with the protection of nationals and companies against (for example) unfair treatment
and impairment, and not ⎯ quite incorrectly ⎯ as just concerned with bilateral trade.

B. The concept of third country measures and the US categorization of its measures
8. I turn to the details, starting with Ms Gahan’s recitation of the US concept of third country
measures, which again ignored the point that, whatever label might be put on the US
measures, they plainly target Iranian nationals and companies, and Iran, and there is no reason to
suppose that measures with the intended effect of causing severe economic harm should be outside
the scope of the Treaty merely because they are framed so as to cut off all the
economic lifelines for Iran’s businesses and people.
9. Ms Gahan’s first point simply repeated the US description of its invented “concept”,
culminating in the self-serving assertion that “[t]here is nothing about aims, or
targets, in the concept; the relevant question is: what are the commercial relations
that are the subject of the measure?”³⁵. But this is not the relevant question. The only
question, as per the Court’s Judgment in Oil Platforms, is whether Iran’s claims with respect to
the US measures, including the co-called third country measures, fall within the scope of
the Treaty. The Court is not assisted by the United States assuming in its own favour that
this ⎯ the actual question ⎯ is to be determined by reference to the US assertion about the
importance of the existence or otherwise of bilateral commercial relations³⁶. It is as if
the United States believes that it has already pointed the Court to some provision of the
Treaty which states that its entire scope of application is limited to trade between
Iran and the United States or their nationals and companies. Yet no such provision exists.
10. Ms Gahan’s subsequent points, and her speech last Monday, focused on the
United States’ decision for the purpose of this case to divide its measures into four categories,
the US argument being that categories (1)-(3), the supposed “vast majority”, concern the third
country

34 CR 2020/12, p. 20, para. 37 (Bethlehem).
35 CR 2020/12, p. 21, para. 4 (Gahan).
36 CR 2020/12, p. 22, para. 6 (Gahan).

- 23 -

measures and are hence excluded from jurisdiction³⁷, while a fourth “discrete
category”³⁸, involving the licensing of bilateral trade, does potentially fall within the Treaty,
subject to whatever objections the United States may later come up with³⁹. You were told by the
United States that if a measure falls within any of categories (1)-(3), the Court can and should
eliminate it at this stage⁴⁰. Yet, in addition to the absence of any Treaty basis for
exclusion of the so-called third country measures, the US categorization breaks down on closer
inspection.
11. Two points. First, it is now common ground that a measure that targets Iran or an Iranian
company may fall within both category 4 and categories 1, 2 and/or 3. This is one aspect of the US
concession made last Monday on Article X (1)⁴¹, that is, the United States now accepts
that commerce between the territories of the two States can equally be impeded by a
US measure banning the sale of a US product as by a US measure on a foreign bank
preventing the Iranian company paying for the product. On the United States’ case as
now developed, the Court has jurisdiction over both types of measure. So, on a closer
inspection, the United States’ objection is not that all measures falling within categories (1)–(3)
are outside the scope of the Treaty of Amity, but that some are, although the Court has no way of
knowing at this stage exactly where even the United States says the line is supposed to be drawn.
12. Take for example a foreign subsidiary of a US company that has terminated a contract to sell a
drilling rig to the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) as a result of the US measures. The
transaction would be prohibited by, at least, US categories (4) and (2): category (4)
because of revocation of General License H⁴²; category (2) because Executive Order
13846 separately prohibits a foreign subsidiary of a US company from “provid[ing]
financial, material, or technological support” to NIOC⁴³. It would also be prohibited under
categories (1) and (3) if NIOC

37 POUS, paras. 7.7, 7.11, 7.13, 7.17; CR 2020/10, p. 19, para. 17 (String); pp. 48-59 (Gahan); CR
2020/12, p. 21,
para. 5 and pp. 24–25, paras. 13–16 and 19 (Gahan).
38 CR 2020/12, pp. 21–22, para. 5 (Gahan).
39 CR 2020/12, p. 21, para. 5, pp. 24–25, paras. 13–16 and 19 (Gahan).
40 See e.g. CR 2020/10, p. 49, para. 3 (Gahan).
41 See CR 2020/11, p. 41, para. 46 (Wordsworth); CR 2020/10, p. 44, para. 38 (Grosh).
42 See 31 C.F.R. Sec. 560.215.
43 See Executive Order (EO) 13846, Sec. 8 (a) (referencing Sec. 1 (a) (ii)). See also EO 13846,
Sec. 3 (a) (v).

- 24 -

had been paying for the oil rig via a foreign bank⁴⁴. Thus, even if the third
country measures objection were somehow to be accepted, the Court would still have
jurisdiction with respect to claims concerning each category of the US measures. It would still
be necessary to consider the impact of each of categories (1) through to (4), and not just
the category (4) measures as the United States would have you believe.
13. Second, it is plain from the face of the US measures ⎯ including their use of the generic
term “persons” ⎯ that they apply to US as well as non-US persons⁴⁵. The United States accepts this
but asserts that the measures were nonetheless directed at non-US persons⁴⁶. That is a question of
the application and impacts of the measures and, moreover, of contested fact. It is not a question
suitable for the preliminary objections stage. As I noted on Wednesday, the US
description of categories (1)–(3) as being concerned with US persons was repeatedly qualified by
words such as “generally” and “primarily”⁴⁷. Although an explanation was invited, none was given on
Friday.

C. Jurisdiction in respect of Article IV (1)
14. I turn to Article IV (1), and it was notable that Ms Grosh started with the travaux and sought
to work backwards, which suggested an obvious lack of comfort with the express wording of the three
protections that Article IV (1) contains⁴⁸. Indeed, there was no response at all to the
submissions that Iran made on Wednesday on the comprehensive and unqualified nature of
the wording used in Article IV (1), nor on the important point that the Court made in Oil Platforms
on the absence of any territorial restriction in Article IV (1)⁴⁹.
15. On object and purpose, there was no challenge to any of the four points that Iran made on
Wednesday, including as to the importance to be accorded to the objective stated in Article I,
which was of course highlighted by the Court at the jurisdictional phase of the Oil Platforms
case⁵⁰. The

44 See EO 13846, Sec. 2 (a) (iii).
45 See e.g. EO 13846 of 6 Aug. 2018 “Reimposing Certain Sanctions With Respect to Iran”, Sec. 16
(l).
46 CR 2020/12, pp. 21–22, para. 5 (Gahan); CR 2020/10, p. 50, para. 6 (Gahan).
47 CR 2020/11, p. 21, para. 8 (Wordsworth) referring to e.g. CR 2020/10, p. 50, para. 6;
p. 52; para. 11; p. 54,
paras. 16 and 18; p. 55, paras. 22-23; p. 56, para. 24 (Gahan).
48 CR 2020/12, pp. 28-29, paras. 5-8 (Grosh).
49 See CR 2020/11, pp. 32-34, paras. 20-23 (Wordsworth).
50 See CR 2020/11, pp. 34-36, paras. 26-32 (Wordsworth); cf. CR 2020/12, pp. 29-30, paras. 9-11
(Grosh).

- 25 -

only response on object and purpose was by reference to an argument made by Iran at the merits
phase of Oil Platforms ⎯ to the effect that interference with commerce through use of force was
inconsistent with the objective of peace and friendship in Article I and a breach of Article X (1),
an argument that the Court rejected⁵¹. Two points.
(a) First, as we have been saying again and again⁵², the case in Oil Platforms concerned
use of force, not targeted economic sanctions which, by contrast, fit directly and
naturally into the ordinary meaning of the protections established by Article IV (1), and
all the more so when interpreted in light of the Article I objective of peace and friendship.
(b) Second, the passage from the 2003 Judgment relied on by the United States last
Friday concerned Article X (1), not Article IV (1)⁵³; and the Article X (I) claim in Oil Platforms
was rejected solely on the basis that the commerce involved an unknown series of
commercial transactions⁵⁴. Article I did not feature.
16. Iran was also taken to task for not identifying “any precedent for applying the ‘fair and
equitable treatment’ standard ⎯ that is, the language of investment protection treaties ⎯
to measures taken by one State in respect of transactions exclusively between nationals
of two different countries”⁵⁵. Three short points:
(a) First, other States do not unilaterally impose “secondary sanctions” like the United
States of America; hence, there could be no precedent. It is not because the United States of
America chooses to inflict economic harm on Iranian nationals and companies in a
particularly egregious way that Article IV (1) should somehow not apply.
(b) Second, as Ms Grosh will well know, the first bilateral investment treaty was
concluded in 1959⁵⁶. The inclusion of a classic term of the FCN treaty in the
subsequently devised bilateral investment treaty régime, which includes the requirement of
a territorially located

51 CR 2020/12, pp. 29-30, paras. 9-11 (Grosh).
52 See e.g. CR 2020/11, p. 30, para. 10 (Wordsworth).
53 CR 2020/12, p. 26, para. 20 (Gahan), referring to Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v.
United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 207, para. 97.
54 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2003, p. 207, para. 97.
55 CR 2020/12, p. 29, para. 8 (Grosh).
56 See e.g. UNCTAD, “Bilateral Investment Treaties 1959-1999” (2000), available at
unctad.org/en/Docs/ poiteiiad2.en.pdf.

- 26 -

investment, in the way that the FCN treaty does not, is of no assistance in deciding the current
issue of jurisdiction ratione materiae.
(c) Third, the real point on absence of precedent is the US inability to point to any ICJ or other
international case where, although the express treaty wording interpreted by reference to the
usual rules would include a certain type of conduct, that conduct is somehow excluded from
jurisdiction because of one side’s unsupported and impressionistic account of what it now says the
treaty was intended by it to cover.
17. As to the case made on Friday on the travaux, this was just a reiteration of the same point on
the establishment of companies made on Monday⁵⁷. To be clear, Iran did not on Wednesday ⎯ and would
not ⎯ accept that a screening mechanism for companies wishing to establish themselves in the
United States of America could be a form of targeting permitted by the Treaty⁵⁸. If US
screening was arbitrary or discriminatory, for example, it would fall within Article IV (1).
18. We invite the Court to focus on the three-line description of the US Secretary of State said to
be so important, although it is only an internal statement of the official of one Treaty Party on a
small point ⎯ which, moreover, is qualified by his saying this is what he sees the stipulations on
business enterprises as “largely” relating to⁵⁹. But the obvious point, which I made
on Wednesday, is that if the official was saying that the Treaty is largely concerned with
protecting companies against discrimination once established, that is both incorrect and
inconsistent with the US current case⁶⁰: Ms Grosh did not contest our point that the United States
accepts that it owes obligations under Article IV (1) to Iranian companies, regardless of whether
they are established in the United States of America or not⁶¹. Of course it does. And the current
US position ⎯ the alleged requirement that an Iranian company be engaged in bilateral trade ⎯ is
simply not touched on in this official’s comment.

57 CR 2020/12, pp. 28-29, paras. 6-7 (Grosh).
58 See CR 2020/11, pp. 36-37, para. 33 (Wordsworth); cf. CR 2020/12, p. 28, para. 7 (Grosh).
59 “Message from the Secretary of State Transmitting a Treaty of Amity, Economic
Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States of America and Iran, signed at
Tehran on Aug. 15, 1955”, (23 Dec. 1955), POUS, Ann. 90, US judges’ folder, tab 9.
60 See CR 2020/11, pp. 36-37, para. 33 (Wordsworth); cf. CR 2020/12, p. 28, para. 7 (Grosh).
61 CR 2020/11, pp. 36-37, para. 33 (Wordsworth).

- 27 -

19. Finally, Iran was accused of seeking to transform Article IV (1) “into an empty vessel to be
filled with any obligation Iran would like to have applied” and engaging in “an act of invention
and expansion”⁶². Well, that is scarcely a fair reflection of paragraphs 4.10-4.30 of
Iran’s Memorial, to which we invite the Court to turn for Iran’s detailed interpretation of Article
IV (1), supported by multiple cases, including this Court’s frequently applied dicta in the ELSI
case on the definition of arbitrariness⁶³. For convenience, this passage from the Memorial is in
your judges’ folder at tab 15.

D. Jurisdiction in respect of Article IV (2)
20. I move to Article IV (2). The United States of America on Friday had nothing to say in response
to our point that it was seeking to rewrite the expropriation provision by introducing a
territorial restriction, the Court will recall the point; but now it is said for the very first
time that the territorial restriction is “inherent in the power that [the expropriation] seeks
to [re]strain”⁶⁴. It is thus said, with notably no supporting reference, that “[a] State .
. . has no power to expropriate property located in territories over which another State is
sovereign”⁶⁵.
21. It is as if the United States had suddenly woken up to the long-standing and widespread
criticism of its assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction such as through “secondary
sanctions”⁶⁶, and had agreed to turn over a new leaf. But it has not, as the US
measures in this case amply demonstrate. A State can ⎯ and in the case of the United States it
does ⎯ assert its jurisdiction abroad in a way that may potentially be expropriatory, including
through steps to seize property abroad. For example, the US courts have routinely asserted
the authority to order seizure and repatriation of funds held in foreign countries and foreign
bank accounts to pay US taxes⁶⁷. That

62 CR 2020/12, p. 30, para. 13 (Grosh).
63 Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 76, para. 128.
64 CR 2020/12, p. 30, para. 15 (Grosh). Cf. CR 2020/10, p. 44, para. 37 (Grosh), and POUS, para.
7.32.
65 CR 2020/12, p. 30, para. 15 (Grosh).
66 See e.g. EU, “Guidance Note ⎯ Questions and Answers: adoption of update of the Blocking
Statute”, Official Journal of the EU, 2018/C 277 I/03 (7 Aug. 2018), available
at eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
?uri=uriserv:OJ.CI.2018.277.01.0004.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2018:277I:TOC; OHCHR, “US sanctions violate
human rights and international code of conduct, UN expert says”, 6 May 2019 (MI, Ann. 97).
67 See e.g. United States v. L & L International, Inc., No. CV H-17-923, 2020 WL 168852
(S.D. Tex., 13 Jan. 2020); United States v. Grant, No. 00-8986, 2005 WL 2671479 (S.D. Fla., 2
Sept. 2005), adopted, 2005 WL 3747779 (S.D. Fla., 22 Dec. 2005).

- 28 -

assertion of jurisdiction may or may not be recognized in a third State, but that does not somehow
mean that the United States of America does not or would not exercise its
jurisdiction extraterritorially and that such could not amount to a taking.

E. Jurisdiction in respect of Article V (1)
22. I move briefly to Article V (1), as to which one short point, and here we all agree that this
provision contains a territorial limitation. Notwithstanding this limitation, a US measure
interfering with the acquisition of US personal property will generally be both by way
of withdrawal of a licence under the so-called category (4) and by way of a “secondary
sanction” under category (1), (2) and/or (3) such as in preventing payment for the US product via
a foreign bank. Hence, Iran’s Article V (1) claim also brings in US category (1) to (3)
measures, although you were told by the United States, quite wrongly, that categories (1) to (3)
concern the so-called third country measures only⁶⁸.

F. Jurisdiction in respect of Article X (1)
23. Precisely the same point applies with respect to commerce between the territories of the two
States within Article X (1) which, as the Court will recall, contains the type of express wording
that the United States wishes inappropriately to introduce into Article IV (1) and the
expropriation provision of Article IV (2). I make three further points on Article X (1).
24. First, the United States did not deal with our point that it is seeking to
rewrite the provision, adding a new term into Article X (1) ⎯ the word “direct”. There
was likewise no attempt to engage with our point that the Oil Platforms Judgment does
not support any such addition⁶⁹.
25. Second, Iran was criticized for using hypothetical examples, although it was said
that both examples given would anyway concern commerce between the two States and hence would be
category (4) cases⁷⁰. The criticism makes no sense. The examples given by Iran were
simply to demonstrate that what is commerce between the territories of the two States
is a matter for the

68 See e.g. CR 2020/10, pp. 48-49, paras. 2-3 (Gahan).
69 CR 2020/11, pp. 39-40, paras. 43-44 (Wordsworth).
70 CR 2020/12, pp. 25-26, paras. 19-20 (Gahan).

- 29 -

merits and, following on from the US concession in the first round, it must now be accepted that
measures within the US categories (1) to (3) may fall within Article X (1) as well
as the category (4) measures. There was no attempt by the United States of America to argue why
this would not be so.
26. Third, on the extent of the US concession on Article X (1), the point that Iran
was making on Wednesday was completely blanked, as if that could be an answer to an inconvenient
point⁷¹. A measure under categories (1) to (3) may ⎯ it follows from the US concession ⎯ be a
breach of Article X (1) if they constitute a form of the prohibited conduct. So on what basis is it
said that measures under categories (1) to (3) cannot similarly be a breach of, say, Article IV (1)
if they are a form of conduct expressly prohibited by that provision?⁷² The answer is that there is
no sound basis. The simple point is that there is no provision, no sound basis in the usual rules
on treaty interpretation, nor even some exterior statement that points to a
determination that the so-called third country measures are somehow excluded.
27. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind attention, and I ask you, Mr.
President, to call on Professor Thouvenin.

The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr. Wordsworth for his statement. Je donne à présent la parole au professeur
Thouvenin.

M. THOUVENIN :

ARTICLES VII, VIII ET IX
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, la tâche m’incombe ce lundi de clore le
débat préliminaire à propos des articles VII, paragraphe 1, VIII, paragraphes 1 et 2, et IX,
paragraphes 2 et 3, du traité d’amitié, de commerce et de navigation.

71 Cf. CR 2020/12, p. 26, para. 21 (Gahan).
72 CR 2020/11, p. 41, paras. 45–46 (Wordsworth).

- 30 -

2. Avant d’y venir, qu’il me soit permis d’attirer votre attention sur une observation faite à
l’instant par Mᵉ Wordsworth, qui est que nos contradicteurs peinent à réconcilier leurs
positions avec l’objet et le but du traité⁷³.
3. J’ajouterai qu’elles sont intenables à sa lumière. Supposons que le traité de 1955 soit signé
mais pas encore ratifié par les deux Parties ; et que les Etats-Unis, après la signature, mais
avant la ratification, mettent en place le siège économique que l’Iran dénonce dans la présente
affaire, dans l’objectif annoncé de réduire à néant la totalité de la capacité
exportatrice, importatrice, productrice, industrielle, commerciale, financière, et
bancaire de l’Iran. Dira-t-on que les Etats-Unis ont privé le traité de son objet et de
son but, au sens de l’article 18 de la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités ? Je laisse
cette question à votre appréciation.

et IX.
A. Articles VIII et IX du traité d’amitié
4. Monsieur le président, je me tourne à présent, là encore brièvement, vers les articles VIII

5. Concernant l’article VIII, Mme Grosh s’est à nouveau évertuée vendredi à vous proposer

d’y lire les termes «between the two Parties», que les Etats-Unis voient surgir partout, comme des
mots-fantômes, alors qui n’y figurent ni explicitement, ni implicitement⁷⁴.
6. Un nouvel argument a toutefois éclos, selon lequel il serait dénué de sens ou de
plausibilité de considérer que, du point de vue des Etats-Unis, des produits vendus à l’Iran à
partir d’un territoire tiers, disons de l’Etat X, sont des «exportations» de X vers l’Iran⁷⁵.
7. C’est curieux. Comment faudrait-il appeler ces opérations ? Bien sûr que ce sont
des exportations, et qu’on doit les appeler ainsi. Les ventes de l’Etat X à destination de l’Iran
doivent et ne peuvent s’appeler que des exportations de l’Etat X vers l’Iran, que ce soit vu de
Washington, de La Haye, ou de tout autre endroit.
8. Concernant l’article IX, ma contradictrice revient sur l’argument de «contexte» déjà
débattu au premier tour de plaidoiries⁷⁶, selon lequel la première phrase du premier paragraphe,
qui

73 CR 2010/10, p. 38, par. 18 (Grosh). EPEU, p. 39, par. 3.6 ; p. 45-46, par. 4.10 ; p.
77, par. 6.21 ; p. 96,
par. 7.6 ; p. 104, par. 7.20-7.21.
74 CR 2020/12, p. 33, par. 28 et 29 (Grosh) ; voir également CR 2020/10, p. 45, par. 40 et p. 46,
par. 43 (Grosh) ; CR 2020/11, p. 43-44, par. 7-10 (Thouvenin) ; voir aussi EPEU, p. 38, par. 3.5.
75 CR 2020/12, p. 33, par. 27 (Grosh).

- 31 -

n’est pas en cause dans la présente instance, éclairerait le sens, et limiterait la
portée, des paragraphes 2 et 3 invoqués par l’Iran⁷⁷. Il a beau être répété, l’argument
laisse toujours aussi perplexe. Le premier paragraphe de l’article IX indique son champ
d’application par la mention :
«dans le cadre de ses règlements douaniers et de ses procédures douanières». Le
troisième paragraphe porte sur des mesures affectant la possibilité pour les importateurs
et exportateurs d’obtenir des assurances maritimes, ce qui n’a aucun rapport. Quant au
deuxième paragraphe, il porte sur «toutes les questions qui ont trait aux importations et
aux exportations». Son domaine d’application est vaste et sort manifestement du seul cadre
douanier. La première phrase du premier paragraphe n’est donc aucunement de nature à éclairer le
sens et la portée des paragraphes suivants.

B. Article VII, paragraphe 1, du traité d’amitié
9. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je continuerai ma présentation en
faisant maintenant trois observations plus substantielles à propos de l’article VII, paragraphe 1.
10. En premier lieu, l’affirmation de Mme Gahan selon laquelle le système financier des
Etats-Unis est fermé aux Iraniens depuis longtemps, sans que les mesures du 8 mai 2018
aient changé quoi que ce soit à cet égard⁷⁸, est inexacte. Il s’agit d’une allégation quant aux
faits en cause au fond, au demeurant imprécise⁷⁹. Elle ne correspond pas à la réalité, en
particulier parce que les mesures du 8 mai 2018 ont mis fin à des exceptions⁸⁰. Mais ce n’est pas
le moment de détailler ce point, pour l’évidente raison que l’établissement des faits relève
du fond. La Cour observera en outre que la Partie adverse prétend exclure du débat les mesures
relatives aux transferts de fonds sans même avoir défini ce qui, de son point de vue, est un
«transfert de fonds». Or, la question pourrait mériter discussion, comme la Cour a pu le
mesurer récemment dans l’affaire pendante opposant l’Ukraine à la Russie⁸¹. Enfin, on voit mal
en quoi le fait que des restrictions concernant

76 CR 2020/10, p. 46, par. 44 (Grosh) ; et CR 2020/11, p. 53-54, par. 44-46 (Thouvenin).
77 CR 2020/12, p. 33-34, par. 30 (Grosh).
78 CR 2020/10, p. 51, par. 8, et p. 52-53, par. 13-14 (Gahan) ; et CR 2020/12, p. 21-22, par. 5
(Gahan).
79 Voir, par exemple, CR 2020/10, p. 50, par. 6 et 7, et p. 52, par. 11 (Gahan), CR 2020/12, p.
21, par. 5, p. 22,
par. 6, et p. 25, par. 16 (Gahan).
80 EPEU, p. 110, par. 7.39.
81 Application de la convention internationale pour la répression du financement du
terrorisme et de la convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de
discrimination raciale (Ukraine c. Fédération de Russie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt du 8
novembre 2019, par. 62.

- 32 -

les transferts de fonds étaient déjà en place avant le 8 mai 2018 pourrait empêcher
d’évaluer la licéité des mesures du 8 mai 2018 au regard de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du
traité. Il peut y avoir plusieurs réglementations restrictives des paiements et transferts de
fonds, qui se superposent les unes aux autres, sans que celles issues des mesures du 8 mai 2018
perdent leur caractère illicite au regard du traité. Autrement dit, le fait qu’une restriction
dénoncée par l’Iran comme contraire au traité se surajoute à une restriction que l’Iran ne dénonce
pas dans le cadre de la présente instance est sans conséquence sur la question de savoir si la
restriction dénoncée par l’Iran entre ou n’entre pas dans le champ opératoire du traité.
11. En deuxième lieu, il est erroné de postuler, comme les Etats-Unis ont tenté de le suggérer
lundi dernier, que parce que le traité de 1955 est un traité d’amitié, de commerce et de
navigation, il existerait une présomption qu’il ne porte que sur des relations économiques entre
les territoires des Etats parties⁸².
12. Je l’ai montré mercredi en soulignant notamment qu’il n’était pas rare que des
traités d’amitié, de commerce et de navigation créent des obligations opérant dans les relations
avec les pays tiers⁸³. «These are different treaties», m’a-t-on répondu⁸⁴. Certainement,
sans que cela empêche Mme Grosh de faire de nombreuses références à des traités FCN
lors de son propre exercice d’interprétation du traité lundi dernier⁸⁵.
13. En l’occurrence, le fait est simplement que les autres traités d’amitié, de navigation et de
commerce peuvent informer la Cour sur le sens qu’il convient d’accorder aux termes «à destination
ou en provenance du territoire de l’autre Haute Partie contractante».
14. En troisième et dernier lieu, avec l’article VII, paragraphe 1, la Cour est, pour reprendre une
formule de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale :
«placée en présence d’un texte dont la clarté ne laisse rien à désirer, elle est tenue de
l’appliquer tel qu’il est, sans qu’elle ait à se demander si d’autres dispositions auraient pu lui
être ajoutées ou substituées avec avantage»⁸⁶.

82 CR 2020/10, p. 36-37, par. 11-12 (Grosh).
83 CR 2020/11, p. 44-47, par. 12-18 (Thouvenin).
84 CR 2020/12, p. 31, par. 20 (Grosh).
85 CR 2020/10, p. 36, par. 10-12 ; p. 41, par. 28 et note de bas de page 47 ; p. 47, par. 46
(Grosh).
86 Acquisition de la nationalité polonaise, avis consultatif, 1923, C.P.J.I. série B nᵒ 7, p. 20.

- 33 -

15. La Cour a repris ce principe à son compte notamment dans l’affaire du Différend
territorial qui a opposé le Tchad à la Libye, dans laquelle la Cour a procédé à l’interprétation du
traité en commençant par le texte, en vérifiant la cohérence de son sens ordinaire avec l’objet et
le but du traité, puis en confirmant le résultat interprétatif par un regard sur le contexte⁸⁷.
Comme je l’ai montré mercredi⁸⁸, l’application de la même méthode à l’article VII, paragraphe 1,
conduit sans ambiguïté à faire prévaloir l’interprétation que l’Iran avance.
16. Par contraste, les plaidoiries des Etats-Unis s’illustrent par le fait qu’elles
n’ont pas grand-chose à dire sur le texte, comme l’a déjà bien montré Mᵉ Wordsworth. Il n’est pas
le point de départ de leur raisonnement. Les Etats-Unis préfèrent affirmer, d’autorité,
que l’article VII, paragraphe 1, ne vise pas les «third country measures», puis avancent un
argument de contexte qui attesterait que les paiements, remises et transferts à propos
desquels aucune restriction n’est permise par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, se
rapporteraient uniquement aux «transfers of currency into and out of a Party’s
territory»⁸⁹, pour la raison que les autres paragraphes de l’article VII portent, pour
leur part, sur les restrictions de change.
17. Cette thèse ne résiste pas davantage à l’analyse aujourd’hui que mercredi⁹⁰. Si elle était
fondée, l’article VII, paragraphe 1, n’interdirait pas toutes «restrictions» en matière de
paiements, de remises et transferts de fonds, mais viserait évidemment les «restrictions
de change», et donnerait la définition de cette notion.
18. Cela n’aurait pas été bien compliqué puisque les restrictions de change ⎯ «exchange
restriction» ⎯ sont souvent définies dans les traités d’amitié, de commerce et de
navigation conclus par les Etats-Unis, notamment dans le traité américano-japonais de 1953, comme
visant :
«all restrictions, regulations, charges, taxes, or other requirements imposed by either Party which
burden or interfere with payments, remittances, or transfers of funds or of financial instruments
between the territories of the two Parties»⁹¹.

87 Différend territorial (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne/Tchad), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1994, p.
22-28, par. 41-56 ; en particulier p. 25-26, par. 51-53.
88 CR 2020/11, p. 43-44, par. 9-11 et p. 47-48, par. 19-21 (Thouvenin).
89 CR 2020/12, p. 31, par. 16 (Grosh).
90 CR 2020/11, p. 47-48, par. 19-21 (Thouvenin).
91 Article XII, paragraphe 5, du traité d’amitié, de commerce et de navigation entre les
Etats-Unis et le Japon du 9 avril 1953, disponible à l’adresse :
tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/All_Trade_ Agreements/exp_005539.asp.

- 34 -

19. Or, il suffit de mettre cette définition en regard de l’article VII, paragraphe 1,
pour comprendre que si ce dernier devait ne concerner que les restrictions «de change», et pas
toutes les restrictions sur les paiements et transferts de fonds, c’est bien le terme
«restrictions de change»
⎯ «exchange restrictions »⎯ qui aurait convenu.
20. Autrement dit, le fait même que le terme «restrictions» soit préféré aux termes

«restrictions de change» démontre précisément que l’article VII, paragraphe 1, ne
vise pas seulement les restrictions de change, qui concernent les «changes», donc essentiellement
les entrées et sorties de devises du territoire, mais a une portée beaucoup plus large
et concerne toutes les restrictions concernant les transferts de fonds, qu’il s’agisse de
restrictions de change ou non. C’est ce que d’ailleurs Mme Grosh a à moitié concédé en
affirmant à juste titre : «This is a broad restriction.»⁹² Nous sommes d’accord : la
restriction interdite par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, est une «broad restriction», qui ne se
borne pas aux entrées et sorties de devises du territoire. Il est dommage que Mme Grosh n’ait pas
conduit jusqu’à son terme sa comparaison entre l’article XII, paragraphe 1, du traité
américano-japonais de 1953 et l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du traité de 1955, apparemment faute de
temps. J’y consacrerai les minutes qui lui ont manqué.
21. Ce qui est comparable entre les deux dispositions, mais en «shorter and simpler»⁹³ pour ce qui
concerne l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du traité de 1955, se rapporte aux deux membres de
phrase suivants :
⎯ «entre les territoires des Hautes Parties contractantes et entre celui de cette Partie
contractante et
tout autre pays», pour l’article XII, paragraphe 1, du traité américano-japonais ;
⎯ «à destination ou en provenance des territoires de l’autre Haute Partie contractante»,
pour l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du traité de 1955.
22. Je maintiens que la portée territoriale de ces deux membres de phrase est comparable. Cela ne
veut pas dire que les deux articles disent la même chose, mais les formules donnent l’une et
l’autre aux obligations auxquelles elles se rapportent une portée dépassant le seul
territoire des parties au traité. La formule de l’article XII, paragraphe 1, du traité de 1953
conserverait d’ailleurs le même sens si elle se lisait : «à destination ou en provenance
des territoires de cette Partie

92 CR 2020/12, p. 31, par. 21 (Grosh).
93 CR 2020/11, p. 47-48, par. 18 (Thouvenin).

- 35 -

contractante». De même, la formule de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du traité de 1955 conserverait
le même sens si elle se lisait ⎯ et c’est d’ailleurs ainsi qu’il faut la lire : «entre
les territoires des Hautes Parties contractantes et entre celui de l’autre Haute Partie
contractante et tout autre pays».
23. Bien sûr, en dépit de ces convergences, les dispositions sont différentes.

24. La première, l’article XII, paragraphe 1, du traité américano-japonais, pose un droit à un
certain traitement que chaque partie doit accorder aux ressortissants et sociétés de l’autre
partie. Son champ territorial exact est tributaire de la formulation du texte.
Comme l’a indiqué Mme Grosh, il en découle que l’obligation porte sur les paiements et
transferts de fonds qui ont un lien avec le territoire de l’Etat soumis à l’obligation⁹⁴.
25. La seconde, la seule qui nous importe, est bien plus vaste en interdisant aux
Parties d’adopter des restrictions, quelle qu’en soit la forme, sur les paiements et
transferts de fonds à destination ou en provenance de l’autre Partie. Son champ
d’application ratione personae et ratione loci se comprend sans difficulté.
26. Quant au champ d’application ratione personae des restrictions interdites
par l’article VII, paragraphe 1, il n’est pas limité à certaines personnes seulement. Sont
concernés les ressortissants et sociétés iraniens, mais aussi ce que la Partie adverse appelle les
«US persons» et les «non-US persons». L’argument clé de nos contradicteurs selon lequel les mesures
contestées par l’Iran s’appliquent pour l’essentiel à des «non-US persons» est donc
dénué de pertinence s’agissant de l’article VII, paragraphe 1⁹⁵.
27. Quant au champ d’application ratione loci des restrictions interdites par l’article
VII, paragraphe 1, il est également déterminé par le texte. L’interprétation proposée par les
Etats-Unis voudrait que les transferts de fonds visés soient non pas ceux «à destination ou en
provenance de l’autre Haute Partie contractante», c’est-à-dire l’Iran, mais «à destination
ou en provenance des Etats-Unis»⁹⁶. Ce n’est évidemment pas conforme au texte, lequel,
sobre et précis, concerne les paiements et transferts «à destination ou en provenance du
territoire» de l’autre Partie, c’est-à-dire

94 CR 2020/12, p. 32, par. 22 (Grosh).
95 EPEU, p. 110, par. 7.39.
96 Ibid.

- 36 -

de la partie bénéficiaire de l’obligation, ici l’Iran. Ces termes se suffisent à
eux-mêmes. Il en découle que l’origine ou la destination des paiements ou transferts de fonds
sont indifférents.
28. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, c’est cette
lecture de l’article VII, paragraphe 1, du traité, que son objet et son but éclairent ;
et elle est parfaitement confirmée par le contexte. Comme je l’ai par ailleurs indiqué
mercredi en faisant référence aux Statuts du Fonds monétaire international, c’est
également une interprétation cohérente avec les
«règles pertinentes» du Fonds monétaire international «applicables entre les Parties»,
selon les termes de l’article 31, paragraphe 3, alinéa c), de la convention de Vienne sur le droit
des traités⁹⁷.
29. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, en conclusion, l’Iran maintient
intégralement ses vues quant à l’interprétation des articles du traité qu’il vous demande
d’appliquer au fond, et maintient que toutes les mesures qu’il a dénoncées entrent dans
le champ de compétence ratione materiae de votre Cour.
30. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je vous remercie vivement de votre
attention, vous prie de m’excuser pour l’incident technique du début et vous prie de
bien vouloir donner la parole au professeur Pellet.

Le PRESIDENT : Je remercie le professeur Thouvenin pour sa présentation et j’espère que vous
m’entendez cette fois-ci. Très bien. Je donne à présent la parole au professeur Alain Pellet. Vous
avez la parole.

M. PELLET :

L’ARTICLE XX DU TRAITÉ D’AMITIÉ ET L’ARTICLE 79BIS DU
RÈGLEMENT DE LA COUR
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, il m’appartient de répondre
brièvement à la partie de la plaidoirie de Mme Grosh consacrée aux exceptions
américaines fondées sur l’article XX du traité de 1955. Je le fais en priant de nouveau les mauvais
génies de l’informatique de ne pas me jouer les tours pendables qu’ils m’ont infligés la
semaine dernière. Deux points très brefs : premièrement, ces prétendues exceptions préliminaires
ne relèvent pas de

97 CR 2020/11, p. 47, par. 19-20 (Thouvenin).

- 37 -

la «troisième catégorie» envisagée par l’article 79bis, paragraphe 1, du Règlement de la
Cour ; deuxièmement, de toute manière et à titre subsidiaire, les conditions de mise
en œuvre de l’article XX ne sont pas remplies, qu’il s’agisse de l’alinéa b) ou de l’alinéa d) ⎯
mais ceci est sans importance à ce stade.
2. En premier lieu, s’appuyant sur l’affaire des Essais nucléaires, ma contradictrice affirme que
«certain objections are «of such a nature as to require examination in priority to» the merits of
the Applicant’s claims». Comme le montre le tableau inséré sous l’onglet nᵒ 16 du
dossier de plaidoiries, la citation qu’elle a faite des arrêts de 1974 est incomplète ;
la Cour y visait des
«questions qui, sans qu’on puisse les classer peut-être à strictement parler parmi les problèmes de
compétence ou de recevabilité, appellent par leur nature une étude préalable à celle
de ces problèmes»⁹⁸.
3. Mais Mme Grosh n’a pas cité ce passage dans son intégralité. Elle en a oublié le début et la
fin. Dans sa perspective, je la comprends : d’une part, dire qu’il s’agit de «questions qui, sans
qu’on puisse les classer peut-être à strictement parler parmi les problèmes de compétence ou de
recevabilité» ne revient pas à affirmer que cette «catégorie du troisième type» soit déconnectée
des deux autres ; et le «peut-être» de la Cour appelle particulièrement à la prudence dans
l’exégèse de cette citation. D’autre part, la fin de la citation omise par l’avocate des Etats-Unis
donne priorité à l’examen de ce type d’objection non pas sur l’examen du fond mais sur celui des
problèmes de compétence et de recevabilité. Prise à la lettre, cette remarque de la Cour voudrait
dire qu’il vous faudrait examiner les troisième et quatrième exceptions américaines avant les
autres. Ceci pourrait peut-être faire sens lorsque, pour une raison ou une autre, la
Cour estime qu’elle ne peut se prononcer sur une requête ⎯ comme c’était le cas dans les
affaires des Essais nucléaires. Ceci ne fait aucun sens ici.
4. Et cela a d’autant moins de sens que, comme je l’ai rappelé la semaine dernière, la Cour, à cinq
reprises, a clairement pris position sur la nature justement des objections fondées sur
l’article XX et elle a considéré qu’il s’agit de défenses au fond. Mais une même prétention ne peut
pas être à la fois une défense au fond et une exception préliminaire ; c’est l’un ou c’est
l’autre.

98 Essais nucléaires (Australie c. France), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 259, par. 22 ;
Règlement de la Cour, art. 79bis, par. 1 (les italiques sont de nous).

- 38 -

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. C’est lors de l’examen de l’affaire au fond
qu’il vous appartiendra, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, de vous prononcer sur cette défense ; et
non durant cette phase préliminaire, comme Sir Daniel Bethlehem vous le demande avec
insistance au nom des Etats-Unis : «What the United States is asking in this case is that you
address the issues in a preliminary proceedings»⁹⁹. Et c’est toute la différence avec l’affaire des
Plates-formes pétrolières dont se prévaut notre contradicteur¹⁰⁰ et dans laquelle vous avez, en
effet, examiné les arguments des Etats-Unis fondés sur ce même article avant leurs autres moyens ⎯
mais il s’agissait du fond et la Cour disposait alors de tous les éléments factuels et juridiques
utiles à sa décision, présentés par les deux Parties à la suite de deux tours de procédure écrite.
5. En revanche, si vous estimiez, à l’issue de cette procédure préliminaire, que ces mesures sont
conformes à l’article XX du traité, vous vous prononceriez assurément sur la substance même de la
requête de l’Iran dont l’objet est de vous prier de déclarer l’incompatibilité des mesures du 8 mai
2018 avec toutes conséquences de droit. En d’autres termes, vous rejetteriez les conclusions de
l’Iran, sans même les avoir examinées, en décidant, prématurément, que les mesures
qu’il conteste ne violent pas le traité. Et c’est pour cette raison qu’à très juste titre, votre
jurisprudence constante considère que ces objections portent sur le fond de l’affaire ⎯
ce qui exclut qu’elles soient accueillies à titre préliminaire.
6. Dès lors, il importe peu que vous deviez vous fonder sur des faits identiques ou différents de
ceux qui pourraient justifier votre raisonnement sur d’autres aspects de l’affaire. Contrairement à
ce qu’a affirmé Mme Grosh, il n’est tout simplement pas exact que «Article XX inquiry
is severable from the merits of Iran’s claims»¹⁰¹. And, still contrary to what she alleged,
«[t]hese facts are [not] distinct from those going to whether the United States has breached the
Treaty provisions that Iran invokes»¹⁰². Mais, que ces faits soient ou non différents de ceux qui
sont nécessaires pour justifier certaines autres prétentions de l’Etat défendeur, ils concernent
tout autant la question de savoir si les Etats-Unis ont violé les dispositions du traité
invoquées par l’Iran, y compris

99 CR 2020/12, p. 19, par. 33 (Bethlehem) (les italiques sont dans l’original).
100 Ibid.
101 CR 2020/12, p. 35, par. 35 (Grosh).
102 Cf. ibid.

- 39 -

l’article XX lui-même. La vérité est que ni la Cour ni nous-mêmes n’en savons rien : les Etats-Unis
ont proféré de graves allégations sans en établir le bien-fondé en fait.
7. Il n’est en revanche pas douteux que, pour vous prononcer sur ces deux objections, vous devriez
aller dans le détail des faits qui sont censés les justifier. Les Etats-Unis prétendent que tous
les éléments pour cela sont à votre disposition. Selon Sir Daniel, «Iran has fully pleaded its
merits case. We have its Memorial and its evidence. We know what it alleges about the operation of
the
U.S. measures. We know what it says about the interpretation and application of Article XX(1)(b)
and (d).»¹⁰³ Mais ceci non plus n’est pas exact, Monsieur le président. Notre mémoire
présente l’affaire telle que nous l’envisagions alors et ne répond évidemment pas à des objections
que les Etats-Unis n’avaient pas encore formulées. Quant aux phases ultérieures, nous
fondant sur la position constante de la Cour et sur l’article 79bis, paragraphe 3, du Règlement,
qui prévoit que «la procédure sur le fond est suspendue», nous n’avons pas poursuivi les échanges
au fond auxquels les Etats-Unis voulaient nous pousser pour tenter de vous convaincre de
vous départir de votre jurisprudence constante. Vous ne sauriez, Mesdames et Messieurs de la
Cour, vous prononcer au mépris du principe du contradictoire comme le demandent les Etats-Unis.
8. Deux mots, pour surplus de droit et pour ne rien laisser dans l’ombre, sur les quelques
éléments que ma contradictrice a cru pouvoir avancer à l’appui de l’invocation des alinéas b) et d)
du premier paragraphe de l’article XX. Mais c’était sur le fond. Elle l’a d’ailleurs fait de
manière extrêmement succincte ⎯ à juste titre.
9. Très peu de choses sur l’alinéa d) sinon les accusations habituelles proférées par
les Etats-Unis contre la République islamique, qui n’appellent pas, à ce stade,
de réfutation supplémentaire. Je relève tout de même que les Etats-Unis se sont, durant toute
cette procédure, bien gardés de tenter d’établir la nécessité des mesures contestées ⎯ de chacune
de ces mesures ⎯ et de leur proportionnalité aux causes qui sont censées les avoir suscitées. On ne
voit pas comment vous pourriez vous prononcer sur leur justification en l’absence de tout débat
entre les Parties sur ces aspects cruciaux ⎯ un débat que les Etats-Unis n’ont pas même amorcé.

103 Ibid., p. 18-19, par. 32 (Bethlehem).

- 40 -

10. Mme Grosh en a dit un tout petit peu plus sur l’alinéa b) relatif, je le
rappelle, aux mesures «concernant les substances fissiles». Comme nous l’avons expliqué dans notre
mémoire¹⁰⁴, les sanctions qui ont été prises (ou reprises) le 8 mai 2018, et qui font
l’objet de la requête iranienne, ne les concernent pas, à la différence d’autres
mesures imposées à l’Iran qui, elles, portent effectivement sur les substances fissiles. C’est
le cas, par exemple, de la réimposition des sanctions concernant le réacteur d’Arak, la fourniture
de combustible enrichi pour le réacteur de recherche de Téhéran, ou l’exportation du combustible
irradié de l’Iran¹⁰⁵. Mais, je le répète, ces mesures ne sont pas visées par la requête de l’Iran ;
il n’est d’ailleurs pas sans intérêt de noter que ces sanctions furent réimposées non pas dans la
foulée de celles du 8 mai 2018 mais deux ans plus tard, le 27 mai de cette année-ci, 2020. En
réalité, Monsieur le président, les Etats-Unis se battent contre la chimère qu’ils ont formée : la
requête imaginaire de l’Iran contre leur dénonciation du JCPOA qui, lui, contient des
dispositions portant sur les matières fissiles ; mais ces questions sont, ici, hors de cause.
11. Quant à prétendre que «Iran is wrong to suggest that the Court would need to
additionally assess whether the United States’ assessment of Iranian nuclear activity is
well founded»¹⁰⁶, cela revient très exactement à dire que les Etats-Unis peuvent décider n’importe
quelle mesure en invoquant n’importe quel lien, aussi vague et artificiel soit-il, avec
des «matières fissiles». Difficile alors pour les Etats-Unis de maintenir qu’ils
n’interprètent pas les deux dispositions concernées comme étant «self-judging»¹⁰⁷. Ceci,
Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, promet d’intéressants débats lorsque vous aurez rejeté les
exceptions prétendument préliminaires des Etats-Unis d’Amérique.
12. Quelques très brèves remarques un peu plus générales pour conclure, Monsieur le
président :
1) Comme je viens de le dire, les Etats-Unis se trompent d’affaire. Ils réfutent un cas fictif
(plus exactement un cas qui n’est pas devant la Cour) inventé par eux, pour les besoins de leur
cause

104 Voir MI, par. 9.18-9.21.
105 Voir, par exemple, https://www.state.gov/keeping-the-world-safe-from-irans-nuclear-program/.
106 Ibid., p. 37, par. 41 (Grosh).
107 Ibid., par. 42.

- 41 -

qui aurait pour objet leur retrait du JCPOA. Ceci ne vaut pas seulement pour les
matières fissiles : toute leur défense est largement orientée en ce sens. Aussi illicite
que soit cette dénonciation, ce n’est pas l’objet de l’affaire que l’Iran vous a soumise.
2) Toutes ces mesures sont dirigées contre l’Iran, ses ressortissants et ses sociétés ; le fait
qu’elles menacent et atteignent également les intérêts de personnes et de sociétés ayant
la nationalité d’Etats tiers est sans importance en l’espèce et ne les rend pas moins contraires
aux dispositions du traité protégeant les intérêts réciproques des parties et de leurs
ressortissants. Elles sont d’ailleurs toutes qualifiées de «Iran Sanctions» dans les publications
officielles américaines¹⁰⁸.
3) Et enfin, l’essentiel des éléments factuels ou prétendus tels avancés par les Etats-Unis à
l’appui de leur thèse concernent le fond de l’affaire et devront être discutés lors de la
procédure au fond.
13. Je vous remercie, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges pour votre écoute, et je vous prie, Monsieur
le président, de bien vouloir donner la parole à l’agent de l’Iran, pour quelques propos conclusifs
et la lecture des conclusions finales.

The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor Pellet and I shall now give the floor to the Agent of Iran,
Mr. Hamidreza Oloumiyazdi. Sir, you have the floor.

Mr. OLOUMIYAZDI:

AGENT’S CONCLUDING SPEECH
1. Thank you, Mr. President. In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful. Mr.
President, Madam Vice-President, honourable Members of the Court, I shall now present the Court
with Iran’s concluding remarks and final submissions.
2. In a sense, I take the floor today with a degree of disappointment that the United States’ Agent
saw its closing speech as an opportunity to repeat the United States’ baseless and political
accusations against Iran whilst, at the same time, unsuccessfully attempting to conceal
the real target of the US measures and its inhumane impact on the Iranian people. I must endeavour
to set the record straight.

108 Voir
home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/iran-
sanctions.

- 42 -

3. The second round of pleadings of the United States was yet another last-ditch effort
to change the subject-matter of this case. As if relentlessly hammering its erroneous
message will somehow make it true. Yet, it is certainly not a prerogative of the
Respondent to modify the subject-matter of the dispute.
4. Consistent with Iran’s Application, Request for provisional measures and Memorial, this case is
indeed about “alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity”. As further demonstrated by Iran’s
counsel during the course of these hearings, Iran’s claims of US breaches do “fall within the
provisions”¹⁰⁹ of Articles IV (1), IV (2), V (1), VII (1), VIII (1), VIII (2), IX (2), IX (3) and X
(1) of this international instrument. The inescapable conclusion is that the Court has
jurisdiction to assess and adjudge these claims, pursuant to Article XXI (2) of this Treaty.
5. Iran has provided all necessary information and arguments relevant for this specific stage of
the proceedings, both in its written submissions and oral pleadings. On the other
“issues”¹¹⁰ raised by the United States’ Agent in his opening and concluding speeches, our
“silence”¹¹¹ ⎯ as the United States calls it ⎯ is plainly appropriate. Iran sees these so-called
issues as irrelevant to its claims because they were raised by the United States for purely
prejudicial purposes, and, in any case, they do not go to the determination of preliminary
objections. It is also rather ironic for the United States to criticize Iran for not discussing
these allegations, when these would be matters for the merits; a stage where it is the Respondent
that is unwilling for the Court to go.
6. There is, however, one “issue” I ought to address now. I am referring to the US Agent’s
assertion that the United States “have no desire to cause suffering for the Iranian people”¹¹².
These words, spoken in an effort to appease the Court, are simply not true. Through
its policy of “maximum pressure”, the United States has designed its sanctions régime to
harm the Iranian people, in the hope that economic strangulation and humanitarian catastrophe
will bring about the submissiveness it demands from my Government. Or, as expressed
in substance by the

109 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 810, para. 16.
110 CR 2020/12, p. 40, para. 10 (String).
111 CR 2020/12, p. 36, para. 40 (Grosh) and p. 40, para. 9 (String).
112 CR 2020/12, p. 40, para. 10 (String).

- 43 -

US Administration: Iran must abide by the United States’ demands if they want their
people to eat¹¹³ and avoid economic collapse¹¹⁴.
7. The United States’ actions speak louder than its words. Iran has demonstrated at length during
the provisional measures phase and in its Memorial how the design and implementation of the US
measures have targeted the everyday life of Iranians. This is not an unwanted nor
unexpected consequence. Creating severe difficulties with importing foods, medicines or
basic commodities and blocking efforts to pay for such imports out of Iran’s assets
abroad is the necessary consequence of US measures against Iran and the Iranian
banking system. The deterioration in the living conditions for millions of Iranians caused by
the plummeting of the value of the rial, rising inflation and the severe budget deficit is the
necessary consequence of the closure of foreign markets for Iran’s main export products. The
impossibility of purchasing new aircraft or spare parts to properly maintain those in which
countless Iranians are flying every day is the necessary consequence of the blocking of
transactions with domestic airline companies and their listing as “SDN”. These are all desired
consequences of the US policy of maximum pressure. And these consequences, in breach of the Treaty
of Amity, are the reasons for Iran’s decision to bring this case to the Court.
8. Mr. President, I am near the end of my closing remarks and shall now only answer the closing
observation of the US Agent regarding the United States’ respect for international law in these
proceedings¹¹⁵. Despite the words of its Agent, the United States’ conduct in foreign relations has
shown that it now only abides by its own rules ⎯ a selective and self-serving interpretation and
application of international law. One could cite the United States’ termination of the
Treaty of Amity in response to the Court’s indication of provisional measures in this
very case, its non-compliance with those measures, its threat to impose sanctions on any nation
that respects the United Nations Security Council resolution 2231, and, despite all logic, its most
recent use of some of its provisions to dictate its brutal policy to the international
community under the guise of

113 US Department of State, “Interview With Hadi Nili of BBC Persian”, 7 Nov.
2018, available at www.state.gov/interview-with-hadi-nili-of-bbc-persian/, last consulted on 20
Sept. 2020.
114 US Department of State, “Special Representative Brian Hook’s Economic Speech at
Council on Foreign Relations”, 12 Dec. 2019, available at
www.state.gov/special-representative-brian-hooks-economic-speech-at-cou…- foreign-relations/,
last consulted on 20 Sep. 2020.
115 CR 2020/12, p. 41, para. 15 (String).

- 44 -

maintaining peace and security. On another level, more directly related to the questions the Court
will now have to address, I would like to underline its self-serving interpretation of
various provisions of the Treaty of Amity and the US counsel’s senseless interpretation of Article
79bis of the Rules of this Court. All of these are clear examples of the Respondent’s unilateral
approach to international instruments and obligations.
9. But Iran is confident that the Court will not be persuaded by this selective and
fundamentally wrongful approach to the law of nations and, as the principal judicial organ of the
United Nations, it will decide this case according to applicable rules of international law.
10. I shall now read out Iran’s final submissions. The Islamic Republic of Iran respectfully
requests that the Court:
(a) reject and dismiss the Preliminary Objections of the United States of America; and

(b) adjudge and declare:

(i) that the Court has jurisdiction over the entirety of the claims presented by Iran; and

(ii) that Iran’s claims are admissible.

11. Mr. President, allow me to express Iran’s gratitude to the Registrar and the
different departments of the Court, who have successfully enabled these proceedings to be held
despite these unprecedented challenges. We are also grateful to the interpreters and
technical consultants for their hard and excellent work even under these difficult
circumstances. And, of course, our most sincere gratitude to you, Mr. President, Madam
Vice-President and to the honourable Members of the Court, for the attention paid to these
pleadings. Thank you very much indeed again.

The PRESIDENT: I thank the Agent of Iran. The Court takes note of the final submissions of the
Islamic Republic of Iran which you have just read out on behalf of your Government.
This brings the hearing to an end. I would like to thank the Agents, counsel and advocates of the
two Parties for their statements. In accordance with the usual practice, I shall request both
Agents to remain at the Court’s disposal to provide any additional information the Court may
require. With this proviso, I declare closed the oral proceedings in the case concerning Alleged
Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic
Republic of Iran v. United States of America) on the preliminary objections raised by the
United States of America.

- 45 -

The Court will now retire for deliberation. The Agents of the Parties will be advised in due course
as to the date on which the Court will deliver its judgment. Since the Court has no other business
before it today, the sitting is closed.

The Court rose at 4.40 p.m.