University of Tehran Public Law Studies Quarterly 2423-8120 54 4 2024 12 21 The Preliminary Objection of "Third-State Actions" in the 2021 ‎Jurisdictional Judgment of the International Court of Justice The Preliminary Objection of "Third-State Actions" in the 2021 ‎Jurisdictional Judgment of the International Court of Justice 2441 2461 88537 10.22059/jplsq.2021.329735.2872 FA Sayed Taha Mousavi Mirkalayee Former Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law and International Law, Faculty of Judicial Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran Savalan Mohamadzadeh MA. in (International Law), Faculty of Judicial Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2021 08 31 Following the imposition of sanctions by the United States, Iran initiated proceedings against the United States at the International Court of Justice on July 16, 2018, in accordance with Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity. The Court's proceedings at the jurisdictional stage led to a ruling on February 3, 2021, affirming the Court's jurisdiction. In the initial proceedings, the United States, as the respondent, raised several objections to the Court's jurisdiction, one of which was a so-called "third-state actions" objection. The main question of this paper  is: how did the issue of third-state actions, as one of the respondent's jurisdictional objections, reflect in the jurisdictional judgment of the Court? This paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, concludes that based on the Court’s interpretation what is significant in establishing jurisdiction to examine the violation of the Treaty of Amity—considered a bilateral treaty between the two parties—is the act of the United States imposing sanctions, rather than the manner of execution and the executor of that act, which could be the United States or any other state. Following the imposition of sanctions by the United States, Iran initiated proceedings against the United States at the International Court of Justice on July 16, 2018, in accordance with Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity. The Court's proceedings at the jurisdictional stage led to a ruling on February 3, 2021, affirming the Court's jurisdiction. In the initial proceedings, the United States, as the respondent, raised several objections to the Court's jurisdiction, one of which was a so-called "third-state actions" objection. The main question of this paper  is: how did the issue of third-state actions, as one of the respondent's jurisdictional objections, reflect in the jurisdictional judgment of the Court? This paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, concludes that based on the Court’s interpretation what is significant in establishing jurisdiction to examine the violation of the Treaty of Amity—considered a bilateral treaty between the two parties—is the act of the United States imposing sanctions, rather than the manner of execution and the executor of that act, which could be the United States or any other state. https://jplsq.ut.ac.ir/article_88537_938273e31ad0a033862a6625da3ee89b.pdf