Public Law Studies Quarterly

Assessing US Objections to the Interim Order in the Alleged Violations of the Treaty of Amity

Document Type : Article

Authors

Mohsen Mohebi 1
Vahid Bazzar 2

1 Assistant professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Sciences and Researches Branch of Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 P.H.D of International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabataba University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2019.268988.1850
Abstract
The International Court of Justice, on October 11, 2018, responded unanimously to Iran's request for an interim order in the alleged violations of the treaty of amity case and required the United States to take the necessary measures on free exportation to Iran about humanitarian needs, including medicines and medical devices, foodstuffs and agricultural commodities, spare parts, equipment and associated services necessary for the safety of civil aviation, and do not create no restrictions on the payments and other transfers of funds related to these measures. In the course of the proceedings of the Court, the United States, in addition to proposing multiple objections to the conditions of issuing the interim order (prima facie jurisdiction, the plausibility of the claimed rights and its relation to the interim order, the urgency and irreparable prejudice), argued that the requested interim order will violate the USA's sovereignty. The Court, in its conclusions, which often was as a result of the acceptance of the arguments of the Iranian legal team, affirmed the necessary conditions for the issuance of an interim order. According to The Court, the criterion of irreparable prejudices is not merely financial damage, but damage to human lives.

Keywords

United States of America
Islamic Republic of Iran
International Court of Justice
Interim Order
Treaty of Amity
Humanitarian Needs
1. فارسی
الف) مقالات
1. محبی، محسن؛ بذّار، وحید (1396). «سازوکار حل‌و‌فصل اختلاف ناشی از برجام و تعیین تکلیف تحریم‌های هسته ای ایران در برجام و قطعنامۀ 2231 شورای امنیت»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوقی، دورۀ 9، ش 4، ص 286-261.
2. نجفی اسفاد، مرتضی؛ هادی، مهدی (1384). «ضمانت اجرایی آرای دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری»، نامۀ حقوقی، ج ۱، ش ۲، ص ۴۸-۲۵.
 
ب) نشست‌های علمی
3. بذّار، وحید (1397). نشست علمی بررسی دستور موقت دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در دعوای جمهوری اسلامی ایران علیه ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا، مؤسسۀ آموزش عالی چتر دانش، 21 مهر 1397.
4. زمانی، سید قاسم (1397). نشست علمی بررسی ابعاد حقوقی قرار موقت دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در پروندۀ  ایران علیه ایالات متحدۀ آمریکا، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، 22 مهر 1397.
 
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
5. Miles, Cameron A. (2017). Provisional Measures before International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press.
6. Quintana, Juan Jose. (2015). Litigation at the International Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure, Brill Nijhoff.
7. Wellens, Karel. (2016). Negotiations in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice: A Functional Analysis, Routledge.
 
 
B) Articles
8. Aceves, William J. (2002). “LaGrand (Germany v. United States),” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96(1), pp. 210-218.
9. Fischer, Paula (2018). “The Iranian Suit against the US Sanctions and the 1955 Treaty of Amity: Brilliant Plan or Aberration?,” www.ejiltalk.org.
10. Hill-Cawthorne, Lawrence (2018). “The ICJ’s Provisional Measures Order in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty (Iran v United States),” www.ejiltalk.org.
11. Lee-Iwamoto, Yoshiyuki (2012). “The Repercussions of the LaGrand Judgment: Recent ICJ Jurisprudence of Provisional Measures,” Japanese Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 55, pp. 237-262.
12. Kempen, Bernhard and He, Zan (2009). “The Practice of the International Court of Justice on Provisional Measures: The Recent Development,” Zeitschrift fur auslndisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht, Vol. 69(3), pp. 919-929.
13. Rose, Cecily. (2014). “The Protection of Communications between States and Their Counsel in International Dispute Settlement,” Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 73(2), pp. 231-273.
14. Rylatt, Jake W. (2013). “Provisional Measures and the Authority of the International Court of Justice: Sovereignty vs. Efficiency,” Leeds Journal of Law & Criminology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 45-68.
 
C) Cases
15. Alleged Violations of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. USA), Provisional Measures, I.C.J. Reports 2018.
16. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, I.C.J. Reports 2008.
17. Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Provisional Measures, I.C.J. Reports 2016.
18. Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan), Provisional Measures, I.C.J. Reports 2017.
19. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports 1986.
20. Oil Platform Case (Iran v. USA), I.C.J. Reports 2003.
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 50, Issue 1
Spring 2020
Spring 2020
Pages 255-274

  • Receive Date 05 November 2018
  • Revise Date 04 April 2019
  • Accept Date 24 June 2019

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us