BACKGROUND GUIDE - Beymun 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
1 BACKGROUND GUIDE
2 THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE President: Stephanie Nassar Vice President: Tala Karkanawi Court Administrator: John Sakr
3
Table of Contents
o Letter from the Secretary General ………………………………………………………………….5
o Letter from the Chair ……………………………………………………………………………………..6
o Committee Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………..7
I. International Court of Justice …………………………………………………………………………7
A. History of the ICJ: Mandate and Functions…………………………………………7
B. Organization of the ICJ……………………………………………………………………….7
II. BEYMUN 2021 – Fifth Edition………………………………………………………………………….9
III. Special Rules of Procedures ……………………………………………………………………………9
A. Roll call ………………………………………………………………………………………………9
B. Opening Statements ………………………………………………………………………….10
C. Presentation of Evidence …………………………………………………………………..10
D. Judges’ Deliberation …………………………………………………………………………..11
E. Rules on Draft Submissions ………………………………………………………………..11
F. Closing Statements……………………………………………………………………………..12
G. Voting Procedure ……………………………………………………………………………….13
H. Position Paper…………………………………………………………………………………….13
IV. Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
o Topic: Certain Iranian Assets –1957 Treaty of Amity between USA and Iran……15
I. Timeline of Events and History of the Topic…………………………………………………….15
II. Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights
Between USA and Iran…………………………………………………………………………………….16
III. The Bank Markazi v. Peterson Case…………………………………………………………………19
IV. Complicated Past: US-Iran Nuclear Relations………………………………………………….19
V. Stands ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………20
A. USA……………………………………………………………………………………………………20
1. US Administrations………………………………………………………………………..20
a. Obama’s Administration……………………………………………………………………………..20
b. Trump’s Administration………………………………………………………………………………20
c. Biden’s Administration ………………………………………………………………………………21
2. USA Preliminary Objections…………………………………………………………..22
B. Iran……………………………………………………………………………………………………24
1. Iranian Administrations ………………………………………………………………24
a. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ………………………………………………………………………………..24
b. Hassan Rouhani …………………………………………………………………………………………….25
2. What is at Stake and Iran’s Stand on US Preliminary Objections….25
VI. Applicable Legislations……………………………………………………………………………………26
VII. Historical Procedure ………………………………………………………………………………………27
VIII. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….28
IX. Helpful Resources…………………………………………………………………………………………..29
X. Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………………………….30
4
List of Figures:
Figure 1:The 1955 Treaty Of Amity Was The Foundation For Iran-Usa Relationships,
Exhibited Above By U.S. Secretary Of State John Kerry And Iranian Foreign Minister
Javad Zarif At The Un Headquarters In 2016.
Https://Www.Flickr.Com/Photos/Statephotos/ ................................................................ 2
Figure 2: The Bank Markazi Headquarters Tower, Tehran, Iran. Www.Tehrantimes.Com ...... 2
Figure 3: Three Most Recent Presidents Of The United States Https://Arc-Anglerfish-
Washpost-Prod-
Washpost.S3.Amazonaws.Com/Public/Bypdv5uveei6vavuzdnrmh7w4u.Jpg ................... 2
Figure 4: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (L-2) Shakes Hands With Iranian Quds Force
Commander Qasem Soleimani (R-2) As Revolutionary Guards' Ground Forces
Commander Mohammad Pakpour (R) Looks On During The 21st Nationwide Assembly
Of The Islamic Revolution Guardian ................................................................................... 2
Figure 5: Us Sanctions' Influence On The Iranian Economy,
Https://Ichef.Bbci.Co.Uk/News/640/Cpsprodpb/Bd7a/Production/_110060584_Iran_Ec
onomic_Growth_Nov_2019_976_2x-Nc.Png ..................................................................... 2
Figure 6: Zarif Asked European Union To Coordinate Synchronized Return Of Washington
And Tehran To Nuclear Deal (Afp), Https://Thearabweekly.Com/Iranian-Fm-Asks-
Europe-Choreograph-Return-Nuclear-Deal ....................................................................... 2
5 Letter from the Secretary General Dear Sir or Madam, I am pleased to announce the official return of the Beirut International Model United Nations Conference, making this our 6th official debut, and commencement of our long road to BEYMUN 2021. With more exciting and intellectual surprises on the way, it is our absolute pleasure to invite your institution and students to join us at one of the most exceptional, cultural, and educational experiences in the Middle East. As we face one of the world’s most challenging times, the entire BEYMUN 2021 team has made it a primary focus to empower and give back to the communities that have lost so much hope and spirit. Ones that have found themselves struggling to regain their drive, passion, and resilience to become the future change makers of our planet. With a pandemic on the loose, international instability, and each and every individual’s lives being lived on a day to day basis, we took it upon ourselves to not only create a successful conference, but an outlet for brilliant minds to regain their spirit and remember how important their voices are. Thus, our theme for the BEYMUN 2021 conference is “Focusing Inwards, Channeling Outward, Steering Forward.” We truly believe in the importance of reevaluating and revisiting our current circumstances, politically, socially, and economically, and using our accumulated knowledge to change the way our world is, and foster a better future for us all. This is the mentality and environment we hope to harvest within this year’s conference, one filled with hope and motivation for a better tomorrow. We look forward to welcoming you with open arms on our journey to an empowered and intellectual 3-day experience! Sincerly, Annabelle Ghanem Secretary General of Beirut International Model United Nations 2021
6 Welcome Letter from the Chair International Court of Justice Dear Judges, Welcome to the International Court of Justice at Beirut International Model United Nations Fifth Edition! My name is Stephanie Nassar and I’m delighted and honored to serve as your Chair and the President of the International Court of Justice. Currently, I am kicking off my last semester as an Economics Senior minoring in Political Sciences. Over the past two years, I developed a profound interest in International Law and Conflict Resolution, and I – partially – blame Harvey Specter from the series Suits. That’s why, I would like to pursue a graduate degree in this field, as my post-pandemic plan! In my free time, I always enjoy indulging in benevolent work, reading, traveling, and going on long road trips. Within my alma matter, I am involved in numerous clubs that helped me grow as person. Most importantly, I dedicate a lot of my time to Model United Nations, being the current AUBMUN Vice President. Ever since I was 15 years old, I have participated in multiple national and international conferences as a delegate, as a trainer, and as a chair. I love the thrill of a good competition and also love to help people gain the skills I acquired over these 6 years. In times when we’re having little to no human interactions, some MUN strangers can really become your dearest friends. On this note, shoutout to the Vice President Tala and Court Administrator John that are two brilliant people I had the honor to work with! Having a good team is what makes a great conference. We are all going through a global pandemic, so I am already congratulating you for making an effective step in joining us! As my favorite Einstein quote says, “In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.” Whatever you are going through and wherever you come from, taking this opportunity will make you grow as person. Since the ICJ has a rather unusual set of rules of procedures, I challenge you to put your regular MUN tactics, personal and political opinions aside, and commit to tackle the Certain Iranian Assets Case as a neutral body, with an attention to what legal stances your colleagues will bring to the table. Scrutinizing this case will give us an idea on its possible verdict and repercussions on the entirety of the world! I hope we can find an effective solution to our case and can all leave the conference proud of the outcome we made. I look forward to meeting all of you and deliberate this topic in all its complexities. As the President of the Court, I, on my honor, pledge to deliver the most interesting experience you’ll ever encounter! I commit to making this virtual conference one you’ll remember! Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on icj.beymun@gmail.com Sincerely, ICJ President Stephanie Nassar
7
Committee Overview
The International Court of Justice
A. History1 of the ICJ: Mandate and Functions
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in June 1945, after the San Francisco
Conference 2. It was meant to succeed the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ),
after witnessing a decrease in its work, culminating in World War II. There had been pre-
existing calls for the re-establishment of an international court under the mandate of the
newly formed UN, hence the formation of “the Court.” Today, the International Court of
Justice is one of the United Nations’ six main organs. Its sole purpose is to settle disputes
between states transmitted from a case and give advisory opinions after certain legal
questions arise in international law, being the “only court of a universal character with general
jurisdiction.”1
The ICJ is the only main UN organ that is not located in New York. Seated at the Peace Palace
in The Hague, Netherlands, it takes a few references into consideration whilst doing its work,
from international treaties, through all general principles of law, to judicial decisions, as well
as expert statements, in addition to international customs, or any convention that is
applicable to the case being studied.
It is of vital importance to differentiate the International Court of Justice from any other
institution in the judicial sphere, especially the International Criminal Court (ICC). The latter
is not the official UN Court, even if it may serve as a referral for some cases from the Security
Council. While the ICJ rules over UN Member State governments, the ICC rules over
individuals. Elsewhere, while the ICJ discusses sovereignty and boundary disputes or human
right violations among nations, the ICC discusses matters such as genocides, war crimes, or
crimes against humanity.
Within the United Nations, the International Court of Justice cannot enforce its final rulings.
Nevertheless, the UN Charter includes a clause that requires Member States to accept its
decisions. In particular, Article 94 of Chapter XIV allows the Security Council to enforce the
above-mentioned rulings, whilst considering the Veto Power of the P5 (Russia, China, France,
the United States of America, and the United Kingdom). 3
B. Organization of the Court
The International Court of Justice does not follow the same structure as most United Nations
committees. It is composed of 15 judges, two of which will be the President and the Vice
President, who moderate the case proceedings. All of them are neutral “justices” that come
from different countries of the world, one third of which (five) are re-elected every three
1
International Court of Justice - https://www.icj-cij.org/en/history
2
United Nations - https://www.un.org/en/sections/history-united-nations-charter/1945-san-francisco-
conference/index.html
3
International Court of Justice - http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/ 6 chapter-xiv/index.html.
8 years to ensure the continuity of the Court. No two elected justices can be of the same country of origin. Regardless of where they come from, the ICJ judges do not represent their countries’ opinions. Instead, they operate within the court with their own personal judgment. International law remains impartial and sets aside all kinds of political dispute or economic interests, with only one common goal: the truth. As justices, they make use of legal reasoning (based on international conventions, past treaties, and laws, in addition to past ICJ cases) in order to formulate judgments, which result in “the final judgment” of the case once all different points of view are discussed. In opposition to popular belief, judges representing country-states are equal, as the vote of justices who come from the five Veto power nations (France, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, China, and Russia) is of equal weight to the vote of a justice from any other nation, even if the former five are mostly always represented. There is no superiority or inferiority within the organization of the Court. All judgments are taken into consideration and will be brought up to a vote that will potentially close the case.4 Judges study two types of cases. 5 First, there are contentious cases that consist of “legal disputes between States” 6 that are submitted to the Court by the states themselves. Since member nations have no permanent representatives in the ICJ, an agent is appointed and informed of the case’s details, through joint efforts by the Registrar of the Court and the concerned countries’ ministers of foreign affairs or ambassadors to The Netherlands. In the hearings for such cases, the abovementioned agents begin the argument on behalf of the governments they represent and present all necessary information. It is important to note that there is no specific Bar to the International Court of Justice, as there would be to a specific state. Thus, there are no specific criteria to which an agent must adhere in order to plead before the Court for the sake of a government, provided, nonetheless, that the agent was appointed by that government. The International Court of Justice also handles Advisory Proceedings. Those are when a United Nations organ or specialized agency seeks legal advice from the Court. However, there are only five organs as well as 16 specialized agencies or affiliated organizations that can benefit from legal counsel by the ICJ: The General Assembly and Security council may seek opinions on “any legal question,”6 while the other entities can only request legal assistance within the scope of their activities. With relatively more flexible proceedings, legal opinions issued by the ICJ upon request of another UN entity are not binding (unlike the Court’s judgments). For the sake of this conference, we will be tackling a case brought up in of legal disputes between two states and not from another UN body seeking advice from the ICJ. 4 International Court of Justice - https://www.icj-cij.org/en/current-members 5 International Court of Justice - https://www.icj-cij.org/en/how-the-court-works 6 International Court of Justice - https://www.icj-cij.org/en/contentious-jurisdiction
9
BEYMUN 2021 – Fifth Edition
BEYMUN ICJ is honored to host delegates from all over the world in these exceptional times.
Delegates will be weighing evidence, deliberating and drawing up a final judgment to resolve
the dispute of the century. The International Court of Justice will be adopting one topic during
the entirety of the conference:
- Certain Iranian Assets’ Case– The United States of America vs The Islamic Republic of
Iran
Since this topic may include a number of interdisciplinary fields, the ICJ requires delegates to
put political opinions and economic arguments aside, to focus on the legal aspects of the case.
Since it is an ongoing case, delegates are expected to pick up from the last developments
mentioned and take into account the preliminary objections that were already raised in court.
As Roosevelt once said, “No man is above law, and no man is below it.” 7 We will be taking it
up to justice to decide, under the umbrella of International Humanitarian Law, Treaties and
Comparative cases.
Special Rules of Procedure
Delegates will abide by a special set of Rules of Procedure to simulate the characteristics of
the International Court of Justice. Since this conference will be a simulation, the exact rules
of the ICJ will be modified in order to achieve a smooth session, with attainable final
judgments. That is why this conference will be a mix between the regular rules of procedures
in terms of Points and Motions and will contain modifications to adhere to the Court’s
legislation. Please note that the Court does not raise debate on claims and hypotheses, but
rather points of law. For example, in any other UN body, delegates may discuss why a state X
attacked state Y. However, in the International Court of Justice, delegates will be asking
whether the attack breaks international law, and its violation of any binding agreement.
Should you have any additional questions regarding the rules mentioned below, do not
hesitate to email the President of the Court at icj.beymun@gmail.com.
A. Roll Call
Delegates will be called based on their assigned judge identity by first and last name, in
alphabetical order. Since the conference will lead up to a vote, judges do not have the right
to abstain. Hence, judges may only reply with “present” since there is no “present and voting.”
By replying “present,” a judge is abiding by the rules of the Court and will stay truthful in their
statements and presentation of evidence. All those present in the court should identify as
neutral justices. By so, Judges are not representing their countries, but they are representing
the Judge identity assigned. Delegates may adapt to the point of views raised by their assigned
judge in previous judgments on this case.
7
Theodore Roosevelt - https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/theodore_roosevelt_118459
10
B. Opening Statements
As part of the Formal Debate, opening statements will be deemed necessary in the beginning
of the court session in order to have a round on each judges’ legal opinion on the case, before
deliberation. In an official ICJ hearing, you may have noticed that the applicant and the
defendant have individual long statements to defend each of their side. However, since the
case is ongoing, we will consider that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States’
statements are already acknowledged. This will give you, as judges, the floor to speak and
present your legal stand on the case. Judges are expected to have researched the case beyond
the country they are representing as judges of the UN, beyond all political aspects that may
be occurring and their respective countries.
There will be no motion for opening statements, the President of the Court will directly open
the floor with it. Consequently, the opening statements will happen in an alphabetical order
of the judges’ present, since there are no traditional Speakers List in the International Court
of Justice to follow. The “speakers time” is to be between 1:30 to 3 minutes to each judge.
C. Presentation of Evidence
Presentation of evidence is crucial for the formation of legal arguments. No conspiracy or
rumor shall be taken into consideration. In addition, domestic law is invalid in the
International Court of Justice. Evidence must be generated from codified international law,
customary law or from previous case detailed analysis. To present a piece of evidence, we will
proceed with the presentation of a note to the Chair in the format mentioned below. The Dais
will then entertain the presentation of evidence, when deemed suitable. When presenting
evidence, the Dais will decide if this piece will be admissible or inadmissible, according to
Article 56(2) 8 of the ICJ’s rules of court. If it does not appeal to the Dais, the evidence may be
considered by the court room with a 2/3 majority vote. Please note that the evidence must
remain confidential with the Dais before its approval to present it in front of the court. You
can either refer to the private chat option and send a message, with the format mentioned
below, to the Court Administrator John Sakr or send it to him on icj.beymun@gmail.com.
After sending it in, please wait till the President and Vice President entertain your evidence,
if accepted.
If you are not familiar with the presentation of evidence, here are a few types we may suggest.
You are not limited to the ones mentioned.
Demonstrative Evidence: any direct proof in relation to the applicant’s claim.
Documentary Evidence: written form of proof, signed by any of the two parties involved.
Hear by Evidence: audio or in quotation form of proof, serves as a testimony.
Statistical Evidence: relevant numbers as proof deriving from a reliable source.
Circumstantial Evidence: any indirect proof in relation to a series of facts that leads up to a
conclusion.
8
International Court of Justice - https://www.icj-cij.org/en/rules11
Judge:
Subject: Presentation of Evidence
Type: Demonstrative / Documentary / Testimonial
Evidence:
Share attachment/ link by email where applicable
D. Judges’ Deliberation
After opening statements and/or presentation of evidence, we expect judges to deliberate
the points raised by each other. In this sense, the deliberation will take place through formal
and informal debate. Judges are expected to raise specific points of law and always build up
on the evidence that is present whether from applicable legislations or additional evidence
raised by other judges. In order to open the floor to deliberation, judges must raise a Motion.
The President of the Court will then start a voting procedure by a raise of hand starting by the
most disruptive motion. If the motion succeeds to have 50%+1 vote, the motion passes and
the floor will automatically move into it. If it fails, the President of the Court will move on to
the next raised motion.
- Moderated Caucus
The Moderated Caucus is part of the formal deliberation. This particular motion is raised to
move into a particular sub-topic along the case we are studying. When this motion passes,
judges may raise their hands in order to be part of this formal deliberation. The President of
the Court will consequently randomly choose speakers for the acquired total time proposed.
Speakers will then present their speech one followed by the other, until the total time
collapses.
Judges may raise the Motion as Motion to Move into a Moderated Caucus to discuss X, for a
Total Time of Y minutes, Speakers Time Z minutes.
- Unmoderated Caucus
The Unmoderated Caucus is part of the informal deliberation. By so, judges will be tackling
the case just like in a group conversation. Judges can discuss prominent points raised by their
colleagues in a break-out room or deliberate openly in front of the whole Court room, when
this motion is entertained. Judges are expected to be working on their Draft Decision
throughout these informal sessions.
Judges may raise the Motion as Motion to Move into an Unmoderated Caucus to discuss X,
for a total time of Y minutes.
E. Rules on Draft Decisions
Draft decisions do not need a pre-document such as a working paper to be approved by the
Dais. We will directly be working on a Final Draft Decision throughout the conference. Judges
may work in different groups on two different draft decisions. The decisions will then be voted12
upon in the final Court session. Since we judges are aspiring to close the case in a Final
Decision, the final document is arranged in a different format:
1. Facts of the Case: The Facts can work as the source of the problem and all key
preliminary aspects of the case in terms of applicant and respondent arguments.
Format: Judges may use the same format as Preambulatory Clauses
2. Issues: The issues can be a list of questions that the majority of judges raised in order
to solve the case at hand. This part is not mandatory, however, it can help in the
reiteration of the case and shed the light on where the solution lies.
Format: Judges must raise issues in a bullet point list of questions in order to agree upon the
issues that they want to raise on the case and deliberate.
3. Decisions: Decisions are the agreements happening between judges that will help you
build up your solutions. Anything that is a result of a vote can be counted as a decision.
Writing it in this section is judges’ way to officialize some majority statement, while
also mentioning why and by how many votes this decision was taken. It can be an
evidence, a coalition, or a suggested solution. A majority count is needed to every
decision taken by the court. It must pertain reasons and may be backed by specific
references related to IHL. It can include any next step the Court decides to go through,
or any additional definition and facts that need to be raised.
Format: By 14 to 1 vote, the … passes for the following reasons:
4. Operative Clauses: The operative clauses affirm the court’s stance and present
solutions
Format: judges may use the regular MUN format for Operative Clauses
5. Opinions: Whenever a judge has an explanatory or different statement to make
outside the decisions mentioned above, the Draft Decision can pertain his concurring
or dissenting opinion in the last part of the document.
a- Concurring: Paragraph statement in which one judge describes the majority opinion
with supporting evidence.
b- Dissenting: Paragraph statement in which one judge describes how he disagrees with
the majority opinion with supporting evidence.
F. Closing statements
When the debate is near its end, all judges may present closing statements in order to
highlight the order of decisions they made throughout the conference. The closing statements
will proceed in alphabetical order of judges’ names. If any judge wishes to amend any of the
Final Decision content, he may raise this point in the closing statement and its amendment
may be settled by a 2/3 majority vote. Any opponent to the final judgment may raise his13 concern as well. The President, Vice President and Court Administrator will take all views into consideration and assess the Final Decision meticulously. G. Voting Procedure The Quorum specifies the number of members present in Court that are deemed necessary for any vote to pass. To pass a substantive vote, the President will require a two-third majority. In both substantive and procedural matters, each judge has one vote. Every judge will have one vote for or against the applicant’s state. Upon a raise of hands, all matters will be voted upon. When voting procedure begins, no judge is allowed to leave the room. All votes require simple majority. The Final Judgment will require a Roll-Call vote, where judges can only reply by “Yes” or “No.” H. Position Paper The position paper is a one-page essay (Times New Roman, 12), where each judge may present the legal stance, he or she will further be discussing in the committee sessions. You should note that the judge-neutrality rule still applies in the position paper. This being said, the position paper has the mere purpose to organize your ideas and give the Dais a preview of what your stance on the case will be like. 0. Committee Name, Case Statement, Judge’s Name. 1. Discussion of facts, current proceedings and concerned articles 2. Statement of Legal questions 3. Legal Analysis and Possible loopholes in reference to specific treaties 4. Clear conclusion on your stance. NB: Refrain from using any national symbol or illustration within the legal stance paper, as you are still representing a judge, and not a country.
14
Bibliography
1945: The San Francisco Conference. (2015, August 26). Retrieved from Un.org website:
https://www.un.org/en/sections/history-united-nations-charter/1945-san-francisco-
conference/index.html
Contentious Jurisdiction | International Court of Justice. (2019). Retrieved from Icj-cij.org website:
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/contentious-jurisdiction
Current Members | International Court of Justice. (2009). Retrieved from Icj-cij.org website:
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/current-members
History | International Court of Justice. (2018). Retrieved from Icj-cij.org website: https://www.icj-
cij.org/en/history
How the Court Works | International Court of Justice. (2019). Retrieved from Icj-cij.org website:
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/how-the-court-works
Rules of Court | International Court of Justice. (2019). Retrieved from Icj-cij.org website:
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/rules
Theodore Roosevelt Quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2021, from BrainyQuote website:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/theodore_roosevelt_11845915
Topic: Certain Iranian Assets –1957 Treaty of Amity between
USA and Iran.
Introduction to the topic
I. Timeline of events
Preceding the Second World War, there were friendly diplomatic relations between the
United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, Iran’s newfound power
(in oil) as well as its growing relationships with the Soviet Union, opposing pole to the United
States, has highlighted it as a new potential target in the Middle East.
Democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq had nationalized the
previously British owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, after which a series of events 9 took
place, leading to the belligerents’ current-day stances, detailed below.
1953:
After London places an oil embargo on Iran, intelligence agencies of American and
British origin assist key position holders in the Iranian military, with almost $1.2 billion,
in overthrowing Mosaddeq. His reign was succeeded by that of the Western-friendly
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, even if he was unpopular among the Iranian people,
and eventually overthrown in 1979.
1955:
The Treaty of Amity, Consular Rights, and Economic Relations is signed between the
USA and Iran after the abovementioned Coup, setting grounds for friendly relations
with mutual benefits (as detailed below).
1979:
February marks the rise of the Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Shah’s regime
and replaced him by Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Supreme Leader of the anti-
West revolution, that he wished to “export” to neighboring countries. Lebanese militia
Hezbollah saw the light of day in 1985, pledging allegiance to Khomeini. 10
In November of that year, 52 Americans are taken hostage at the U.S. embassy
in Tehran and held for a period of 444 days. Their demand is the extradition of the
Shah.
1980:
April marks the beginning of the U.S. sanctions on Iran, as all Iranian assets in the
United States are frozen.
9 Council on Foreign Relations - https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-relations-iran-1953-2020
10 Brookings - www.brookings.edu/research/america-and-iran-from-containment-to-coexistence/.16
1983:
The Beirut Marine Bombings take place, leading to the death of 254 American and
French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon. A group that is allegedly a front
for Hezbollah and the Iranian regime claim responsibility11.
1984:
The State Department designates Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.
2001:
The United States wish to compensate the victims’ families, as 241 of them filed a civil
lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran through the District Court of Columbia
claiming wrongful death, assault and state-sponsored terrorist attack.
2002:
Two complaints are filed against Iran by Deborah Peterson and Marie Boulos, relatives
of the Americans killed in Beirut 12.
2003:
The Islamic Republic of Iran is found guilty of financing Hezbollah to orchestrate the
Beirut attack of 1984.
The claimed breach of The Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and
Consular Rights
The 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic
Relations, and Consular Relations is part of
a larger collection of general commercial
treaties called the Friendship, Commerce,
and Navigation Treaties (FCN) of the UN.
These treaties aim to present a legal
framework to govern investment,
economic, and commercial interactions
between states.
Figure 1:The 1955 Treaty of Amity was the foundation for Iran-USA
The following Articles within the 1955 relationships, exhibited above by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
Treaty of Amity 13 must be considered in and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif at the UN headquarters in
2016. https://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos/
the case:
11
CNN Library - https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/world/meast/beirut- 38 marine-barracks-bombing-fast-
facts/index.html
12
Findlaw - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1880392.html.
13 US Department of State - https://www.state.gov/treaty-of-amity-economic-relations-and-consular-rights-between-the-
united-states-of-america-and-iran-aug-15-1955/17 Article III, Section 1: “Companies constituted under the applicable laws and regulations of either High Contracting Party shall have their juridical status recognized within the territories of the other High Contracting Party. It is understood, however, that recognition of juridical status does not of itself confer rights upon companies to engage in the Activities for which they are organized. As used in the present Treaty, “companies” means corporations, partnerships, companies and other associations, whether or not with limited liability and whether or not for pecuniary profit.”12 Article III, Section 2: “Nationals and companies of either high contracting party shall have freedom of access to the courts of justice and administrative agencies within the territories of the other high contracting party, in all degrees of jurisdiction, both in defense and pursuit of their rights, to the end that prompt and impartial justice be done. Such access shall be allowed, in any event, upon terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals and companies of such other high contracting party or of any third country. It is understood that companies not engaged in activities within the country shall enjoy the right of such access without any requirement of registration or domestication.” 13 Article IV, Section 1: “Each high contracting party shall at all times accord fair and equitable treatment to nationals and companies of the other high contracting party, and to their property and enterprises; shall refrain from applying unreasonable or discriminatory measures that would impair their legally acquired rights and interests; and shall assure that their lawful contractual rights are afforded effective means of enforcement, in conformity with the applicable laws.”13 Article IV, Section 2: “Property of nationals and companies of either High contracting party, including interests in property, shall receive the most constant protection and security within the territories of the other high contracting party, in no case less than that required by international law. Such property shall not be taken except for a public purpose; nor shall it be taken without the prompt payment of just compensation. Such compensation shall be in an effectively realizable form and shall represent the full equivalent of the property taken; and adequate provision shall have been made at or prior to the time of taking for the determination and payment thereof.” 12 Article V, Section 1: “Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be permitted, within the territories of the other High Contracting Party: (a) to lease, for suitable periods of time, real property needed for their residence or for the conduct of activities pursuant to the present Treaty; (b) to purchase or otherwise acquire personal property of all kinds; and (c) to dispose of property of all kinds by sale, testament or otherwise. The treatment accorded in these respects shall in no event be less favorable than that accorded national and companies of any third country.” 12 Article VII, Section 1: “Neither High Contracting Party shall apply restrictions on the making of payments, remittances, and other transfers of funds to or from the territories of the other High Contracting Party, except (a) to the extent necessary to assure the availability of foreign exchange for payments for goods and services essential to the health and welfare of its
18
people, or (b) in the case of a member of the International Monetary Fund, restrictions
specifically approved by the Fund.” 12
Article X, Section 1: “Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there shall
be freedom of commerce and navigation.” 13
Article XI, Section 4: “No enterprise of either High Contracting Party, including corporations,
associations, and government agencies and instrumentalities, which is publicly owned or
controlled shall, if it engages in commercial, industrial, shipping or other business activities
within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, claim or enjoy, either for itself or
for its property, immunity therein from taxation, suit, execution of judgment or other liability
to which privately owned and controlled enterprises are subject therein.”13
The USA and Iran have a history 14 of cases within the ICJ: from the 1988 Persian Gulf to the
1992 Iranian oil platforms, the 1979 Hostage Situation and most recently the 2018 Case of
Violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity because of accumulations of sanctions and measures
imposed by the US on Iranian companies. June 14, 2016 marks the day Iran filed the case to
the Registry of Court with the claimed breach. The Court of Justice admitted13 the case under
Article 36 (1) and 40(1) of the Statute Court and Article 38 of the Rules of Court on the Treaty
of Amity, Consular Rights and Economic Relations between the two states, that was put into
force in 1957. It was broken by allowing the private lawsuits of the injuries resulting from
international terrorism and the certain Iranian Assets, notably the Bank Markazi assets.
As outlined in the official documents of the case 15, Iran contends that the U.S. violated the
Treaty of Amity on the basis of the following:
• “Failure to recognize the separate juridical status of such entities including Iranian
State-Owned companies,
• Unfair and discriminatory treatment of such entities and their property, which impairs
the legally acquired rights and interests of such entities including enforcement of their
contractual rights,
• Failure to accord to such entities and their property the most constant protection and
security that is in no case less than that required by international law,
• Expropriation of the property of such entities,
• Failure to accord to such entity’s freedom of access to the US courts, including the
abrogation of the immunities to which Iran and Iranian State-owned companies,
including Bank Markazi, and their property, are entitled under customary
international law and as required by the Treaty of Amity, both with respect to
jurisdictional immunities and immunities from enforcement,
• Failure to respect the right of such entities to acquire and dispose of property,
• Application of restrictions to such entities on the making of payments and other
transfers of funds to or from the USA, and
• Interference with the freedom of commerce between the territories of Iran and the
USA.”
14
Treaty of Amity - https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Treaty-of-Amity-Economic-
Relations-and-Consular-Rights-between-the-United-States-of-America-and-Iran-Aug.-15-1955.pdf
15 US Department of State - https://www.state.gov/irans-application-instituting-proceedings-of-june-14-2016/19
The Bank Markazi v. Peterson Case
Deborah Peterson filed a lawsuit against the Iranian government in the name of her brother,
who was killed in the 1983 Beirut U.S. Marine Barrack Bombings, as a wrongful death within
common law in 2001. Several years later, in 2007, even though it is unusual for the U.S.
Supreme Court to discuss matters of foreign policy, a federal district court awarded the
plaintiffs a $2.65 billion judgement 16. It stated that the Iranian Central Bank (Bank Markazi)
must pay this value in order to compensate the families of the U.S. victims of the attack. The
validity behind this decision remains unjustified. The Court, nevertheless, rejected the Tehrani
argument that constitutional limits have been exceeded by intervening in such a case.
In court, parties deliberated if and how the accused Iranian government would pay the
abovementioned amount. Congress passed the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights
Act of 2012, which indicates, in § 8772, that:
“[An Iranian financial asset] shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of
execution, or to an order directing that the asset be brought to the State in which the
court is located and subsequently to execution or attachment in aid of execution, in
order to satisfy any judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages awarded
against Iran for damages for personal injury or death caused by an act of torture,
extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage-taking, or the provision of material
support or resources for such an act, without regard to concerns relating to
international comity.” 17
That was done in order to make the $2 billion frozen Iranian funds accessible for seizure with
regards to the Bank Markazi case, specifically citing it by name.
Figure 2: The Bank Markazi headquarters tower, Tehran, Iran. www.tehrantimes.com
Complicated Past: US-Iran Nuclear Relations
Iran and the US faced plenty of hardships along the way with both powers wanting to enrich
their nuclear program. With USA’s powerful control on most countries and their forcible ways
of implementing their own ideas against Iran, this caused plenty of issues when Iran wanted
to pursue its nuclear program.
16 The Atlantic - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bank-markazi/479190/
17
US Congress - https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ158/PLAW-112publ158.pdf20
Iran started to develop its nuclear facilities, including a uranium enrichment plant during the
early 2000’s. This caused high tensions coming from the US which led to UN nuclear watchdog
in Iran’s territories. 18 However, with a decade full of sanctions and limitations, Iran lost most
of its power, and was forced to hit a pause on their nuclear program. The Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) pact was implemented under Obama’s administration, which leads
Iran’s nuclear goals to take a stand back with limitations implemented in its place.
Stands
A. USA
1. US Administrations
a. Obama’s Administration
Under Barack Obama’s administration, relations with Iran were very stable, unlike
previous years. Obama implemented the JCPOA act which might have placed
limitations on Iran’s nuclear program, but strengthened their power amongst the
region.19 However, sanctions were later implemented under the NEA (1976), the
IEEPA (1977) and the ISA (1966). Declarations under NEA and IEEPA must be
renewed annually to remain in effect.
In addition, under Obama’s Administration, an Executive Order numbered under
13608, which goes under the “Prohibiting Certain Transactions with and
Suspending Entry into the United States of Foreign Sanctions Evaders with Respect
to Iran and Syria” passed in 2016, and strained relations with Iran. In addition,
Barack Obama implemented an Executive Order numbered under 13599 which
means, (Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial
Institutions), was able to block all Iranian assets that were placed by the Iranian
government within any U.S. jurisdiction.
b. Trump’s Administration
Trump abandons the nuclear deal before reinstating economic sanctions against
Iran and threatening to do the same to countries and firms that continue buying
its oil while Iran's economy falls into a deep recession. Trump withdrew from the
JCPOA, the pact that ex-President Barack Obama conducted with Iran.20 Trump
believed that implementing harsh economic sanctions and financial limitations on
Iran would decrease Tehran’s power in the region, in addition to limiting its
military power amongst neighboring countries, such as Lebanon and Syria.
The deal that was conducted was able to strengthen the United States’ relations
with Iran, however, caused tremendous tensions and disputes in the Gulf region.
Trump implemented sanctions on Iran in order to maximize pressure on
Khamenei’s government and to weaken their position amongst the world powers.
18
BBC News - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33521655
19
Obama White House Archives - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal
20
Council on Foreign Relations - https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal21
This caused issues within European countries; however, this move was praised by
the Gulf and Israel. Iran enriched their uranium in defiance of the agreement’s
terms. Trump believed by implementing limitations both politically and
economically, Iran would back out from its nuclear program, however, this caused
problems instead.
Those sanctions caused plenty of disputes and tensions, as well as an escalation of
the military with Iran under Trump’s administration. The Americans’ main goal is
to counter Iran’s accusations and suit with a claim of Iran supporting and
sponsoring terrorism and terrorist attacks, which gives them liability for the
freezing of the assets. Hence which explains the reasons for the legislations and
the laws being applied in regard to the Iranian situation.
During his four years in office, Trump has tried to force Tehran back into talks over
its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its activities in the Middle East. Saying
the agreement did not go far enough, Trump in 2018 quit an Iran nuclear deal,
which Tehran struck with world powers in 2015 to rein in its nuclear program in
return for sanctions relief.
c. Biden’s Administration
It is unclear what Joseph Biden is planning for
the case and for the American relations with
Iran, however he served as a vice president
under Obama’s administration and
presidency for 8 years. This brings in
speculations that he might follow into
Obama’s footsteps and play a hard role on
the Iranian government in regard to the
assets that are worth billions, that are still
frozen.
The intensity of sanctions that have been implemented over the past couple of
years gives President Biden a push in his presidency and his position with Iran.
However, ever since his emergence as U.S Figure 3: Three most recent Presidents of the United
S h // l fi h h d
president, he only discussed the terms of Iran upholding its existing JCPOA
obligations. 21
In its last quarterly report, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran
had stockpiled about 12 times the amount of low-enriched uranium permitted
under the JCPOA. It had also started enriching uranium to higher purity than the
3.67% 22allowed under the deal. Low-enriched uranium is used for many civilian
nuclear-related purposes - but at its highest state of purification (which Iran is
21
Foreign Policy - https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/26/europe-us-biden-iran-nuclear-deal-lift-sanctions/
22
BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-5491240222
nowhere near, nor known to be pursuing) it can be used in a nuclear bomb, hence
the concern.
But Iran, which has weathered the Trump storm, has its own demands. Officials
say the removal of sanctions won't be enough. Iran expects to be compensated for
two-and-a-half years of crippling economic damage.
President Joseph Biden came into his presidency under extremely unprecedented
times, especially with the strained relationship that was built under Trump. It is
still unclear what his plans are and what he is planning to conduct with Iran,
especially the trial and the unresolved case of Certain Iranian Assets, however it is
believed he might follow under Obama’s footsteps with a harsher control because
of Kamala Harris on his side.
2. US Preliminary Objections
The U.S. has filed, in May 2017, preliminary objections 23 to the jurisdiction of the Court
and the admissibility of the Application.
On February 13th, 2019, the International Court of Justice proclaimed its judgment on
the US preliminary objections. First, the Respondent asked to “dismiss as outside the
Court’s jurisdiction all claims that U.S. measures that block the property and interests
in property of the Government of Iran or Iranian financial institutions (as defined in
Executive Order 13599 and regulatory provisions implementing Executive Order
13599) violate any provision of the Treaty.” 24 However, the Court claims that this
objection falls outside the Article XX of the 1955 Treaty. The Court enjoyed its right to
use previous cases, and so went on with the case of Oil Platforms (Iran vs USA) and
according to Provisional Measures, Order of 3 October 2018, para. 41 contains no claim
that exclude such matter. Hence, according to Article XX.1.d, the Court decided to
reject this objection considering this claim only a defense on the merits.
The Second Objection raised was concerning Iran’s sovereign immunity. The United
States asks the court to dismiss the case “as outside the Court’s jurisdiction all claims,
brought under any provision of the Treaty of Amity, that are predicated on the United
States’ purported failure to accord sovereign immunity from jurisdiction and/or
enforcement to the Government of Iran, Bank Markazi, or Iranian State-owned
entities.” 25 According to Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity, the court
agreed to read the full Article IV in order to understand its context. It occurred that
the article protects “for the benefit of natural persons and legal entities engaged in
activities of a commercial nature.” Therefore, Article IV can be used in the discussion
on sovereign immunities.
According to the respondent, the Article XI, paragraph 4 of the treaty does not relate
to the “immunity” on commercial industries. However, the applicant claims that the
provision is in favor of granting sovereignty to public entities when engaging in non-
23 International Court of Justice - https://legal.un.org/icjsummaries/documents/english/231.pdf
24
International Court of Justice - https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/164/164-20190213-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
25
International Court of Justice - https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/175/175-20191223-WRI-01-00-EN.pdfYou can also read
