The Jurisdictional Basis of the International Court of Justice in Compensation for the Iraq War against Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Faculty Member of the Institution for Research and Development in the Humanities (SAMT)

2 Department of Public and International Law, zanjan branch, islamic azad university, zanjan.

Abstract

Compensation for the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88 has been a constant issue in Iranian politics and law. In fact, from the very beginning of the war, Iran expected the UN Security Council to consider the issue of damages by determining the aggressor. In the post-war years, too, despite the endeavors of the UN Secretary-General following the provisions of Resolution 598, the choice of an alternative was never taken seriously as an objective political or legal action by Iran. It seems one of the reasons for this reluctant was the lack of awareness of the reliable jurisdictional basis for resort to a reliable legal solution such as the International Court of Justice. As we study the positions of the Iran's political authorities and the relevant scholarly writings on the subject, there is no indication to the Court to institute proceedings against Iraq. The article, while introducing the jurisdictional basis of the Court, deals with the subject of the relevant capacities and restrictions incorporated in the provisions of the treaty and the procedure of the International Court of Justice.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Book

    1. Bruno Simma and Daphné Richemond-Barak, Article 37, in, Andreas Zimmermann and Christian J. Tams, Karin Oellers-Frahm, Christian Tomuschat, The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (3rd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, pp 802-808.
    2. Gavin Hambly, The Pahlavi Autocracy: Reza Shah, 1921-1941, in, Peter Avery, Gavin Hambly and Charles Melville (eds.), The Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 7.
    3. Tams, Christian, Waiver, Acquiescence, and Extinctive Prescription, in, Crawford, Pellet and Olleson (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, p 1406.
    4. Yuval Shany, Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility before International Courts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

     

    Article

    1. Prager, Dietmar, “The 2001 Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice”, Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 1, 2002.
    2. Walter, Barbara F., 1997, The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement, International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 3, 1997.

     

    Case law

    1. Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), ICJ Reports 1955.
    2. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 3 Oct 2018.
    3. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 3 Oct 2018.
    4. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (United Kingdom v. Iran), ICJ Reports 1952, p
    5. 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), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measure, Order of 19 Apr 2017.
    6. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), ICJ Reports 1992.
    7. Counter-Memorial and Counter-claim submitted by the United States of America, Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America 23 June 1997.
    8. Gambia vs. Myanmar, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 23 January 2020, Provisional Measures Order.
    9. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, (Hungary and Romania), First Phase, Advisory Opinion of 30 March 1950.

     

    Document

    1. ICJ, History. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/history
    2. ICJ, Rules of Court (1978), Art. 80(1).
    3. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, A/RES/20/2106, (21 December 1965)
    4. League of Nations, Treaty for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes between the Kingdom of IRAQ and the Empire of Iran, signed at Tehran, July 24th 1937, No. 4425.
    5. League of Nations, Treaty for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes between the Kingdom of Iraq and the Empire of Iran, signed at Tehran, July 24th 1937, No. 4425, pp. 269-279.
    6. Permanent Court of International Justice, 16th Report, Series E. No. 16, 1945.
    7. Rules of Court (1978), Adopted on 14 April 1978 and Entered into Force on 1 July 1978, Art. 79bis.
    8. S/22863, 31 July 1991, at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/125883?ln=en
    9. Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, 16 Dec 1920.
    10. UNSC, S/2019/10, Summary statement by the Secretary-General of matters of which the Security Council is seized and of the stage reached in their consideration, 2 Jan 2019. Available at: https://undocs.org/S/2019/10
    11. UNSCR, Resolution 598, Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran, 29 July 1987.

     

    Website

    1. http://tarikhirani.ir/fa/news/4519
    2. http://www.ensafnews.com/259150/%D8%A2%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%AA-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B3%DA%A9%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%85%DA%A9%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%9F/
    3. https://fararu.com/fa/print/371807
    4. https://rc.majlis.ir
    5. https://treaties.un.org
    6. https://undocs.org/en/S/2019/7
    7. https://undocs.org/S/2019/10
    8. https://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2011/09/110922_l23_war30th_598_compensation_iran_iraq
    9. com/xbnhf