Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161 Facts a. b.

The Islamic Republic of Iran brought the case before the International Court of Justice of the United Nations against the United States of America. The claim was generated in response to the attack and destruction of Iranian oil platforms and offshore oil production complexes by several United States Navy warships on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988, respectively. On 19 October 1987, four U.S. guided-missile destroyers, Young, Hoel, Kidd, and Leftwich, unloaded heavy artillery on Iranian platforms Resalat and Rashadat located in the Persian Gulf. Both platforms will irreparably damaged, ceasing offshore oil production indefinitely. The United States justified this attack as a measured response to an alleged Iranian attack on Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City located in the Persian Gulf. The 18 April 1988 incident involved American attacks on oil platforms, Nasr and Salman, in response to an alleged Iranian attackthe mining of USS Samuel B. Roberts. Iranian origin of the mine is based on inconclusive evidence, to which Iran argues lacks any factual or legal merit. Nasr and Salman were virtually destroyed, rendering both platforms out of operation to date. The United States contends that these attacks were all enacted in self-defense, and out of the necessity of protecting essential security interests.

c.

d.

Questions a. Does the International Court of Justice have jurisdiction (temporal, territorial, and subject matter) to hear the claims brought against the United States of America by the Islamic Republic of Iran?1 Are the United States actions in attacking and destroying Iranian platforms and offshore oil production complexes in violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights? Is the United States justified in its attacks on Iranian platforms and offshore oil production complexes under the principles of international law in this instance?

b.

c.

Temporal and territorial jurisdiction is not at issue in the case, but the United States disputes the Courts jurisdiction to decide on issues within the 1955 Treaty of Amity.

Decisions a. The Court found that it had jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the 1955 Treaty, to entertain the claims made by the Islamic Republic of Iran under Article X, paragraph 1, of the Treaty (p. 174). This section of the Treaty clearly states that its interpretation and application shall be brought before the International Court of Justice if the parties cannot otherwise agree to settlement through diplomacy or some other pacific means (p. 178). The Court decided that neither attacks violated the rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran under Article X, paragraph 1 of the Treaty because the platforms that were damaged or destroyed did not generate active commerce between Iran and the United States. Additionally, Executive Order 12613 serves as an effective embargo suspending commercial relations between Iran and the United States. Consequently, Iran cannot claim reparations for the attacks. The Court found that the alleged Iranian attacks were not a sufficient cause for the disproportionate retaliation of the United States through the attacks on Iranian oil platforms. While the U.S. appeals to self-defense utilized in rule of customary international law, precedent defined by Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua does not justify the American response (p.198).

b.

c.

Principles a. b. This case illustrates the principle of subject matter jurisdiction, as put forth by the 1955 Treaty of Amity, which governs the decisions in the case. The 1955 Treaty of Amity dismisses Iranian claims against the United States by upholding the principle that commercial activity had to be disrupted by the attacks. The primary point of international law in this case is the response of a State and its proportionality to the attack by the initial aggressor.

c.

Conclusion Iranian appeal to the 1955 Treaty of Amity proved invalid, as the Court did not see the American attacks as a direct disruption of freedom of commerce. Iran was not generating American business from any of the oil platforms in question. If there was no embargo, and the oil platforms damaged and destroyed were sources of commerce between the disputing parties, the United States may have been subject to pay reparations to Iran. Despite the lack of validity in Irans claim, the United States did not demonstrate an adequate response by standards of international law. While the U.S. cited Iran as the aggressor, the attacks on Sea Isle City and USS Samuel B. Roberts were not confirmed Iranian acts of aggression. Therefore, American self-defense was disproportional to the actions that provoked it.

Bibliography Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), I.C.J. Reports (2003) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) I.C.J. Reports (1984) Submitted Jonathan R. Khouri, September 17, 2009