UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR STAFF IN TEHRAN (US VS.

IRAN)

CONTEXT:

The US Government was contemplating permitting the former Shah of Iran, who was then in Mexico, to
enter the United States for medical treatment. US officials feared that, in the political climate prevailing
in Iran, the admission of the former Shah might increase the tension already existing between the two
States, and result in renewed violence against the US Embassy in Tehran.

For this reason, they requested assurances from the Govemment of Iran that adequate protection would
be provided. US officials informed of Iranian officials of said predicament, and of the concern felt by the
US government about the possible public reaction in Tehran.

Assurances were given by the Foreign Minister that the Government of Iran would fulfil its international
obligation to protect the Embassy. The request for such assurances was repeated at a further meeting
the following day, and the Foreign Minister renewed his assurances that protection would be provided.

FACTS:

On Nov. 4, 1979, during the course of a demonstration of approximately 3,000 persons, the US Embassy
compound in Tehran was overrun by a strong armed group of several hundred people. The Iranian
security personnel are reported to have simply disappeared from the scene; at all events it is established
that they made no apparent effort to deter or prevent the demonstrators from seizing the Embassy's
premises.

In the course of the attack, all the diplomatic and consular personnel and other persons present in the
premises were seized as hostages, and detained in the Embassy compound; subsequently other United
States personnel and one United States private citizen seized elsewhere in Tehran were brought to the
compound and added to the number of hostages.

Despite repeated requests, no Iranian security forces were sent in time to provide relief and protection
to the Embassy. In fact when Revolutionary Guards ultimately arrived on the scene, despatched by the
Government "to prevent clashes", they considered that their task was merely to "protect the safety of
both the hostages and the students", according to statements subsequently made by the Iranian
Government's spokesman, and by the operations commander of the Guards. No attempt was made by
the Iranian Government to clear the Embassy premises, to rescue the persons held hostage, or to
persuade the militants to terminate their action against the Embassy.

US officials arranged to meet with Iranian authorities to discuss the release of the hostages; however,
the Ayatollah Khomeini forbade officials to meet them. The U.S. subsequently ceased relations with
Iran, stopped US exports, oil imports, and Iranian assets were blocked. Although the militants were not
acting on behalf of the State, neither did the State uphold their agreement to protect US nationals.

The militants said they would hold the hostages until the Shah, who was receiving medical treatment in
the US, was returned to Iran.

The US argued that Iran violated the Vienna Convention of 1961 which stated the Embassy would be
protected, as well as the Vienna Convention of 1963 which stated the nationals would be protected while
in their country. Furthermore, the 1955 Treaty was in effect, which promoted good relations between
the U.S. and Iran and promised protection to its territory and nationals.

Iran did not argue its side, instead deciding to make no response to the Court’s notices.

ISSUES:

a. Did Iran violate the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963 as well as the 1955 Treaty?
b. Even though the State of Iran did not overtake the United States Embassy, does it have the
responsibility of ensuring the hostages’ release?

c. Should Iran be held responsible for the takeover by the militants? That is, should Iran have to make
reparation to the United States for these actions?

DECISION:

a. The Court found that the Vienna Conventions and the Treaty were violated, as the Government of
Iran knew of the militants’ actions and made no attempt to help the United States’ hostages. Iran had
stepped in on other militant attacks of embassies, but did not do so in this case. (First element of
State Responsibility)

Iran was fully aware of its international obligations. Not only did they had the means at their disposal
to fulfill their obligations but, as result of the appeals for help made by the US Embassy, they were also
aware of the urgency of the situation. Therefore, the Court determined that the Government knowingly
decided to not intervene in this case. (Second Element of State Reponsibility)

This inaction of the Iranian Government by itself constituted clear and serious violation of Iran's
obligations to the United States under the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 2, and Articles 24,
25, 26, 27 and 29 of the 1961 VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, (art. 26 and
27 of the VCDR are what were discussed in henriksen, I dunno how these relate to this shit) and Articles
5 and 36 of the 1963 VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS.

So far as concerns the two private United States nationals seized as hostages by the invading militants,
that inaction entailed, albeit incidentally, a breach of its obligations under Article II, paragraph 4, of
the 1955 TREATY OF AMITY, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights which, in addition to the
obligations of Iran existing under general international law, requires the parties to ensure "the most
constant protection and security" to each other's nationals in their respective territories

b. Iran, through its 1955 Treaty and the Vienna Conventions, must ensure the protection of the United
States’ citizens while they are in Iran. Therefore, Iran is responsible for releasing the hostages even
though they themselves did not contain them. Iran was under obligation to ensure that the people as
well as the property were protected, and therefore should remedy this.

c. The Court determined that Iran was more than negligent in these circumstances. They had, on 1
March 1979, claimed to be making arrangements to prevent the United States from any takeovers or
attacks. Many Iranian authorities approved of the takeover and the Foreign Minister claimed that
America was responsible for the incident. (Attribution for acts performed by the State and its
organs) Iran deliberately ignored requests for the hostages to be released and should, for these
reasons, be help to make reparation for the actions.

The ICJ concluded that the acts of the Iranian government subsequent to the storming and occupation
of the US embassy by private Iranian citizens meant that the conduct became acts of the Iranian state.

Not only did the Iranian government give their approval to the occupation of the embassy and the taking
of its staff as hostages, it also decided to perpetrate it and use it as a means of exerting pressure on
the US government. (Attributions for acts performed by private individuals)

From then on, the “militant authors of the invasion and jailers of the hostages”, had now become agents
of the Iranian State for whose acts the State itself was internationally responsible.

Principles: