FIRST APPLICANT

Good evening/morning, Madame President, honorable judges of the court. It is an

honor and privilege for me to appear today, before you, as an agent of the Islamic
Republic of Iran for the application submitted by Iran instituting proceedings against
the United States of America (USA) following the attack and assassination of our
officials, particularly General Quassem Solaimani in Bahagdad.

My name is Lorelei Louise Deloso and with me are my co-agents: Ms. April Mae
Waban and Mr. Fidel Cambare. I will be addressing the first issue concerning
violation on Art 2(4) of the UN Charter while my co-agent, Ms. Waban will address
the second issue, concerning Art 51 of the UN Charter. Applicant has reserved Mr.
Cambare for rebuttal as well.

PRESENTATION OF ISSUE

The Islamic Republic of Iran, and in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 1, of the
Statute of the International Court of Justice, and Article 38 of the Rules of the Court
read along with Article 1 of the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory
Settlement of Disputes done at Vienna on 24 April 1963, brings before this court, this
case about the grave violations of United States of the provisions of:

1. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter which states that “All Members shall refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”, they also violated the
Universal Declaration of Human rights, specifically Article 3 thereof which
states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

2. The contention of self-defense pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations

Charter is untenable as it does not comply with the requirements. Hence, the
United States has to show that: (1) The attacks had been made upon it for
which Iran was responsible; and that (2) Those attacks were of such a nature
as to be qualified as “armed attacks” within the meaning of that expression in
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and as understood in customary law
on the use of force.

The authorities of the United States of America headed by President Donald Trump
feared that Quassem Soleimani, an Iranian major general in the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps is plotting an imminent threat. Specifically, President
Trump stated that Soleimani was plotting "imminent and sinister attacks on American
diplomats and American personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated
him."

On January 3, 2020 missiles launched from a United States Reaper drone struck two
vehicles leaving Baghdad’s international airport. At least seven people died in the
attack, including the commander of Iran’s Quds force, General Qassem Soleimani.
On the said same date, President Donald J. Trump in a series of Twitter posts
justified the killing of Soleimani, saying “General Quassem Soleimani has killed or
badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was
plotting to kill many more... He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of
millions of people.”

FACTS (what happened before)

Almost two years preceding from such attack, it must be remembered that in 2018,
US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal formally known as the Joint Comprehensive
Plan Of Action (JCPOA). In response, Iran called Trump's decision "unacceptable"
and said it would bypass Washington and negotiate with the deal's other remaining
signatories: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia and China. The US on
May 21, 2018 demanded Iran make sweeping changes - from dropping its nuclear
program to pulling out of the Syrian war - or face severe economic sanctions. April
8th, Trump announced he was designating a powerful arm of the Iranian military, the
elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign "terrorist" organization.
It was the first time Washington formally labelled another country's military a
"terrorist group".

Come June 25, 2019, Trump signed an order targeting Khamenei, Iran's supreme
leader, and associates with financial sanctions "Sanctions imposed through the
executive order ...will deny the supreme leader and the supreme leader's office, and
those closely affiliated with him and the office, access to key financial resources and
support," (unquote)

On August 30, 2019, the UN said Iran was still exceeding limitations set by its
nuclear deal with world powers, increasing its stock of enriched uranium and refining
it to a greater purity than allowed in the agreement. The quarterly report from the
UN's International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Iran was progressively backing
out of the pact in retaliation for the US's withdrawal from the accord and the
subsequent renewal of sanctions that had hit Iranian oil sales.

On September 3, 2019, the US imposed sanctions on Iran's civilian space agency

and two research organizations, and turned up the economic pressure on Iran,
blacklisting an oil shipping network that Washington alleges is directed by the IRGC.
The US Treasury accused the blacklisted group of firms, ships and individuals of
breaching sanctions by supplying Syria with oil worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Our President Hassan Rouhani announced a $39bn "budget of resistance" to
counter US sanctions. Rouhani said the aim was to reduce "hardships" to help Iran's
people overcome economic difficulties, as a result of the said sanctions made by the
US.

On Dec. 27, 2019, a barrage of rockets were fired at an Iraqi military base near
Kirkuk, killing an American contractor and wounding four American and Iraqi
servicemen. The U.S. accused the Iran-backed militia group Hezbollah for the
attack. The militia group, however, denied responsibility. Two days later - the US
military carried out "defensive strikes" on sites in Iraq and Syria belonging to
Hezbollah that Washington said were in retaliation for the killing of the US contractor.

January 2, 2020, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said there were "some
indications" that Iran or groups it supports "may be planning additional attacks" on
US interests in the Middle East. Stating that if such happens, they will take pre-
emptive actions. Leading us now to the said predawn drone attack at Iraq's airport in
Baghdad on January 3, 2020 when the US struck and killed Qassem Soleimani, the
head of Iran's elite Quds Force, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander
of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilisation Forces.

Trump continued his threats, even threatened to hit 52 Iranian sites "very hard" if
Iran attacked Americans or US assets. The 52 targets represented the 52 Americans
who were held hostage in Iran for 444 days after being seized at the US embassy in
Tehran in November 1979, he added. He also threatened to attack Iranian cultural
sites, which could constitute a war crime if carried out.

Iran on January 5, 2020 said it will no longer abide by the enrichment limits in its
2015 nuclear deal with world powers. However, in a televised address, Iran insisted
it remained open to negotiations with European partners and Tehran. Despite this,
the US continued its heated rhetoric against Iran and Iraq on January 6, 2020,
warning of a "major retaliation" if Iran struck back in reprisal and threatened
sanctions on Iraq after is parliament called on US troops to leave the country.

CONCLUSION

Your excellencies, this is an obvious example of State terrorism and, as a criminal

act, constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental principles of international law,
including, in particular...the Charter of the United Nations. The actions and threats of
US shows callous disregard for the global rule of law. Threat or the use of force is
forbidden. However, Article 51 of the U.N. charter allows for the use of force in self-
defense. But then, Article 51 deals with a self-defense attack when an armed attack
has happened against a state. There was no armed attack immediately preceding
the killing of Soleimani to speak of. The US equated the imminence of the attack with
intelligence and hence refused to share details. Not a single argument is based on
the legal aspects of the strike.

Based on these, the baseless acts of the United States of America unquestionably
amounts to a threat or use of force. It gravely violates Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter
which provides that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.
For because of that act of killing which took place on 3 January, through missiles
launched from a United States Reaper drone which struck two vehicles leaving
Baghdad’s international airport, of which at least seven people died in the attack,
including the commander of Iran’s Quds force, General Qassem Soleimani, it posted
a threat to the territorial integrity or political independence of the Islamic Republic of
Iran.

In the Hague Convention of 1907, killing a foreign government official outside

wartime has generally been barred by the Law of Armed Conflict. When the Trump
Administration first announced the killing of Suleimani, officials declared that he had
posed an “imminent” threat to Americans. Then, under questioning and criticism, the
Administration changed its explanation, citing Suleimani’s role in an ongoing “series
of attacks.” Eventually, President Trump abandoned the attempt at justification,
tweeting that it didn’t “really matter,” because of Suleimani’s “horrible past.” The
President’s dismissal of the question of legality betrayed a grim truth: a state’s
decision to kill hinges less on definitive matters of law than on a set of highly
malleable political, moral, and visceral considerations. In the case of Suleimani,
Trump’s order was the culmination of a grand strategic gamble to change the Middle
East, and the opening of a potentially harrowing new front in the use of
assassination. That is all, thank you.
JURISDICTION & LAWS
1. Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
Cases are brought before the Court, as the case may be, either by the notification of the
special agreement or by a written application addressed to the Registrar. In either case
the subject of the dispute and the parties shall be indicated.

2. Article 38 of the Rules of the Court (ICJ)

When proceedings before the Court are instituted by means of an application addressed
as specified in Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the application shall indicate the
party making it, the State against which the claim is brought, and the subject of the
dispute.

The application shall specify as far as possible the legal grounds upon which the
jurisdiction of the Court is said to be based; it shall also specify the precise nature of the
claim, together with a succinct statement of the facts and grounds on which the claim is
based.

The original of the application shall be signed either by the agent of the party submitting
it, or by the diplomatic representative of that party in the country in which the Court has
its seat, or by some other duly authorized person. If the application bears the signature
of someone other than such diplomatic representative, the signature must be
authenticated by the latter or by the competent authority of the applicant’s foreign
ministry.

The Registrar shall forthwith transmit to the respondent a certified copy of the
application.

When the applicant State proposes to found the jurisdiction of the Court upon a consent
thereto yet to be given or manifested by the State against which such application is
made, the application shall be transmitted to that State. It shall not however be entered
in the General List, nor any action be taken in the proceedings, unless and until the State
against which such application is made consents to the Court’s jurisdiction for the
purposes of the case.

3. Article 1 of the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of

Disputes done at Vienna on 24 April 1963
Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within
the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be
brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a
Party to the present Protocol.

4. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”

5. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter

 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the
Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority
and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time
such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and
security

6. Universal Declaration of Human rights, specifically Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.