Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (United Kingdom v.

Iran) ICJ (1952)

1. Facts
a. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. signed an agreement with the Iranian government in
1933.
b. In the spring of 1952 the Iranian government passed multiple laws that
nationalized the oil industry in Iran. Because of this, a dispute between the Anglo-
Iranian Oil Co. and Iran arose. The United Kingdom adopted the cause, stating the
virtue of diplomatic protection.
c. The Iranian government signed and ratified the declaration of compulsory
jurisdiction for the ICJ in 1932. There are no treaties between the UK and Iran that
are relevant to this case that have been written since 1932. The Iranian government
states that the declaration of compulsory jurisdiction only applies to treaties signed
after the ratification of the declaration and, therefore, believes the ICJ does not have
jurisdiction of this dispute.
d. The UK does not believe the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. has been treated in accordance
to the principles and practice of treaties signed with Turkey and other States since the
declaration.
e. The UK also claims the contract signed between the Anglo- Iranian Oil Co. and
Iran in 1933 was a double charter, and therefore counts as a treaty or convention.
2. Issues
Does the ICJ have jurisdiction over this case?
3. Rule
The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over this case because there is not treaty or
convention signed between Iran and the UK that has been signed since 1932 that are
disputed by this case. Also it does not matter that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. has not
been treated in accordance to the principles and practices of other treaties because the
UK was not a party to said treaties. Finally, the UK was not a party to the original
agreement between the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. and Iran. Therefore the ICJ cannot
have jurisdiction over this case in accordance to the declaration of compulsory
jurisdiction signed by Iran in 1932.

4. Principles
The key point in this case was compulsory jurisdiction with the ICJ. The jurisdiction
only applies to conflicts between two States over signed treaties or conventions,
corporations cannot be represented by their home State unless they were party to a
signed treaty between those two states.
5. Conclusion
This case was important because it affirms the principle that corporations do not
have international legal personality. Also it shows the ICJ cannot render judgment on
cases that are not conflicts between two States over signed treaties.