INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

International Court of Justice decides that, although U.S. naval attacks in 1987/1988 on Iranian oil platforms were not measures necessary to protect essential U.S. security interests, Iran is not entitled to reparations

Iran brought this case in November 1992, claiming that the U.S. had illegally attacked and destroyed offshore oil production facilities in October 1987 and April 1988 which the National Iranian Oil Company owned and commercially operated. These attacks allegedly violated the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States of America and Iran [8 U.S.T. 899; T.I.A.S. 3853; 284 U.N.T.S. 93] (the 1955 Treaty) by impeding the freedom of commerce between the parties.

The U.S. submitted a counter-claim. It alleged that Iran had previously breached the 1955 Treaty by attacking vessels in the Gulf and by other actions that thwarted commerce and navigation between the U.S. and Iran. This hostile behavior justified military action by the U.S.

Article XX, paragraph (d) of the Treaty, provides that it shall not preclude the parties from taking measures "... necessary to protect its essential security interests, as interpreted in light of international law."� The ICJ finds that the U.S. was only entitled to use force if its actions were in self defense.

Between 1984 and 1988, Iraq began attacking vessels in the Persian Gulf, particularly tankers carrying Iranian oil. The U.S. blames Iran for those attacks; Iran claims that Iraq is responsible. Two incidents in particular sparked the U.S. actions. The first was a missile attack on the Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City (reflagged to the U.S.) on October 16, 1987, near Kuwait harbor. In the second event, the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts, a naval vessel, struck a mine in international waters near Bahrain on April 14, 1988.

In the Court's view, however, the evidence fails to show that an armed attack on the U.S. had taken place. Even if the Court were to treat the missile attack on the Sea Isle City cumulatively with the allegedly similar attacks on other vessels (reserving the question of Iranian responsibility), they do not add up to an armed attack on the U.S. Nor does the mining that damaged the Roberts.

Even if there had been such an armed attack, any U.S. defensive actions had to be necessary and proportional to the attack against it. The mine struck by the Roberts did not sink the vessel and did not cause loss of life. Thus, it was neither necessary nor proportionate for the U.S. to respond to it by attacking Iranian oil platforms.

In the 1955 Treaty, Article X, paragraph 1, declares that "Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there shall be freedom of commerce and navigation."� The Court then points out that Iraq's previous attacks on Reshadat and Resalat had put them out of action. Therefore, the U.S. strikes did not hinder the freedom of commerce between the two countries.

Additionally, the April 1988 targets on Salman and Nasr in no way hurt the freedom of commerce between the two countries. In fact, U.S. Executive Order of October 29, 1987 had already suspended all trade in crude oil between the two countries. As a result, the U.S. did not breach its duties to Iran under the 1955 Treaty and does not owe Iran any reparations.

As for the U.S. counter-claim, the ICJ determines that none of the vessels allegedly damaged by Iranian attacks was engaged in commerce or navigation between the two countries. Nor did the Iranian actions make the entire Persian Gulf unsafe for commercial shipping between the two countries. Therefore, the U.S. is not entitled to reparations.

Citation: Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Decision of International Court of Justice of 6 November 2003 (2003/2); International Court of Justice Press Release 2003/38; documents are available on ICJ website “www.icj-cij.org.”

USA visa and immigration information is available at www.immigrationtelevision.com.