On March 30, 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) announced the final judgment in a dispute between the Islamic Republic of Iran (the applicant) and the United States of America (the respondent) stemming from U.S. domestic legislation removing immunity from suit for “State sponsors of terrorism” in certain circumstances.The Court’s jurisdiction was grounded in the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States (the “Treaty of Amity”), signed in 1955.
Though the Court ordered the United States to pay compensation for a number of breaches of the Treaty recognized by the Court, it rejected the largest chunk of Iranian claims linked to the freezing of assets of the Iranian central bank, Bank Markazi (now reaching around $1.75 billion) by U.S. courts in actions brought to enforce terrorism-related domestic judgments obtained against Iran. Both parties appeared satisfied with the decision, at least as per their official statements. […]
On the surface, this ruling seems to lean towards an Iranian victory, with compensation awarded and a number of breaches recognized. However, on a more practical note, the actual result seems to be rather somewhere in the middle. Though the recognition of victory may be indeed going to Iran, the United States nevertheless achieved its principal objective of obtaining assets for compensation by securing a judgment permitting (or at least tolerating) the frozen Bank Markazi assets to be used for judgment enforcement in domestic proceedings. Läs artikel