عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
After 11 years, finally on 6 November 2003 the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgment on the merits of the Oil Platforms Case between Iran and the United States. In the Judgment, the Court dismissed Iran's claim that by attacking and destroying Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988, the United States interrupted the
freedom of commerce between the territories of the two countries and breached its obligations under Article 10 (1) of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States. Thus, the Court rejected Iran's claim for compensation. In the meantime, however, the Court found that the actions of the United States in attacking Iranian oil platforms did not constitute a measure for protection of fundamental security interests of the United States from the point of view of Article 20(1)(d) of the Treaty of Amity as interpreted in the light of principles of international law relating to the use of force, there by indicating, implicitly, that the US actions were an unlawful use of force under international law. However, as explained
above, the Court did not allow Iran's claim for compensation. The Court also rejected United States counterclaim that in allegedly attacking the US ships in the Persian Gulf in the later part of Iran-Iraq war, Iran interrupted freedom of commerce between the territories of the two countries and beached its obligations under Article 10(1) of the Treaty of
Amity. Thus, the Court rejected the US claim for compensation. Although the final Judgment of the Court did not satisfy the formal claim of either party, the judicial diplomacy of the Court may be seen within the general context of the international system and in the light of reiteration of the importance of the rules of international law for international peace and security. In addition, the Court's Judgment contains innovations in the international judicial process and creates certain questions in that regard. In particular, the legal effect of the Court's finding with respect to non-compliance of the US actions with Article 20(1)(d) of the Treaty Amity deserves independent analysis.