Oil Platforms case

Oil Platforms case (formally, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) ICJ 4) is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice in 2003.[1]

Not to be confused with Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States).

Facts

Three Iranian offshore oil platforms and a United States Navy warship, USS Samuel B. Roberts, were destroyed when the ship struck a mine in international waters near Bahrain. The basis of the Court's jurisdiction was a bilateral commercial agreement between Iran and the United States: the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (United States–Iran).

Judgments

On December 12, 1996, the Court rejected the U.S. preliminary objection to the Court's jurisdiction, by a vote of fourteen to two. The two dissenters were Vice President Schwebel (nationality: U.S.) and Judge Oda (Japan), each of whom wrote dissenting opinions. Among the majority, separate opinions were appended by Judges Shahabuddeen (Guyana), Ranjeva (Madagascar), Higgins (U.K.), and Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela), and Judge ad hoc Rigaux (Belgium, appointed by Iran).[2]

On March 10, 1998, the Court held that the U.S. counter-claim against Iran, for mining and other attacks on U.S. shipping, was admissible.

Oral arguments were held between February 17 and March 7, 2003.

On November 6, 2003, 11 years after the initial application was submitted by Iran, the ICJ rejected the claims of both states.[3] The court found (1) by a vote of 14-2 (dissenting Judges Al-Khasawneh (Jordan), Elaraby (Egypt)) that the U.S. actions against Iranian oil platforms in 1987 and 1988 do not meet the treaty's essential security exception but that they did not breach the treaty's freedom of commerce provision and so Iran's claim against the U.S. could not be upheld, and (2) by a vote of 15-1 (dissenting Judge Simma (Germany)) that the U.S. counter-claim against Iran could not be upheld. (Paragraph 125 of the Decision.) Eleven judges attached declarations or separate opinions. [4]

gollark: No, I mean they run the biggest ad exchange thing, and do some tricks to make competitors to them in any of the area unviable.
gollark: It could probably be one of those prisoner's dilemma situations. More so than regular advertising.
gollark: It's not just or necessarily that. They have some ridiculous monopolistic things going on.
gollark: ···
gollark: So if you polled via Discord, it would be biased.

See also

References
  1. "Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America - Oil Platforms - Judgment of 6 November 2003 - Judgments [2003] ICJ 4; ICJ Reports 2003, p 161; [2003] ICJ Rep 161 (6 November 2003)". www.worldlii.org.
  2. "Cour internationale de Justice - International Court of Justice - Cour internationale de Justice". www.icj-cij.org.
  3. "Cour internationale de Justice - International Court of Justice - Cour internationale de Justice". www.icj-cij.org.
  4. "Cour internationale de Justice - International Court of Justice - Cour internationale de Justice". www.icj-cij.org.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.