The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.
The LaGrand case was a legal action heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which concerned the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In the case, the ICJ ruled that its own temporary court orders were legally binding and that the rights contained in the convention could not be denied by the application of domestic legal procedures.
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) was a case where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The case was decided in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States with the awarding of reparations to Nicaragua.
Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons[1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is an international treaty that defines a framework for consular relations between sovereign states. It codifies many consular practices that originated from state custom and various bilateral agreements between states.
The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious cases between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do.
United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran [1980] ICJ 1 is a public international law case brought to the International Court of Justice by the United States of America against Iran in response to the Iran hostage crisis, where United States diplomatic offices and personnel were seized by militant revolutionaries.
Operation Nimble Archer was the 19 October 1987 attack on two Iranian oil platforms in the Persian Gulf by United States Navy forces. The attack was a response to Iran's missile attack on MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker at anchor off Kuwait, which had occurred three days earlier. The action occurred during Operation Earnest Will, the effort to protect Kuwaiti shipping amid the Iran–Iraq War.
Stephen Myron Schwebel, is an American jurist and international judge, counsel and arbitrator. He previously served as judge of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal (2010–2017), as a member of the U.S. National Group at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as president of the International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal (1993–2010), as president of the International Court of Justice (1997–2000), as vice president of the International Court of Justice (1994–1997), and as Judge of the International Court of Justice (1981–2000). Prior to his tenure on the ICJ, Schwebel served as deputy legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State (1974–1981) and as assistant legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State (1961–1967). He also served as a professor of law at Harvard Law School (1959–1961) and Johns Hopkins University (1967–1981). Schwebel is noted for his expansive opinions in momentous cases such as Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua and Oil Platforms .
The Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981 was a set of obligations and commitments undertaken independently by the United States and Iran to resolve the Iran hostage crisis, brokered by the Algerian government and signed in Algiers on January 19, 1981. The crisis began from the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, where Iranian students took hostage of present American embassy staff. By this accord and its adherence, 52 American citizens were able to leave Iran. With the two countries unable to settle on mutually agreeable terms, particularly for quantitative financial obligations, Algerian mediators proposed an alternative agreement model - one where each country undertook obligations under the accords independently, rather than requiring both countries to mutually adhere to the same terms under a bilateral agreement.
Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) [2002] ICJ 1 was a public international law case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with a judgment issued on 14 February 2002.
The United Kingdom v Iran [1952] ICJ 2 was a public international law dispute between the UK and Iran. This case concerned the nationalization of Iran's oil which had been, in large part, controlled by the United Kingdom since the early 20th century.
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.
Charles N. Brower is a former State Department official, international judge, and recognized expert in public international law and international dispute resolution. He has been a judge of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal since 1983. He has also served as a Judge ad hoc in three cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) since 2014. He is currently affiliated with 20 Essex Street Chambers in London, UK.
The Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals , more commonly the Avena case, was a case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In its judgment of 31 March 2004, the Court found that the United States had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in not allowing legal representation from the Mexican consulate to meet with Mexican citizens arrested and imprisoned for crimes in the United States.
Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs, in the case had initially obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress added an amendment to a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and effectively abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.
The Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran was signed in Tehran on August 15, 1955, received the consent of the U.S. Senate on July 11, 1956 and entered into force on 16 June 1957. The treaty is registered by the United States to the United Nations on 20 December 1957. The official texts are in English and Persian. It is sealed by plenipotentiaries Selden Chapin (U.S.) and Mostafa Samiy (Iran). The Treaty has served as the jurisdictional basis for various international legal disputes between the United States and Iran, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases Oil Platforms and Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights. In October 2018, the United States provided notice that it would be withdrawing from the Treaty following Iran's use of the Treaty as a basis to challenge the U.S. imposition of sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the Alleged Violations case.
Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights is the formal name of a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Iran filed a lawsuit with the Hague-based ICJ against the United States, on 16 July 2018, mainly based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed between the two sides on 15 August 1955 and entered into force in 1957, well before the Islamic revolution of Iran. Iranian officials alleged that U.S. re-imposition of the nuclear sanctions was a violation of the treaty. Iran also filed a request for provisional measures. In response, the United States asserted that the lawsuit as "baseless" and vowed to oppose it. Almost a month later, the ICJ heard the provisional measures request. On 3 October 2018, the International Court of Justice issued a provisional measures order requiring the United States "to lift sanctions linked to humanitarian goods and civil aviation imposed against Iran."
Certain Iranian Assets is the formal name of a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The application was lodged by Iran against the United States on 14 June 2016, on grounds of violation of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, shortly after Bank Markazi v. Peterson was decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Iranian case seeks the unfreezing and return of nearly $2 billion in assets held in the United States. The case focuses specifically on assets seized from the Iranian national bank, Bank Markazi. These funds were seized to compensate victims of a 1983 suicide bombing of a Marine Corps base in Beirut, Lebanon, which has been tied to Iran. The attack killed more than 300 and injured many more, including U.S. military members. Iran has argued in the case that, among other things, the United States has failed to accord Iran and Iranian state-owned companies, and their property, sovereign immunity, and failed to recognize the juridical separateness of Iranian state-owned companies.
