Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights

Last updated
Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights
عهدنامه مودت و روابط اقتصادی و حقوق کنسولی بین ایران و ایالات متحده آمریکا (Persian)
Context"There shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United States of America and Iran."
SignedAugust 15, 1955 (1955-08-15)
Location Tehran
EffectiveJune 16, 1957 (1957-06-16)
ExpirationOctober 3, 2019 (2019-10-03) (de facto)
Signatories Flag of the United States.svg Dwight D. Eisenhower
Flag of the United States.svg Selden Chapin
State flag of Persia (1907-1933).svg Mohammed Reza Pahlavi
State flag of Persia (1907-1933).svg Hosein Ala'
State flag of Persia (1907-1933).svg Mostafa Samiy
Parties
Languages

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 [1] and entered into force on 16 June 1957. [2] 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). [3] 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. [4]

Contents

Background

After the 1953 Coup in Iran, the United States and Iran began negotiations on a treaty of amity between them. This treaty was completed in 1955 and signed by Dwight Eisenhower and Hossein Ala. During the Iran hostage crisis that began in 1979 following the Iranian Revolution, the United States imposed sanctions on Iran that were in violation of Article 1 of the treaty, but Iran did not invoke the treaty. The United States would eventually invoke the treaty stating that Iran violated Article 2, Clause 4 of the treaty, which provides for the protection for citizens of either country. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in the favor of the United States. During the aftermath of the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 Iran sued the United States in the ICJ, with the case being settled out of court. In 1992, in response to Operation Nimble Archer, Iran would again take the United States to court. [5] In this case the ICJ would rule that while the attacks on Iran were not justified, the United States was not in violation of the treaty. [6]

Terms

Article 1 simply states: "There shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United States of America and Iran." Article 2 provides for the protection and freedom of travel for citizens of either nation when visiting the other.

Article 3 provides for the recognition and access to the court systems for corporations within either territory. Article 4 establishes for the protection of property for nationals and corporations of either nation. Article 5 establishes that nationals and corporations may purchase or lease property within either territory. Article 6 establishes rules for taxation, including that nationals and corporations shall pay taxes, and that a scheme will be established to avoid double taxation.

Article 7 states that neither nation will apply monetary restrictions on each other except as needed "to assure the availability of foreign exchange for payments for goods and services essential to the health and welfare of its people" or as approved by the International Monetary Fund. Article 8 establishes rules for the import and export of products between both nations. Article 9 continues this with further rules for the import and export of products between the nations. Article 10 establishes freedom of commerce and navigation between both nations. Article 11 states that corporations acting within either territory shall not be discriminated against during government contract based on their country of origin.

Articles 12, 13, and 14 allow for the exchange of diplomats between the nations and the fair treatment of those diplomats. Article 15 allows each government to purchase or lease land within the other's borders as needed for any purpose other than the military. Articles 16 and 17 outlines that diplomats shall not be subjected to taxation, unless they are or have been a citizen of both nations. Article 18 outlines diplomatic immunity. Article 19 discusses the rights of nationals to visit their consulate. Article 20 outlines areas where the treaty does not apply.

Article 21 states that any disputes shall be subject to the rulings of the International Court of Justice. Article 22 names the previous treaties that this treaty is meant to replace. Article 23 gives a timeline for ratification of the treaty and allows for its cancellation by either party after 10 years "by giving one year's written notice". [1]

Termination

In May 2018, the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action leading to sanctions being re-imposed against Iran. On 3 October 2018, following an earlier ruling that day by the International Court of Justice in the case Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America (Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights) that the US had violated the treaty by imposing sanctions on Iran, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States "is terminating" the treaty. [7] Mike Pompeo has said that the decision to end the treaty "is 39 years overdue". In response foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the Trump administration an "outlaw regime" and Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei stated "America must receive another slap from the people of Iran with the defeat of sanctions". [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Court of Justice</span> Primary judicial organ of the United Nations

The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN). It settles disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. The ICJ is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law.

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.

Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.

The International law bearing on issues of Arab–Israeli conflict, which became a major arena of regional and international tension since the birth of Israel in 1948, resulting in several disputes between a number of Arab countries and Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vienna Convention on Consular Relations</span> 1963 international treaty

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.

<i>United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran</i>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Nimble Archer</span> 1987 U.S. naval attack on Iranian oil platforms during the Iran-Iraq War

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 three days earlier on MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker at anchor off Kuwait. The action occurred during Operation Earnest Will, the effort to protect Kuwaiti shipping amid the Iran–Iraq War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen M. Schwebel</span> American judge

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colombia–Nicaragua relations</span> Bilateral relations

Colombia–Nicaragua relations entail the diplomatic relations between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Nicaragua. The relationship between the two Hispanic American countries has evolved amid conflicts over the San Andrés y Providencia Islands located in the Caribbean sea close to the Nicaraguan shoreline and the maritime boundaries covering 150,000 km2 that included the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina and the banks of Roncador, Serrana, Serranilla and Quitasueño as well as the 82nd meridian west which Colombia claims as a border but which the International Court has sided with Nicaragua in disavowing. The sea around the archipelago has been under Colombian control since 1931 when a treaty was signed during US occupation of Nicaragua, giving Colombia control over the area.

<i>Oil Platforms</i> case

The Oil Platforms case is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice in 2003 in which Iran challenged the U.S. Navy's destruction of three oil platforms in the Persian Gulf in 1987-1988. The Court affirmed that it could exercise jurisdiction over the case based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran but decided with strong majorities against both Iran's claim and the United States' counterclaim.

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.

<i>Avena</i> case ICJ Court Case

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. ___ (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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jennifer Gillian Newstead</span> American lawyer

Jennifer Gillian Newstead is an American attorney who currently serves as the Chief Legal Officer at Meta, previously Facebook, overseeing all global legal and corporate governance matters on behalf of the company.

<i>Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity</i> (Iran v. United States)

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."

<i>Certain Iranian Assets</i> Case in the International Court of Justice

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marik String</span> American lawyer

Marik String is an American attorney, national security expert, and U.S. Navy officer, who served as Acting Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State from 2019 to 2021.

References

  1. 1 2 "Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights Between the United States of America and Iran" (PDF). United States State Department. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-10-31. Retrieved 2018-10-05.
  2. United Nations Publications (2009). Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions, and Orders of the International Court of Justice, 2003-2007. p. 27. ISBN   9789211337761 . Retrieved 3 October 2018.
  3. "Treaties and international agreements registered or filed and recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations" (PDF). U.N. Treaty Series. 1957–1958. p. 93-137.
  4. Wong, Edward; Sanger, David E. (2018-10-03). "U.S. Withdraws From 1955 Treaty Normalizing Relations With Iran". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2021-08-04.
  5. Kashani, Farshad (2018-10-03). "What Is the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran?". The National Interest. Retrieved 2018-10-05.
  6. "The World Court Finds that U.S. Attacks on Iranian Oil Platforms in 1987-1988 Were Not Justifiable as Self-Defense, but the United States Did Not Violate the Applicable Treaty with Iran | ASIL". www.asil.org. Retrieved 2018-10-05.
  7. "Pompeo pulls out of treaty with Iran, in response to UN court ruling". Fox News. 3 October 2018. Retrieved 3 October 2018.
  8. (www.dw.com), Deutsche Welle. "US terminates 1955 'Treaty of Amity' with Iran | DW | 04.10.2018". DW.COM. Retrieved 2018-10-05.