Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice

Not an official document

CCDRFU CHANNEL CASE (MERITS)

Judgment of 9 April11949

The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Brit- 12th and 13th, 1946, when it undertook a sweep of the Strait?
ain and Northern Ireland-All'bania) arose frc~mincidents that In its Judgment the C o w declared on the first question, by
occurred On October 221141946, in the C : O ~ ~Strait:U two 11 vo&s against 5 , that Albania responsible.
British destroyers struck mines in Albanian waters and suf- 1, n:gard to the second question, it deck& by 14 votes
fered damage, including serious loss of life. 'fie United 2 that the united ~ i did not~,,idate*1banian
~ d ~ ~
Kingdom first seized the Security Counci,l of the United on october 22nd; but it declaaed unanimously
Nations which, by a Resoluidon of April 9th, 1947, recom- that it .violatedthat sovereigntyon ~~~~~h~ 12th/13th, and
mended the Governmelltsto submit the to the that this declaration, in itself, constituted appropriate satis-
Court. The United Kingdbm accordingly submitted an faction.
Application which, after an objection to its Hdmissibility had
been raised by Albania, was the subject of a Judgment, dated The facts are as On October 22nd* 1946*two
March 25th, 1948, in whic]blthe Court dec.1-d that it pas- British cruisers and two desnoyers, coming from the s o u t h s
sessed jurisdiction, onthe same day the m i e s con- entered the North Corfu Strait. The channel they were fol-
clu&d a Special Agreement asking the C o w to give judg- lowing:, which was in Albanian waters, was regarded as safe:
ment on the following questions: it had been swept in 1944 and check-swept in 1945. One of
the destroyers, the Saumarez, when off Saranda, struck a
1. ISAlbania responsibjk for the e ~ p l ~ ~and i~is there
n~, mine md was gravely damaged. The other 'lestroyer, the Vo-
a duty to pay compensation'? lage, was sent to her assistanceand, while towing her, struck
2. Has the United Kin;ydom violated international law another mine and was also seriously damaged: Forty-five
by the acts of its Navy in Alltbanian waters, first on the day on British officers and sailors lost their lives, and forty-two 0th-
which the explosions occunred and, secondly, 0x1 November ers were ~ ~ ~ n d e d .

Continued on next page

 An incident had already occurred in these waters on May The United Kingdom also argued that, whoever might be
15th, 1946: an Albanian battery had fired in the direction of the authors of the m~inelaying,it could not have been effected
two British cruisers. The United Kingdom Government had without Albania's kaowledge. W e , the mere fact that mines
protested, stating that innocent passage through straits is a were laid in Albanian waters neither involves prima facie
right recognized by international law; the Albanian Govern- responsibility nor does it shift the burden of proof. On the
ment had replied that foreign warships and merchant vessels other hand, the exclusive control exercised by a State within
had no right to pass through Albanian temtorial waters with- its frontiers may make it impossible to furnish direct proof of
out prior authorisation;and on August 2nd, 1946, the United facts which would involve its responsibility in case of a vio-
Kingdom Government had replied that if, in the future, fire lation of international law. The State which is the victim
was opened on a British warship passing h u g h the chan- must, in that case, be allowed a more liberal recourse to infer-
nel, the fire would be returned. Finally, on September 21st, ences of fact and circumstantial evidence; such indirect evi-
1946, the Admiralty in London had cabled to the British dence must be regarded as of especial weight when based on
Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean to the following a series of facts, linked together and leading logically to a
effect: "Establishment of diplomatic relations with Albania single conclusion.
is again under consideration by His Majes~y'sGovernment In the present case two series of facts, which corroborate
who wish to know whether the Albanian Giovernment have one another, have tc, be considered.
learnt to behave themselves. Information is requested The first relates to the Albanian Government's attitude
whether any ships under your command have passed through before and after the catastrophe. The laying of the mines took
the North Corfu Strait since August and, if not, whether you place in a period in which It had shown its intention to keep a
intend them to do so shortly." jealous watch on its territorial waters and in which it was
After the explosions on October 22nd. tlhe United King- requiring prior authorisation before they were entered, this
dom Government sent a Note to Tirana annaluncing its inten- vigilance sometimes going so far as to involve the use of
tion to sweep the Corfu Channel shortly. The reply was that force: all of which render the assertion of ignorance a priori
this consent would not be given unless the operation in ques- improbable. Moreover, when the Albanian Government had
tion took place outside Albanian temtorial waters and that become fully aware of the existence of a minefield, it pro-
any sweep undertaken in those waters would be a violation of tested strongly agai:nst the activity of the British Fleet, but
Albania's sovereignty. not against the laying of the mines, though this act, if
The sweep effected by the British Navy took place on effected without her consent, would have been a very serious
November 12th/13th1946, in Albanian territorial waters and violation of her sov,ereignty; she did not notify shipping of
within the limits of the channel previously swept. Wenty- the existence of the minefield, as would be required by inter-
two moored mines were cut; they were mines of the German national law; and she did not undertake any of the measures
GY type. of judicial investigation which would seem to be incumbent
on her in such a case. Such an attitude could only be
explained if the Albanian Government, while knowing of the
minelaying, desirecl the circumstances in which it was
effected to remain se:cret.
The second series of facts relates to the possibility of
The first question put by the Special Agreement is that of observing the minellaying from the Albanian coast. Geo-
Albania's responsibility, under internation.al law, for the graphically, the channel is easily watched: it is dominated by
explosions on October 22nd, 1946. heights offering excellent observation points, and it runs
close to the coast (the nearest mine was 500 m. from the
The Court finds, in the first place, that the explosions were shore). The methodiical and well-thought-out laying of the
caused by mines belonging to the minefielcl discovered on mines compelled the minelayers to remain from two to two-
November 13th. It is not, indeed, contested that this mine- and-a-half hours in the waters between Cape Kiephali and the
field had been recently laid; it was in the channel, which had St. George's Monastery. In regard to that point, the naval
been previously swept and check-swept and could be experts appointed by the Court reported, after enquiry and
regarded as safe, that the explosions had taken place. The investigation on the spot, that they considered it to be indis-
nature of the damage shows that it was due to mines of the putable that, if a normal look-out was kept at Cape Kiephali,
same type as those swept on November 13th. finally, the the- Denta Point, and St. George's Monastery, and if the look-
ory that the mines discovered on November 1.3thmight have outs were equipped with binoculars, under normal weather
been laid after the explosionson October 22nd is too improb- conditions for this area, the mine-laying operations must
able to be accepted. have been noticed by these coastguards. The existence of a
In these circumstancesthe question arises what is the legal look-out post at Dents Point was not established; but the
basis of Albania's responsibility? The Court does not feel Court, basing itself on the declarations of the Albanian Gov-
that it need pay serious attention to the suggestion that Alba- ernment that lock-0u.t posts were stationed at other points,
nia herself laid the mines: that suggestion WiB only put for- refers to the followingconclusions in the experts' report: that
ward pro memoria, without evidence in support, and could in the case of minelaying 1) from the North towards the
not be reconciled with the undisputed fact that, on the whole South, the minelayers would have been seen from Cape
Albanian littoral, there are only a few launches and motor Kiephali; if from Sou.thtowards the North, they would have
boats. But the United Kingdom also alleged .the connivance been seen from Cape Kiephali and St. George's Monastery.
of Albania: that the minelaying had been canied out by two From all the facts iind observations mentioned above, the
Yugoslav warships by the request of Albania, or with her Court draws the conclusion that the laying of the minefield
acquiescence. The Court finds that this collusion has not could not have been accomplished without the knowledge of
been proved. A charge of such exceptional gravity against a Albania. As regards the obligations resulting for her from
State would =quire a degree of certainty that has not been this knowledge, they are not disputed. It was her duty to
reached here, and the origin of the mines laid in Albanian ter- notify shipping and especially to warn the ships proceeding
ritorial waters remains a matter for conjecture. through the Strait on October 22nd of the danger to which
they were exposed. In fact, nothing was attempted by Alba- tion, armament, manoeuvres, etc.-showed an intention to
nia to prevent the disaster, and these grave onnissions involve intimidate. The Court examined the different Albanian con-
her international responsibility. tentions so far as they appeared relevant. Its conclusion is
that the passage was innocent both in its principle, since it
The Special Agreement asks the Court to say whether, on was designed to affirm a right which had been unjustly
this ground, there is "any duty" for Albania "to pay com- denied, and in its methods of execution, which were not
pensation" to the United Kingdom. This text gave rise to cer- unreasonable in view of the firing from the Albanian battery
tain doubts: could the Court not only decide on the principle on May 15th.
of compensation but also rlssess the amollnt? The Court
answered in the affirmative ;and, by a speciial Order, it has As negards the operation on November 12th/13th, it was
fixed time-limits to enable the Parties to submit their views to executed contrary to the clearly expressed wish of the Alba-
it on this subject. nian G~vernment;it did not have the consent of the interna-
tional mine clearance organizations; it could not be justified
as the exercise of the right of innocent passage. The United
Kingdom has stated that its object was to secure the mines as
quickly as possible for fear lest they should be taken away by
the authors of the minelaying or by the Albanian authorities:
this was presented either as a new and special application of
The Court then goes on to the second question in the Spe- the theory of intervention, by means of which the intervening
cial Agreement: Did the United Kingdom violate Albanian State was acting to facilitate the task of the international tri-
sovereignty on October 2;!nd, 1946, or on November bunal, or as a method of self-protection or self-help. The
12th113th. 1946? Court cannot accept these lines of defence. It can only regard
The Albanian claim to make the passage of ships condi- the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a pol-
tional on a prior authorisati.on conflicts with the generally icy of force which cannot find a place in international law. As
admitted principle that States, in time of peace, have a right regards the notion of self-help, the Court iis also unable to
to send their warships through straits used for international accept it: between independent States the respect for territo-
navigation between two part!; of the high seas, provided that rial sovereignty is an essential foundation for international
the passage is innocent. The (CorfuStrait belongs geographi- relations. Certainly, the Court recognises the Albanian Gov-
cally to this category, even though it is on~lyof secondary ernment's complete failure to carry out its duties after the
importance (in the sense tlb~atit is not a necessary route explosions and the dilatory nature of its diplomatic Notes as
between two parts of the high seas) and inespective of the extenuating circumstances for the action of the United King-
volume of traffic passing through it. A fiict of particular dom. But, to ensure respect for international law, of which it
importance is that it constitutes a frontier between Albania is the organ, the Court must declare that the action of the Brit-
and Greece, and that a part of the strait is wholly within the ish Navy constituted a violation of Albanian sovereignty.
territorialwaters of those States. It is a fact that the two States This declaration is in accordance with the request made by
did not maintain normal relations, Greece hiving made terri- Albania through her counsel and is in itself appropriate
torial claims precisely with :regard to a part of the coast bor- satisfa~ction.
dering the strait. However, the Court is of q,inion that Alba-
nia would have been justified in view of these exceptional
circumstances, in issuing regulations in respect of the pas-
sage, but not in prohibiting s.11chpassage or in subjecting it to
the requirement of special a~~thorisation. To the Judgment of the Court there are attached one decla-
Albania has denied that the passage on October 22 was ration and the dissenting opinions of Judges Alvarez, Winiar-
innocent. She alleges that it was a political mission and that ski, Zoricic, Badawi Pasha, Krylov and Azevedo, and also
the methods employed-the number of shiips, their forma- that of'Dr. Ecer, Judge ad hoc.
 Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice
Not an official document

CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR

STAFF IN TEHRAN
Judgment of 24 May 1980

In its Judgment in the case concerning Ul~itedStates Dip- voted against parag~aphs1,2,5 and 6, and by Judge Tarazi,
lomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, the Court decided (1) who voted against paragraphs 1 , 2 and 5.
that Iran has violated and is still violating albligations owed
by it to the United States; (2) that these viiolations engage Procedure before the Court
Iran's responsibility; (3) that the Govenuncznt of Iran must (paras. 1-10)
immediately release the United States natiollals held as hos-
tages and place the premises of the em bass!^ in the hands of In its Judgment, the Court recalls that on 29 November
the protecting power; (4) that no member of the United States 1979the United Statesof America had institutedproceedings
diplomatic or consular staff may be kept in1 Iran to be sub- against Iran in a case arising out of the situation at its
jected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate in Embassy in Tehran and Consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz, and
them as a witness; (5) that Iran is under an obligation to make the seizure and detention as hostages of its diplomatic and
reparation for the injury caused to the United States; and (6) consular staff in Tehran and two more citizens of the United
that the form and amount of such re pa ratio^^, failing agree- States. The United Eitates having at the same time requested
ment between the parties, shall be settled by the Court. (The the indication of provisional measures, the Court, by a unan-
full text of the operative paragraph is reproducedbelow.) imous Order of 15 Ebcember 1979, indicated, pending final
These decisions were adopted by large majorities: (1) and judgment, that the Embassy should immediately be given
(2)- 13votes a 2; (3) and (4)-unanimousl:y; (5)- 12 votes back and the hostagc:~released (see Press Communiqu6 No.
to 3; (6)- 14 votes to 1 (the votes are re4:orde.d by name 8011).
below). The procedure then continued in accordance with the Stat-
ute and Rules of Court. The United States filed a Memorial,
and on 18, 19 and 3X)March 1980 the Court held a public
hearing at the close of which the United States, in its final
submissions, requested it to adjudge and declare, inter alia,
that the Iranian Government had violated its international
legd obligations to the United States and must: ensure the
A separate opinion was appended to the Judgment by immediate release of the hostages; afford the United States
Judge Lachs, who voted against operative paragraph 5. Dis- diplomatic and consular personnel the protection and immu-
senting opinions were appended by Judge Morozov, who nities to which they -wereentitled (including immunity from

Continued on next page

criminal jurisdiction) and provide them with facilities to Agents, provides a basis for the exercise of its jurisdiction
leave Iran; submit the penons respnsibbe for the crimes with n:spect to the United States' claims thereunder.
committed to the competent Iranian authoriities for prosecu-
tion, or extradite them to lhe United States; and pay the MERITS: Attributability to the Iranian State of the acts com-
United States reparation, in a sum to be subsequently deter- plained of, and violation by Iran of certain obligations
mined by the Court. (paras. 56-94)
Iran took no part in the prtneedings. It neither filed plead- The Court has also, under Article 53 of its Statute, to sat-
ings nor was represented at the hearing, anti no submissions isfy itself that the claims of the Applicant are well founded in
were therefore presented on its behalf. Its position was how- law. To this end, it considers the acts complained of in order
ever defined in two letters addressed to the Cow. by its Min- to determine how far, legally, they may be attributed to the
ister for Foreign Affairs on !) December 19'79 an.d 16 March Iranian State (as distinct from the occupiers of the Embassy)
1980respectively. In these fte Minister maintained inter alia and whether they are compatible or incompatible with Iran's
that the Court could not and should not take cognizance of the obligationsunder treaties in force or other applicable rules of
case. international law.
The Facts (a) The events of 4 November 1979
(paras. 11-32) (paras.5 M 8 )
The first phase of the events underlying the Applicant's
The Court expresses regrc:t that Iran did not appear before claims covers the armed attack on the United States Embassy
it to put forward its argumexits. The absenw,of Iran from the carried out on 4 November 1979by Muslim Student Follow-
proceedings brought into operation Article t53 of the Statute, ers of the Imam's Policy (further referred to as "the mili-
under which the Court is required, before finding in the tants" in the Judgment), the overrunning of its premises, the
Applicant's favour, to satisfy itself that the allegationsof fact seizure of its inmates as hostages, the appropriation of its
on which the claim is based <arewell founded. property and archives, and the conduct of the Iranian author-
In that respect the Court observes that it has had available ities in the face of these occurrences.
to it, in the documents presented by the United States, a mas- The Court pints out that the conduct of the militants on
sive body of information f i ~ mvarious sources, including that occasion could be directly attributed to the Iranian State
numerous official statements of both lrariian and United only if it were established that they were in fact acting on its
States authorities. This information, the Court notes, is behalf. The information before the Court did not suffice to
wholly concordant as to the rnain facts and has all been com- establish this with due certainty. However, the Iranian
municated to Iran without evoking any denial. l'he Court is State--which, as the State to which the mission was a c c d -
accordingly satisfied that tht: allegationsof fact on which the ited, was under obligation to take appropriate steps to protect
United States based its claim were weH founded. the Uinited States Embassy-did nothing to prevent the
attack, stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the
Admissibility militants to withdraw from the premises anti release the hos-
(paras. 3 3 4 l ) tages. This inaction was in contrast with the conduct of the
Iranian authorities on several similar occasions at the same
Under the settledjurisprutience of the Cow, it is bound, in period, when they had taken appropriate steps. It constituted,
applying Article 53 of its Statute, to investigate, on its own the Court finds, a clear and serious violation of Iran's obliga-
initiative, any preliminary question of admissibility or juris- tions to the United States under Articles 22 (2). 24,25,26,
diction that may arise. 27 am1 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
On the subject of admissil>ility,the Court, aftel: examining Relations, of Articles 5 and 36 of the 1963 Vienna Conven-
the considerations put forw;ard in the two betters from Iran, tion or~Consular Relations, and of Article 111(4) of the 1955
finds that they do not disclost: any ground far concluding that lfeaty. Further breaches of the 1963 Convention had been
it could not or should not de:d with the case. Neither does it involved in failure to protect the Consulates at Tabriz and
find any incompatibility with the continuance of judicial pro- Shim.
ceedings before the Court in the establishment by the The Court is therefore led to conclude that on 4 November
Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the agreement 1979the Iranian authorities were fully aware of their obliga-
of both States, of a Commission given a mandate to under- tions under the conventions in force, and also of the urgent
take a fact-finding mission to Iran, hear Iran's grievances and need for action on their part, that they had the means at their
facilitate the solution of the crisis between the two countries. disposal to perform their obligations, but that they com-
pletely failed to do so.
Jurisdiction
(paras. 45-55) (b) Events since 4 November 1979
(paras. 69-79)
Four instruments having teen cited by the United States as The second phase of the events underlying the United
bases for the Court's jurisdic:tion to deal wiith its claims, the States' claims comprises the whole series; of facts which
Court finds that three, nameily the Optional Protmols to the o c c m d following the occupation of the Embassy by the
two Vienna Conventions of 11961 and 1963 ton, respectively, militants. Though it was the duty of the Iranian Government
Diplomatic and Consular Relations, and the 1955 lfeaty of to take every appropriate step to end the infringement of the
Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between inviolability of the Embassy premises and staff, and to offer
the United States and Iran, do in fact provide such founda- reparation for the damage, it did nothing of the kind. Instead,
tions. expressions of approval were immediately heard from
The Court, however, doas not find it necessary in the numenous Iranian authorities. Ayatollah Khomeini himself
present Judgment to enter into the question whether Article proclaimed the Iranian State's endorsement of both the sei-
13 of the fourth instrument so cited, namely the 1973 Con- zure of the premises and the detention of the hostages. He
vention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against descril~dthe Embassy as a "centre of espitwage", declared
Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic that the hostages would (with some exceptions) remain
"under arrest" until the United States lhad returned the is not any private individuals or p u p s that have set at naught
former Shah and his property to Iran, and foshade all negotia- the inviolability of an embassy, but the very government of
tion with the United States on the subject. Once organs of the the State to which the mission is accredited, the Court draws
Iranian State had thus given approval to the acts complained the attention of the entire international community to the
of and decided to perpetuate them as a meams of pressure on imparable harm that may be caused by events of the kind
the United States, those acts were transform.edinto acts of the before the Court. Such events cannot fail to undermine a
Iranian State: the militants became agents of that State, carefully constructed edifice of law, the maintenance of
which itself became internationally responsible for their acts. which is vital for the security and well-being of the interna-
During the six months which ensued, the situation underwent tional community.
no material change: the Court's Order of 19 December 1979 (e) United States operation in Iran on 24-25 April 1980
was publicly rejected by Iran, while the Ayatollah declared (paras. 93 amd 94)
that the detention of the hostages would c:ontinue until the Wlth regard to the operation undertaken in Iran by United
new Iranian parliament had taken a decision as to their fate. States military units on 24-25 April 1980,the Court says that
The Iranian authorities' decision to continue the subjec- it cannot fail to express its concern. It feels bound to observe
tion of the Embassy to occupation, and of its staff to deten- that an operation undertaken in those circumstances, from
tion as hostages, gave rise to repeated and multiple breaches whatever motive, is of a kind calculated to undermine respect
of Iran's treaty obligations, additional to those already com- for the judicial pmxss in international relations. Neverthe-
mitted at the time of the seizure of the Emtbassy (1961 Con- less, the question ofthe legality of that operation can have no
vention: Arts. 22,24,25,26,27 and 29; 1963 Convention: bearing on the evaluation of Iran's conduct on 4 November
inter alia, Art. 33; 1955Tkaty, Art. iI (4)). 1YJ9. The findings reached by the Court are therefore not
With regard to the Charge d'affaires aid the two other affected by that operation.
members of the United States mission who have been in the
Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 4 November 1979,
the Court finds that the Iranian authoritie:~have withheld
from them the protection and facilities necessary to allow
them to leave the Ministry in safety. Accordingly, it appears
to the Court that in their respect there have been breaches of For these reasons, the Court gives the decision reproduced
Articles 26 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention. in full below:
Taking note, furthermore, that various Iranian authorities
have threatened to have some of the hostages submitted to
trial before a court, or to compel them to Ixar witness, the
Court considers that, if put into effect, thal: intention would
constitute a breach of Article 31 of the same: Convention.
(c) tbssible existence of special circumstances 1. By thirteen votes' to two,2
(paras. 80-89) Decides that the :IslamicRepublic of Iran, by the conduct
The Court considers that it should examine the question which the Court has; set out in this Judgment, has violated in
whether the conduct of the Iranian Governmlent might be jus- several respects, and is still violating, obligationsowed by it
tified by the existence of special circumstances, for the Ira- to the United States of America under international conven-
nian Mister for Foreign Affairs had alleged in his two let- tions in force between the two countries, as well as under
ters to the Court that the United States had canied out long-established rules of general international law;
criminal activities in Iran. The Court considers that, even if
these alleged activities could be consideredl as proven, they 2. By thirteen votes1to two,2
would not constitute a defence to the United States' claims, Decides that the violations of these obligations engage the
since diplomatic law provides the possibility of breaking off responsibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the
diplomatic relations, or of declaring persona non grata United States of Anierica under international law;
members of diplomatic or consular missions who may be car- 3. Unanimously,
rying on illicit activities. The Court concludes that the Gov- Decides that the Government of the Islamic Republic of
ernment of Iran had recourse to coercion against the United Iran must immediately take all steps to redress the situation
States Embassy and its staff instead of making use of the nor- resulting from the events of 4 November 1979 and what fol-
mal means at its disposal. lowed from these events, and to that end:
(d) International responsibility
(paras. %92) (a) must immediately terminate the unlawful detention
of the United States Charg6 d'affaires and other diplomatic
The Court finds that Iran, by committing successive and and consular staff and other United States nationals now held
continuing breaches of the obligations laid upon it by the hostage in Iran, and must immediately release each and every
Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, the 1955'Reaty, and one and entrust thein to the protecting Power (Article 45 of
the applicablerules of general international law, has incurred the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations);
responsibility towards the United States. A$;a consequence,
there is an obligation on the part of the Iranian State to make (b) must ensure that all the said persons have the neces-
reparation for the injury caused to the Unitt:d States. Since, sary means of leaving Iranian territory, including means of
however, the breaches are still continuinr:, the form and transport;
amount of such reparation cannot yet be deiirmined. *@omposed as follclws: President Sir Humphrey Waldock; Wce-
At the same time the Court considers it essential to reiter- Resident Elias; Judges Pmter, Gros, Lachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singh,
ate the observations it made in its Order 15 December Rude. Mosler, Tarazi, &la, Ago. El-Erian. Sette-Camara and Baxter.
1979on the importance of the principles of international law 'PresidentSir ~umphreyWaldock; Wee-PresidentElias; Judges Foster,
Gros, Laths, Nagmdra !lingh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian,
governing diplomatic and consular relations,. After stressing h mand Baxter.
the particular gravity of the case, arising out of the fact that it 2~ulgos Mommv and mi.
108
 (c) must immediately place in the hands of the protecting of the territory of the Islamic Republic of I m , and has there-
Pbwer the premises, property, archives and ~docuimentsof the fore lost the legal right to refer to the l b t y in its relations
United States Embassy in Tehran and of its C!onsulatesin Iran, with Iran.
4. Unanimously, Judge Morozov voted against operative paragraphs 2, 5
Decides that no member of the United States diplomaticor and 6 because he had noted that a series of actions was under-
consular staff may be kept i11Iran to be subjtxted to any form taken by the United States of America against Iran in the
of judicial proceedings or to1 participate in them as a witness; course of the judicial deliberations, in particular the freezing
by the United States of very considerable Iranian assets,
5. By twelve votes3 to three: combined with the intention, clearly expressed in a statement
Decides that the Governinnent of the Islamic Republic of made Iby the President of the United States on 7 April 1980,
Iran is under an obligation to make reparation to the Govem- to make use of these assets, if need be, in accordance with
ment of the United States of America for the: injury caused to decisions that would be taken in the domestic framework of
the latter by the events of 4 November 19'79 and what fol- the United States; that meant that the United States was act-
lowed from these events; ing as a "judge" in its own cause. In Judge Morozov's view,
6. By fourteen votes5 to one: the situation, created by actions of the IJnited States, in
Decides that the form andl amount of such reparation, fail- which the Court carried on its judicial deliberations in the
ing agreement between the Parties, shall be settled by the case h a dno precedent in the whole history of the administra-
Court, and reserves for this purpose the subseqluent proce- tion of internationaljustice either before the Court or before
dure in the case. any other international judicial institution. The United
States, having caused severe damage to Iran, had lost the
legal as well as the moral right to reparations from Iran, as
mentioned in operative paragraphs 2 , 5 and 6.
Judge Morozov also finds that some paragraphs of the rea-
Judge Lachs indicated tha~the voted against the first part of soning part of the Judgment describe the circ:umstances of the
operative paragraph 5, as he found it redundlant. 'The respon- case in an incorrect or one-sided way.
sibility having been establisl~ed,the whole question of repa- He considers that, without any prejudice to the exclusive
rations should have been 1e:fi to the subsequent procedure, compe:tence of the Security Council, the Court, from a purely
including the question of forin and amount as provided by the legal p i n t of view, could have drawn attention to the undeni-
Judgment. able fact that Article 5 1 of the United Nations Charter, estab-
The opinion stresses the importance of the Judgment for lishing the right of self-defence to which the United States of
diplomatic law, and the major part of it is devoted to the America referred in connection with the events of 24-25
question of the practical sol~ltionby diplomiatic nneans of the April, may be invoked only "if an armed attack occurs
dispute between the Ruties. Once the legal issues have been against a member of the United Nations", and that there is no
clarified by the Judgment, the parties should lake speedy evidence of any armed attack having occurred against the
action and make maximum c:fforts to dispel tension and mis- United States.
trust, and in this a third-party initiative may be important. Judge Morozov also stresses that some indication should
Judge Lachs visualizes a particular role for the Secretary- have been included in the Judgment to the effect that the
General of the United Natioin~sin this respect and the work of Court considered that settlement of the dispute between the
a special commission or mediating body. In .viewof the grav- United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran should be
ity of the situation, the need :fora resolution is urgent. reached exclusively by peaceful means.

In his dissenting opinion..,Judge Morozov indicates that Judge Tarazi voted in favour of operative paragraphs 3 and
operative paragraph 1 of tht: Judgment is tlrafted in such a 4 of the Judgment, because he considered that the seizure of
way that it is not limited to the question of the violation of the the embassy, and the detention as hostages of those present in
Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, but also covers, if it, constituted an act in breach of the provi2iions of the 1961
read with some para phs d the reasoning, the question of and 1%3 Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular
f"
alleged violations o the 1955 'Ikaty of Amity, Economic
Relations and Consular Rights between h n and the United
Relations.
On the other hand, Judge Tarazi felt impelled to vote
States; this treaty, he believc:~, does not provide: the parties against operative paragraph 1, because he considered that
with an unconditional right to invoke the c~ompulsoryjuris- only the 1%1 and 1963Vienna Conventionsconferredjuris-
diction of the Court, and in the circumstanc:es the Court has diction on the Court in the present case.
in fact no competence to corlsider the alleged violations.
He tilso voted against paragraphs 2 and 5, because, in his
M e r m o r e , Judge Morozov observes, the United States view, the Court, at the present stage of the proceedings and
committed during the period of the judicial deliberations considering the concomitant circumstances, could not make
many unlawful actions, cul~iunatingin the tnilitruy invasion. any ruling as to the responsibility of the Government of the
'President ~ i ~ u m p h r Waldock;
ey Vice-presidentHias; Judges Forster,
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Gros. Nagcndra Singh. Ruda, Moaler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian, Sene-Camara On the other hand, Judge Tarazi voted in favour of para-
antBaxter. graph 6,because he considered that, in the event of any repa-
Judges Lachs, M m v and Tauazi. rations being owed, they should be determined and assessed
'President SiHumphrey Waldock; Vice-PresidentIllias; Judges Fmter. by the International Court of Justice; it was not admissible
Groe. Lachs, Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Moslcr, Tarazi, 13da. Ago, ECErian,
Sette-Camara and Baxter. for them to be the subject of proceedings in courts of domes-
6~udge Morowv. tic jurisdiction.