7/30/2019 Diplomatic and Consular Staff

1/4

CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULARSTAFF INTEHRANJudgmentof24May 1980

In its Judgment in the case concerning Ul~ited tates Dip-lomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, the Court decided (1)that Iran has violated and is still violating albligations owedby it to the United States; (2) that these viiolations engageIran's responsibility; (3) that the Govenuncznt of Iran mustimmediately release the United States natiollals held as hos-tages and place the premises of the em bass!^ in the hands ofthe protecting power;(4)that no member of the United Statesdiplomatic or consular staff may be kept in1 Iran to be sub-jected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate inthem as a witness; (5) that Iran is under an obligation to makereparation for the injury caused to the United States; and (6)that the form and amount of such re pa ratio^^, failing agree-ment between the parties, shall be settled by the Court. (Thefull text of the operative paragraph is reproducedbelow.)

These decisions were adopted by large majorities: (1) and(2)- 13 votesa 2; (3) and (4)-unanimousl:y; (5)- 12 votesto 3; (6)- 14 votes to 1 (the votes are re4:orde.d by namebelow).

A separate opinion was appended to the Judgment byJudge Lachs, who voted against operative paragraph 5. Dis-senting opinions were appended by Judge Morozov, who

voted against parag~aphs ,2,5 and 6, and by Judge Tarazi,who voted against paragraphs 1,2and 5.Procedure before the Court(paras. 1-10)

In its Judgment, the Court recalls that on 29 November1979 he United States of America had instituted proceedingsagainst Iran in a case arising out of the situation at itsEmbassy in Tehran and Consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz, andthe seizure and detention as hostages of its diplomatic andconsular staff in Tehran and two more citizens of the UnitedStates. The United Eitates having at the same time requestedthe indication of provisional measures, the Court, by a unan-imous Order of 15 Ebcember 1979, indicated, pending finaljudgment, that the Embassy should immediately be givenback and the hostagc:~ eleased (see Press Communiqu6 No.8011).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 publichearing at the close of which the United States, in its finalsubmissions, requested it to adjudge and declare, inter alia,that the Iranian Government had violated its internationallegd obligations to the United States and must: ensure the

immediate release of the hostages; afford the United Statesdiplomatic and consular personnel the protection and immu-nities to which they -wereentitled (including immunityfrom

Continued on next page

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of JusticeNot an official document

7/30/2019 Diplomatic and Consular Staff

2/4

criminal jurisdiction) and provide them with facilities toleave Iran; submit the penons respnsibbe for the crimescommitted to the competent Iranian authoriities for prosecu-tion, or extradite them to lhe United States; and pay theUnited States reparation, in a sum to be subsequently deter-mined by the Court.Iran took no part in the prtneedings. It neither filed plead-ings nor was represented at the hearing, anti no submissionswere therefore presented on its behalf. Its position was how-ever defined in two letters addressed to the Cow. by its Min-ister for Foreign Affairs on !) December 19'79 an.d 16 March1980 respectively. In these fte Minister maintained inter aliathat the Court could not and should not take cognizance of thecase.

The Facts(paras. 11-32)The Court expresses regrc:t that Iran did not appear beforeit to put forward its argumexits. The absenw,of Iran from theproceedings brought into operation Article t53 of the Statute,under which the Court is required, before finding in theApplicant's favour, to satisfy itself that the allegationsof facton which the claim is based

7/30/2019 Diplomatic and Consular Staff

3/4

"under arrest" until the United States lhad returned theformer Shah and his property to Iran, andfoshade all negotia-tion with the United States on the subject. Once organs of theIranian State had thus given approval to the acts complainedof and decided to perpetuate them as a meams of pressure onthe United States, those acts were transform.ed into acts of theIranian State: the militants became agents of that State,which itself became internationally responsible for their acts.During the six months which ensued, the situation underwentno material change: the Court's Order of 19 December 1979was publicly rejected by Iran, while the Ayatollah declaredthat the detention of the hostages would c:ontinue until thenew Iranian parliament had taken a decision as to their fate.The Iranian authorities' decision to continue the subjec-tion of the Embassy to occupation, and of its staff to deten-tion as hostages, gave rise to repeated and multiple breachesof Iran's treaty obligations, additional to those already com-mitted at the time of the seizure of the Emtbassy (1961 Con-vention: Arts. 22,24,25,26,27 and 29; 1963 Convention:inter alia , Art. 33; 1955 Tkaty, Art. iI (4)).With regard to the Charge d'affaires aid the two othermembers of the United States mission who have been in theIranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 4 November 1979,the Court finds that the Iranian authoritie:~ ave withheldfrom them the protection and facilities necessary to allowthem to leave the Ministry in safety. Accordingly, it appearsto the Court that in their respect there have been breaches ofArticles 26 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention.Taking note, furthermore, that various Iranian authoritieshave threatened to have some of the hostages submitted totrial before a court, or to compel them to Ixar witness, theCourt considers that, if put into effect, thal: intention wouldconstitute a breach of Article 31 of the same: Convention.

(c) tbssible existence of special circumstances(paras. 80-89)The Court considers that it should examine the questionwhether the conduct of the Iranian Governmlent might be jus-tified by the existence of special circumstances, for the Ira-nian Mister for Foreign Affairshad alleged in his two let-ters to the Court that the United States had canied outcriminal activities in Iran. The Court considers that, even ifthese alleged activities could be consideredl as proven, theywould not constitute a defence to the United States' claims,since diplomatic law provides the possibility of breaking offdiplomatic relations, or of declaring persona non gratamembers of diplomatic or consular missions who may be car-rying on illicit activities. The Court concludes that the Gov-ernment of Iran had recourse to coercion against the UnitedStates Embassy and its staff instead of making use of the nor-mal means at its disposal.(d) International respons ibility(paras. %92)The Court finds that Iran, by committing successive andcontinuing breaches of the obligations laid upon it by theVienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, the 1955 Reaty, and

the applicable rules of general international law, has incurredresponsibility towards the United States. A$; consequence,there is an obligation on the part of the Iranian State to makereparation for the injury caused to the Unitt:d States. Since,however, the breaches are still continuinr:, the form and

is not any private individuals or p u p s hat have set at naughtthe inviolability of an embassy, but the very government ofthe Stateto which the mission is accredited, the Court drawsthe attention of the entire international community to theimparable harm that may be caused by events of the kindbefore the Court. Such events cannot fail to undermine acarefully constructed edifice of law, the maintenance ofwhich is vital for the security and well-being of the interna-tional community.(e) United States opera tion in Iran on 24-25 April 1980(paras. 93 amd 94)Wlth regard to the operation undertaken in Iran by UnitedStates military units on 24-25 April 1980, the Court says thatit cannot fail to express its concern. It feels bound to observethat an operation undertaken in those circumstances, fromwhatever motive, is of a kind calculated to undermine respectfor the judicial pmxss in international relations. Neverthe-less, the question ofthe legality of that operation can have nobearing on the evaluation of Iran's conduct on 4 November1YJ9. The findings reached by the Court are therefore notaffected by that operation.

For these reasons, the Court gives the decision reproducedin full below:

1. By thirteen votes' to two,2Decides that the :Islamic Republic of Iran, by the conductwhich the Court has; set out in this Judgment, has violated inseveral respects, and is still violating, obligations owed by itto the United States of America under international conven-tions in force between the two countries, as well as underlong-established rules of general international law;

2. By thirteen votes1to two,2Decides that the violations of these obligations engage theresponsibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards theUnited States of Anierica under international law;3. Unanimously,Decides that the Government of the Islamic Republic ofIran must immediately take al l steps to redress the situationresulting from the events of 4 November 1979 and what fol-lowedfrom hese events, and to that end:( a ) must immediately terminate the unlawful detentionof the United States Charg6 d'affaires and other diplomaticand consular staff and other United States nationals now heldhostage in Iran, and must immediately release each and everyone and entrust thein to the protecting Power (Article 45 of

the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations);( b ) must ensure that all the said persons have the neces-sary means of leaving Iranian territory, including means oftransport;amount of such reparation cannot yet be deiirmined. *@omposed as follclws: President Sir Humphrey Waldock; WceAt 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.'PresidentSir~umphreyWaldock; Wee-PresidentElias;JudgesFoster,1979 on the importance of the principles of international law Gros, Laths, Nagmdra !lingh, Ruda, Mosler,Oda, Ago, El-Erian,governing diplomatic and consular relations,. After stressing h m nd Baxter.the particular gravity of the case, arising out of the fact that it 2 ~ u l g o s ommv andmi.

108

7/30/2019 Diplomatic and Consular Staff

4/4

(c) must immediately place in the hands of the protectingPbwer the premises, property, archives and ~docuiments f theUnited States Embassy in Tehran andof its C!onsulates n Iran,4. Unanimously,Decides that no member of the United States diplomatic orconsular staff may be kept i11 Iran tobe subjtxted to any formof judicial proceedings or to1participate in them as a witness;5. By twelve votes3to three:Decides that the Governinnent of the Islamic Republic of

Iran is under an obligationtomake reparation to he Govem-ment of the United States of America for the: injury caused tothe latter by the events of 4 November 19'79 and what fol-lowed from these events;6. By fourteen votes5to one:Decides that the form andl amount of such reparation, fail-ing agreement between the Parties, shall be settled by theCourt, and reserves for this purpose the subseqluent proce-dure in the case.

Judge Lachs indicated tha~t e voted against the first part ofoperative paragraph 5, as he found it redundlant. 'The respon-sibility having been establisl~ed,he whole question of repa-rations should have been 1e:fi to the subsequent procedure,including the question of forin and amount as provided by theJudgment.

The opinion stresses the importance of the Judgment fordiplomatic law, and the major part of it is devoted to thequestion of the practical sol~ltion y diplomiatic nneans of thedispute between the Ruties. Once the legal issues have beenclarified by the Judgment, the parties should lake speedyaction and make maximum c:fforts to dispel tension and mis-trust, and in this a third-party initiative may be important.Judge Lachs visualizes a particular role for the Secretary-General of the United Natioin~sn this respect and the work ofa special commission or mediating body. In .viewof the grav-ity of the situation, the need :for a resolution is urgent.

In his dissenting opinion.., Judge Morozov indicates thatoperative paragraph 1 of tht: Judgment is tlrafted in such away that it is not limitedto he question of the violation of theVienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, but also covers, ifread with some para phsd he reasoning, the question off"lleged violations o the 1955 'Ikaty of Amity, EconomicRelations and Consular Rights between h n nd the UnitedStates; this treaty, he believc:~, does not provide: the partieswith an unconditional right to invoke the c~ompulsoryuris-diction of the Court, and in the circumstanc:es the Court hasin fact no competence to corlsider the alleged violations.M e r m o r e , Judge Morozov observes, the United Statescommitted during the period of the judicial deliberationsmany unlawful actions, cul~iunatingn the tnilitruy invasion.'President ~ i ~ u m p h r e yaldock;Vice-presidentHias;Judges Forster,Gros. Nagcndra Singh. Ruda, Moaler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian, Sene-CamaraantBaxter.Judges Lachs, M m v nd Tauazi.'President SiHumphrey Waldock;Vice-President llias;Judges Fmter.

Groe. Lachs, Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Moslcr, Tarazi, 13da.Ago, ECErian,Sette-Camara andBaxter.6~udge orowv.

of the territory of the Islamic Republic of I m , and has there-fore lost the legal right to refer to the l b t y n its relationswith Iran.Judge Morozov voted against operative paragraphs 2, 5and 6 because he had noted that a series of actions was under-taken by the United States of America against Iran in thecourse of the judicial deliberations, in particular the freezingby the United States of very considerable Iranian assets,combined with the intention, clearly expressed in a statementmade Iby the President of the United States on 7 April 1980,

to make use of these assets, if need be, in accordance withdecisions that would be taken in the domestic framework ofthe United States; that meant that the United States was act-ing as a "judge" in its own cause. In Judge Morozov's view,the situation, created by actions of the IJnited States, inwhich the Court carried on its judicial deliberations in thecase ha d o precedent in the whole history of the administra-tion of international ustice either before the Court or beforeany other international judicial institution. The UnitedStates, having caused severe damage to Iran, had lost thelegal as well as the moral right to reparations from Iran, asmentioned in operative paragraphs 2 ,5 and 6.Judge Morozov also finds that some paragraphs of the rea-soningpart of the Judgment describe the circ:umstances of thecase in an incorrect or one-sided way.He considers that, without any prejudice to the exclusivecompe:tence of the Security Council, the Court, from a purelylegal pi n t of view, could have drawn attentionto he undeni-able fact that Article 5 1 of the United Nations Charter, estab-lishing the right of self-defenceto which the United States ofAmerica referred in connection with the events of 24-25April, may be invoked only "if an armed attack occursagainst a member of the United Nations", and that there is noevidence of any armed attack having occurred against theUnited States.Judge Morozov also stresses that some indication shouldhave been included in the Judgment to the effect that theCourt considered that settlement of the dispute between theUnited States and the Islamic Republic of Iran should bereached exclusively by peaceful means.

Judge Tarazi voted in favour of operative paragraphs 3 and4 of the Judgment, because he considered that the seizure ofthe embassy, and the detention as hostages of those present init, constituted an act in breach of the provi2iions of the 1961and 1%3 Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and ConsularRelations.On the other hand, Judge Tarazi felt impelled to voteagainst operative paragraph 1, because he considered thatonly the 1%1 and 1963 Vienna Conventions conferred uris-diction on theCourt in the present case.He tilso voted against paragraphs 2 and 5, because, in hisview, the Court, at the present stage of the proceedings andconsidering the concomitant circumstances, could not makeany ruling as to the responsibility of the Government of theIslamic Republic of Iran.On the other hand, Judge Tarazi voted in favour of para-graph6, ecause he considered that, in the event of any repa-rations being owed, they should be determined and assessedby the International Court of Justice; it was not admissiblefor them to be the subject of proceedings in courts of domes-tic jurisdiction.