لخّصلي

1 1955 treaty of amity (judgment) 6 United States to withdraw from JCPOA does not preclude it from relating to interpretation and application of Treaty of Amity -- A dispute may relate to certain acts that fall within ambit of more than one instrument -- The Court cannot support argument that subject-matter of Iran's claims relates exclusively to JCPOA and not to Treaty of Amity -- First preliminary objection to jurisdiction cannot be upheld.Second preliminary objection to jurisdiction: "third country measures" -- The Court must ascertain whether acts of which Applicant complains fall within provisions of treaty containing compromissory clause -- "Third country measures" objection does not concern all of Iran's claims but only majority of them -- Were the Court to uphold second objection to jurisdiction the proceedings would not be terminated -- Disagreement between the Parties about relevance of concept of "third country measures" -- Disagreement between the Parties as regards territorial scope and ambit of provisions of Treaty of Amity allegedly breached by United States -- Fact that some impugned measures directly targeted third States, their nationals or companies, does not automatically exclude them from ambit of Treaty of Amity -- Second preliminary objection relates to the scope of certain obligations relied upon by Applicant -- Also raises legal and factual questions which are properly a matter for the merits -- Second preliminary objection to jurisdiction cannot be upheld.Preliminary objection to admissibility of Iran's Application: alleged abuse of process -- Claim based on valid title of jurisdiction can be rejected on ground of abuse of process only in exceptional circumstances -- No such exceptional circumstances in present case -- Preliminary objection to admissibility rejected.* Objections on basis of Article XX, paragraph 1 (b) and (d), of Treaty of Amity.* Admissibility.

1 1955 treaty of amity (judgment)
6
United States to withdraw from JCPOA does not preclude it from relating to
interpretation and application of Treaty of Amity — A dispute may relate to certain
acts that fall within ambit of more than one instrument — The Court cannot
support argument that subject‑matter of Iran’s claims relates exclusively to
JCPOA and not to Treaty of Amity — First preliminary objection to jurisdiction
cannot be upheld.
Second preliminary objection to jurisdiction: “third country measures” — The
Court must ascertain whether acts of which Applicant complains fall within provisions
of treaty containing compromissory clause — “Third country measures”
objection does not concern all of Iran’s claims but only majority of them — Were
the Court to uphold second objection to jurisdiction the proceedings would not be
terminated — Disagreement between the Parties about relevance of concept of
“third country measures” — Disagreement between the Parties as regards territorial
scope and ambit of provisions of Treaty of Amity allegedly breached by
United States — Fact that some impugned measures directly targeted third States,
their nationals or companies, does not automatically exclude them from ambit of
Treaty of Amity — Second preliminary objection relates to the scope of certain
obligations relied upon by Applicant — Also raises legal and factual questions
which are properly a matter for the merits — Second preliminary objection to
jurisdiction cannot be upheld.
*
Admissibility.
Preliminary objection to admissibility of Iran’s Application: alleged abuse of
process — Claim based on valid title of jurisdiction can be rejected on ground of
abuse of process only in exceptional circumstances — No such exceptional circumstances
in present case — Preliminary objection to admissibility rejected.
*
Objections on basis of Article XX, paragraph 1 (b) and (d), of Treaty of
Amity.
Article XX, paragraph 1 (b) and (d), of Treaty of Amity does not affect the
Court’s jurisdiction but affords a possible defence on the merits — Treaty of Amity
does not preclude application of measures “relating to fissionable materials”
under Article XX, paragraph 1 (b) — Similarly, it does not preclude application of
measures
deemed necessary to protect a State’s “essential security interests”
under Article XX, paragraph 1 (d) — A decision concerning these matters requires
analysis of issues of law and fact that should be left to the merits — Arguments
based on these provisions cannot provide basis for preliminary objections but may
be presented at the merits stage — Preliminary objections based on Article XX,
paragraph 1 (b) and (d), of Treaty of Amity rejected.
12 1955 treaty of amity (judgment)
7
JUDGMENT
Present: President Yusuf; Vice‑President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham,
Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari,
Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa; Judges ad hoc
Brower, Momtaz; Registrar Gautier.
In the case concerning alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic
Relations, and Consular Rights,
between
the Islamic Republic of Iran,
represented by
Mr. Hamidreza Oloumiyazdi, Head of the Centre for International Legal
Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Associate Professor of Private Law
at Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran,
as Agent and Advocate;
Mr. Mohammad H. Zahedin Labbaf, Agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran
to the Iran‑United States Claims Tribunal, Director of the Centre
for International
Legal Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran in
The Hague,
as Co-Agent and Counsel;
Mr. Seyed Hossein Sadat Meidani, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
as Deputy Agent and Counsel;
Mr. Vaughan Lowe, QC, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International
Law, University of Oxford, member of the Institut de droit international,
Essex Court Chambers, member of the Bar of England and Wales,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Emeritus Professor at the University Paris Nanterre, former
Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de
droit international,
Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Professor at the University Paris Nanterre,
Secretary‑General
of the Hague Academy of International Law, associate
member of the Institut de droit international, member of the Paris Bar,
Sygna Partners,
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth, QC, Essex Court Chambers, member of the Bar of
England and Wales, member of the Paris Bar,
Mr. Hadi Azari, Legal Adviser to the Centre for International Legal Affairs
of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Assistant Professor of Public International
Law at Kharazmi University, Tehran,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Behzad Saberi Ansari, Director General for International Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
H.E. Mr. Alireza Kazemi Abadi, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Kingdom of the Netherlands