Statement by
H.E. Mr. Seyed Ali Mousavi,
Director-General for International Legal Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Before the 78th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
On Agenda Item 73: “Report of the International Court of Justice”
New York, 26 October 2023
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
Mr. President,
Distinguished Delegates,
Let me begin by thanking the ICJ's president for her comprehensive report on the Court's activities during the past year.
My delegation would like to underline the important role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the only universal international court, in preserving and promoting the rule of law at the international level through peaceful resolution of inter-State disputes.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a dedicated supporter of pacific settlement of inter-State disputes, notably through resorting to the ICJ. Currently, Iran is a party to four pending cases before the Court, in three cases as applicant and in one case as respondent.
On 26 June 2023, the Islamic Republic of Iran deposited with the UN Secretary-General the declaration recognizing as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Court's Statute. Iran thus became the seventy-fourth State accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court with certain reservations concerning some category of disputes.
Mr. President,
The Islamic Republic of Iran has filed applications before the Court in pursuit of its legitimate and lawful rights.
The case known as "Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", concerns a huge number of legislative, executive and judicial acts of the United States in flagrant violation of international law.
Iran's main argument is that the United States has violated its obligations under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.
On 13 February 2019, the Court found that it has jurisdiction to rule on the Application of the Islamic Republic of Iran and that the application is admissible. Subsequently, the Parties filed their pleadings on the merits. Thereafter, the hearings on the merits were conducted in September 2022.
The Court delivered its judgment on the merits on 30 March 2023. The Court rejected "the objection to admissibility raised by the United States of America relating to the failure by Iranian companies to exhaust local remedies." This finding is very important in that it indicates that Iranian companies had no reasonable possibility of successfully asserting their rights in U.S. court proceedings, the U.S. Courts lack impartiality with regard to Iran and Iranian entities and are unwilling to hear any arguments raised by Iranian entities. The Court also found the violations by the U.S. of its obligations under Articles III (1), IV (1), IV (2), and X (1) of the Treaty of Amity.
Therefore, the Court ruled that "Iran is entitled to compensation for the injury caused by violations by the United States that have been ascertained by the Court. The Court may assess the relevant injury and the amount of compensation only in a subsequent phase of the proceedings. If the Parties are unable to agree on the amount of compensation due to Iran within 24 months of the date of the Judgment, the Court will at the request of either Party, determine the amount due on the basis of further written pleadings limited to this issue."
On 19 May 2023, the Islamic Republic of Iran sent a letter to the United States and declared Iran's readiness to engage in negotiations with the U.S. concerning the amount of compensation due to Iran in accordance with the Court's Judgment of 30 March 2023. The U.S. has so far failed to respond to Iran's letter.
It is noteworthy that, in its judgment the Court determined that it had no jurisdiction to consider claims predicated on the treatment accorded to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). Lack of jurisdiction by the Court concerning the CBI under the Treaty of Amity does not preclude the wrongfulness of the U.S. acts against the CBI, which would be entitled to compensation under general international law.
Iran has filed another application against the United States that concerns the U.S. unlawful sanctions against Iran. In the case referred to as “Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)”, Iran has seized the Court of the internationally wrongful acts of the United States resulting from the re-imposition of a comprehensive set of sanctions and unilateral coercive measures targeting, directly or indirectly, Iran and Iranian companies and nationals following the unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. from the JCPOA which was endorsed by the UN Security Council. The U.S. measures constitute breaches of multiple provisions of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.
On 3 October 2018, in view of the urgency and the risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iranian people, the Court issued an Order on provisional measures unanimously requiring the United States to remove any impediments on the importation of foodstuffs and agricultural commodities, medicines and medical devices as well as spare parts, equipment and associated services necessary for the safety of civil aviation. It also ordered the United States to ensure that the licenses and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction as far as they relate to the aforementioned goods and services.
Regrettably, the United States remains defiant to the Court's Order up to now. Hence, the U.S. has violated its obligation to comply with that Order. This is very disturbing although this is not the first time the U.S. failed to abide by the Court's order. The United States' non-compliance with the ICJ's decision is not only a disrespect of the Court's ruling but also a blow to the rule of law at the international level. The U.S. non-compliance entails its international responsibility.
It is noteworthy that on 3 February 2021, the Court rejected all the preliminary objections raised by the United States, and held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by Iran.
Nevertheless, it seems that the United States tries to delay the rendering of the judgment on the merits regarding the unlawfulness of its unilateral coercive measures despite the fact that they cause severe humanitarian injuries continually. Iran thus expects that the Court should expedite the proceedings on the merits and convene the hearings at the earliest, taking into account the urgency of the matter.
Mr. President,
Allow me to briefly talk about the third case that Iran has raised before the Court and which concerns Canada's continuing violation of Iran's State immunity.
Iran instituted proceedings against Canada on 27 June 2023, in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court. Iran firmly believes that Canada's legislative, executive and judicial measures since 2012 against Iran and its property violated the immunities to which Iran is entitled under customary international law. Prior to filing its application before the Court, Iran repeatedly requested Canada to cease its internationally wrongful acts, by various notes verbales transmitted through diplomatic channels, but to no avail.
On 16 October 2023, the Court issued an Order and fixed the respective time-limits for the filing of the Memorial of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Counter-Memorial of Canada.
Mr. President,
On 4 July 2023, Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom filed a joint application before the Court by instituting proceedings against the Islamic Republic of Iran claiming an alleged dispute under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (the 1971 Montreal Convention). The applicant States alleged that the Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 accident on 8 January 2020, gave rise to violation of Iran's obligations under the 1971 Montreal Convention.
I would like here to share a number of observations:
- The applicant States have failed to properly exhaust the preconditions before the referral of the matter to the Court namely negotiation and arbitration.
- The Islamic Republic of Iran in line with its principled legal position and practice with regard to the tragic accident of Ukrainian Flight PS752, as reflected in various notes verbales that were notified to those States through diplomatic channels, has always expressed its readiness to negotiate with the relevant States.
- In this context, three rounds of bilateral negotiations with Ukraine convened in Kiev and Tehran . In addition to expressing its repeated readiness for bilateral negotiations with Ukraine, Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom, in its latest diplomatic endeavor, the Islamic Republic of Iran declared that it is ready to engage in collective negotiations in Muscat. Nevertheless, the aforementioned States chose to ignore Iran's good-faith approach and referred the matter to the ICJ.
- This latest move by the four States indicates that they were not bound even by their own proclaimed desire to negotiate and that their plea of negotiation was in practice an attempt to pursue their pre-planned scheme rather than a genuine will to engage in negotiations in good faith.
- In the latest diplomatic endeavor, on the 2nd and 3rd October 2023, negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Ukraine, UK, Sweden and Canada were held in Geneva. At the end of this meeting, the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a principled position emphasized on the continuation of interaction and dialogue and declared its readiness to conduct result-oriented negotiations in good faith. The continuation of the talks will of course depend on the genuine will and readiness of the other parties.
- The Islamic Republic of Iran hopes that no accident of this or any kind will take place again. Following the accident, the relevant authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the main cause of the incident. Iran has taken all appropriate measures to fulfil its internal and international obligations in good faith and has endeavored to act swiftly, accurately, transparently and constructively in this regard, as reflected to the Secretary General of the United Nations in the letter dated 31 January 2022 documented in A/76/672 of 1 February 2022.
- In the field of aviation, the Independent Accidents Investigation Team in charge has published the final report of the accident in accordance with the framework of the relevant international instruments. This was achieved in due time through interaction and cooperation with the relevant countries and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and was welcomed by most of the countries participating in the accident investigation process.
- The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a directive within the framework of international standards and even far beyond its international obligations to pay the amount of USD150,000 ex gratia to the heirs of each person who lost their life in the accident. So far, a considerable number of families have received the said amount.
- Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office conducted a thorough investigations in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Following issuance of the indictment, the competent Military Court conducted judicial proceedings with transparency and due process guarantees with regard to all the accused in the presence of the families of the victims, attorneys, lawyers and experts of the case. The competent Court conducted twenty trial sessions and rendered its Judgment in April 2023, which convicted the accused. The case is currently under appeal.
- During the proceedings, the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on the principles of good faith and transparency, duly informed the Embassies of Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom as well as Canada (Embassy of Italy- Foreign Interests Section) of the dates of the Court sessions and invited them to attend the hearings if they wish so.
Mr. President,
Let me conclude my remarks by underlining that the Court as an institution allocated for the settlement of international disputes plays an important role in clarifying, recognizing, crystalizing and developing the rules of international law and thus contributing significantly to the rule of law at the international level.
I thank you, Mr. President.