Statement by
H.E. Mr. Majid Takht Ravanchi
Ambassador and Permanent Representative
of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations
Before 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
on Agenda Item 76: “Report of the International Court of Justice”
New York, 28 October 2021
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
Mr. President,
I would like to thank the President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other Judges and staff of the Court for their unwavering commitment in upholding the rule of law at the international level. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Azerbaijan on behalf of the NAM.
We acknowledge the vital role of the ICJ in the prevention of hostilities and mitigation of crises through peaceful settlement of disputes as well as in strengthening the rule of law, preserving international order and tackling unilateral measures.
Based on these understandings, the Islamic Republic of Iran has in the past five years filed two contentious cases before the ICJ that are currently pending. I would like to briefly touch upon them.
Due to adoption of a number of legislative and executive acts in the United States in flagrant violation of international law, the immunity of states and their properties from suit before US courts as well as immunity from jurisdiction and enforcement have been removed against Iran. This has led to the filing of cases in the US courts against the Islamic Republic of Iran, certain Iranian entities and State officials as well as blocking Iranian assets including those of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). Subsequently, the assets of the CBI were subjected to execution in order to satisfy a default judgment. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that such asset blocking and enforcement proceedings against the CBI and certain Iranian companies and banks in the US is in violation of provisions of “Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955” between the two countries. On 13 February 2019, the Court found its jurisdiction to rule on the Application of the Islamic Republic of Iran filed on 14 June 2016 in the case concerning “Certain Iranian Assets” (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), a case that is still under consideration before the Court.
Mr. President,
Allow me to refer to the other Case. Following the unilateral withdrawal of the US from JCPOA and the unlawful decision to re-impose in full effect and enforce a series of sanctions and restrictive measures targeting, directly or indirectly, Iran and Iranian companies and nationals, contrary to its obligations under the “Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955”, the Islamic Republic of Iran filed an Application instituting proceedings against the United States with regard to a dispute concerning violations of multiple provisions of the Treaty of Amity.
At the same time, in view of the urgency and the risk of irreparable prejudice to its rights, following the US re-imposition of sanctions, the Islamic Republic of Iran requested the Court to indicate provisional measures. On 3 October 2018, 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 in so far as they relate to the aforementioned goods and services.
Regrettably, the United States has not only failed to comply with the Court’s Order but, by imposing new sanctions, especially during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, has also deliberately defied that Order. It is noteworthy that the Court, in Paragraph 100 of its Order, reaffirmed that its “orders on provisional measures have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed”. As a result, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has on several occasions brought the United States’ non-compliance with the Order to the Court’s attention. The answer provided by the US in this regard has always been a repetition of its previous contentions; that it has been bound by the Order and that humanitarian transactions are exempt from its sanctions.
The falsehood of this claim was proven by the recent U.S. Treasury Department general license issued on 17 June 2021 which allegedly facilitates certain COVID-19-related transactions with Iran. Moreover, through tightening the grip of sanctions after the Court’s Order, the U.S. also violated this Order which requires that “Both parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve”.
Rejecting all the preliminary objections raised by the United States, on 3 February 2021 the Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and that the said Application is admissible. At this stage, the United States is expected to file its Counter-Memorial by 22 November 2021. Nonetheless, I should reiterate that prolongation of judicial proceedings in the light of the urgency of the pending case would run counter to the exigency of due process.
Thank you