چکیده:
Following the imposition of sanctions by the United States, Iran initiated proceedings against the United States at the International Court of Justice on July 16, 2018, in accordance with Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity. The Court's proceedings at the jurisdictional stage led to a ruling on February 3, 2021, affirming the Court's jurisdiction. In the initial proceedings, the United States, as the respondent, raised several objections to the Court's jurisdiction, one of which was a so-called "third-state actions" objection. The main question of this paper is: how did the issue of third-state actions, as one of the respondent's jurisdictional objections, reflect in the jurisdictional judgment of the Court? This paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, concludes that based on the Court’s interpretation what is significant in establishing jurisdiction to examine the violation of the Treaty of Amity—considered a bilateral treaty between the two parties—is the act of the United States imposing sanctions, rather than the manner of execution and the executor of that act, which could be the United States or any other state.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The hypothesis of the present article, in response to this question, indicates that, based on the inference from the Court’s ruling, what is important in establishing the jurisdiction of this judicial body, for the purpose of examining the violation of the Treaty of Amity as a bilateral treaty between Iran and the United States, is the act of the United States based on economic sanctions, not the method of implementation and the executor of that act, which can be the United States or any other government.
Also, Jafar Heidarzadeh and Samad Ghaem Panah, in the article “International Responsibility of the Government of the United States of America for Imposing Unilateral Sanctions Against the Islamic Republic of Iran” (1397), although they addressed cases of violation of the Treaty of Amity as a material element of international responsibility, did not consider the jurisdictional aspect of the subject and did not pay attention to the measures of third states in the ruling in question, as one of the jurisdictional objections of the respondent.
3. The United States’ jurisdictional objection based on “Third State Actions”: Arguments of the parties and the Court’s position The United States, during the preliminary proceedings, raised the claim that firstly, the main subject of the claim brought by Iran is the implementation of the JCPOA, not the Treaty of Amity; secondly, even if the main subject of the dispute is the implementation of the Treaty of Amity, the Court will not have jurisdiction to accept more of Iran’s claims, because these claims relate to actions that are inherently related to trade or transactions between Iran and third states or between their nationals and companies.
(
, 
, 
)
