چکیده:
On April 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the enforcement of judgments issued by U.S. courts in the case of "Peterson et al. v. Assets of the Central Bank of Iran." According to the U.S. Supreme Court, judgments issued against the assets of the Central Bank are not inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. This ruling, which demonstrates the U.S. Supreme Court's position regarding the immunity of the Central Bank and its assets, will influence U.S. court decisions on the issue of judicial immunity of governments and their assets. Until 2012, the assets of the Central Bank enjoyed immunity under U.S. law. In the same year, the U.S. Congress, by enacting the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, while declaring a freeze on the assets of the Central Bank, authorized the enforcement of judgments issued against the Iranian government with respect to the assets of the Central Bank. This article examines the issuance and enforcement of judgments issued by U.S. courts against the assets of the Central Bank from the perspective of international law, while also examining U.S. laws regarding the judicial immunity of governments. The action of the U.S. Congress in enacting the recent law and enforcing judgments against the Iranian government (assuming correctness) and against the assets of the Central Bank of Iran appears unjustified. According to customary international law, central banks and their assets are immune, and due to their enjoyment of independent legal personality from the government, judgments issued against the government cannot be enforced against assets belonging to the central bank.
خلاصه ماشینی:
(a) INTERESTS IN BLOCKED ASSETS (1) IN GENERAL Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any provision of law relating to sovereign immunity, and preempting any inconsistent provision of State law, a financial asset that is— (A) held in the United States for a foreign securities intermediary doing business in the United States; (B) a blocked asset (whether or not subsequently unblocked) that is property described in subsection (b); and (C) equal in value to a financial asset of Iran, including an asset of the central bank or monetary authority of the Government of Iran or any agency or instrumentality of that Government, that such foreign securities intermediary or a related intermediary holds abroad, shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy any judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages awarded against Iran for damages for personal injury or death caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, or hostage-taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act.
The Supreme Court of the United States, as the highest federal judicial authority, affirmed the judgments issued in the aforementioned case and the actions of the American plaintiffs in seizing the Central Bank’s assets.
The Institute of International Law believes that according to paragraph 5 of section “A” of Article 1605: courts in the United States have jurisdiction over claims relating to tortious acts against a foreign government only if the tortious act occurred in America, regardless of whether the act or omission led to damage or not (Yang, 2012, p.
(
, 
, 
)
