Download Report

Houston Area Model United Nations
HAMUN-39/ICJ/A
International Court of Justice
Case Description (A)
CASE DESCRIPTION (A) Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America: Oil Platforms (1992) BACKGROUND On 2 November 1992, the Islamic Republic of Iran brought proceedings against the United States of America before the International Court of Justice in regards to the destruction of three off shore oil platforms owned by Iran’s national oil company. The case arises from acts that occurred during the war between Iran and Iraq from 1980-‐1988. In 1984 Iraq began attacking oil tankers traveling in the Persian Gulf in an attempt to disrupt Iran's oil trade. These attacks continued and were condemned by the U.N. Security Council on 1 June 1984 (Resolution 552). As a result of these attacks, which Iran alleged were supported by the United States, Iran began attacking neutral ships in the Persian Gulf primarily bound for ports in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. On 16 October 1987, a Kuwaiti tanker flying a United States flag, the Sea Isle City, was hit by a missile. Iran blamed Iraq for the attack; and the United States claimed Iran was using oil platforms to attack neutral shipping. The United States retaliated with strikes against two Iranian offshore oil platforms in the Reshadat complex. On 19 October 1987, an attack was launched by four US guided-‐missile destroyers, the Young, Hoel, Kidd and Leftwich, against the Iranian oil platforms Result and Reshadat, owned and operated by the National Iranian Oil Company in the Persian Gulf. The Resalat and Reshadat platforms are located in the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone of the Islamic Republic. As a result of the attack, one platform was completely destroyed and the other was 90 percent destroyed, with this destruction resulting in the complete stoppage of oil production. On a separate occasion, in April 1988, the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts hit a mine off the coast of Bahrain. The United States asserted Iran had laid the mines. Again, the United States retaliated by attacking two Iranian off-‐shore oil platforms, destroying both the Nasr and Salman complexes. On 2 November 1992, Iran instituted proceedings against the United States in respect of a dispute "aris[ing] out of the attack [on] and destruction of three offshore oil production complexes, owned and operated for commercial purposes by the National Iranian Oil Company, by several warships of the United States Navy on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 respectfully." The United States claimed that it was acting in “necessary” and “proportionate” self-‐
defense and that the oil platform was a “legitimate” military target which had been used for attacks against non-‐belligerent ships in the Persian Gulf. As the basis for the Court's jurisdiction, Iran cited the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran (the Treaty) signed 15 August 1955, and entering into force 16 June 1957. The Treaty addresses the freedom of commerce and navigation of shipping between the two contracting parties. However, the United States argued that the Treaty provided no basis for the Court's jurisdiction because the Treaty does not apply to questions pertaining to the use of force or self-‐defense. Iran is asking the Court to hold the United States responsible in conjunction with the aforementioned attacks and to make reparations to Iran for violations of the Treaty in a "form and amount" to be determined by the Court. Iran claims that the US violated the Treaty Article 1, “There shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the United States of America and Iran” and also “Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there shall be freedom of commerce and navigation.” Iran also claims that the US violated the spirit and purpose of the Treaty. First, the Court must decide if it does in fact have jurisdiction under the 1955 treaty. If the Court decides it does have jurisdiction it would be the first time the Court has relied solely on a compromissory clause in a bilateral treaty to establish jurisdiction. The United States is asserting that the Court does not have jurisdiction. However, even assuming the Court does have jurisdiction, the United States is asserting its right to self-‐defense under the UN Charter in relation to the attacks on the Iranian oil platforms. The United States also argues that Iran violated its obligations under the Treaty because Iran engaged in mining and/or missile attacks on United States' ships on two separate occasions. The United States is asking the Court for reparations from Iran. 1 Houston Area Model United Nations
HAMUN-39/ICJ/A
International Court of Justice
Case Description (A)
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER The following list of questions is not exhaustive. Delegates should address the questions herein, as well as generate their own question and explore additional issues. ISSUE 1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the issue(s) before the court according to each counsel? Do the counsels claim different facts? Also, are there any issues for which the court needs more supporting evidence? Does the court find any issues that the counsel has not presented? Are there any other issues that are intertwined with this issue? (i.e. naval strategy, international trade, maritime territorial issues, etc.) RULE 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
What treaties, conventions, norms, customs, and other corpora juris are relevant? What are the substantive laws? What are the procedural laws? Are there any other sources of legitimacy that would influence the decision in this case? What are the different classifications of military action under international law? Under what conditions are different types of military action legally defensible? What are the legal principles relating to possible effects of the Iran-‐Iraq War on third parties? ANALYSIS 12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Does the Court have jurisdiction in this matter? If so, to what extent and on what issue? Is it legally permissible to address both the mines and the oil platform attacks in the same case? Who was responsible for the attack on the Sea Isle City? What are the legal implications of the fact that a Kuwaiti tanker was flying a US flag? What are the causal factors that led the US to attack Iran’s oil platforms? What effects did the American attacks have on Iran? Was the destruction of the oil platforms necessary for the United States' self-‐defense? Was the freedom of commerce and navigation guaranteed in the Treaty violated by the United States, Iran, or both? 20. What damages did each party incur? CONCLUSION 21. What action must the court take to uphold the integrity of the law? 22. On what basis should the court make its decision? 23. What outcome should the court dictate? Payment of damages? If so, how much? Revocation of certain rights? Which rights, and for how long? Some other solution? (be creative, and be specific!) 24. How would the decision of the court be enforced? BIBLIOGRAPHY Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran V. United States of America). ICJ. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://www.icj-‐cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=op&case=90&k=0a. Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights Between the United States of America and Iran. Signed August 15, 1955. ICJ, p. 7-‐18. http://www.icj-‐cij.org/docket/files/90/7211.pdf. UNSC. [S/RES/552], June 1, 1984. http://daccess-‐dds-‐
ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/487/82/IMG/NR048782.pdf?OpenElement. UNSC. [S/RES/582], February 24, 1987. http://daccess-‐dds-‐
ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/729/06/IMG/NR072906.pdf?OpenElement. 2 Houston Area Model United Nations
HAMUN-39/ICJ/A
International Court of Justice
Case Description (A)
UNSC. [S/RES/598], July 20, 1987. http://daccess-‐dds-‐
ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/524/70/IMG/NR052470.pdf?OpenElement. GENERAL “International Law.” United Nations. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://www.un.org/en/law/. Maiese, Michelle. “Types of Justice.” Beyond Intractability, July 2003. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/types-‐of-‐justice. McCandless, David. “Rhetological Fallacies.” Information Is Beautiful, November 2012. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-‐fallacies/. “Legal Research Guides by Subject.” Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://researchguides.library.tufts.edu/content.php?pid=481912&sid=3949131. “UN Official Document System.” United Nations. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://documents.un.org/. “UN Treaty Collection.” United Nations. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://treaties.un.org/. ACADEMIC ARTICLES Application Instituting Proceedings of 2 November 1992 concerning the interpretation and application of provisions of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States of America and Iran. Bekker, Pieter H.F. "International Decisions: Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States)," The American Journal of International Law, ed. David D. Caron. Jul 2004; v 98, n 3, Law Module, p. 550. Bekker, Pieter H.F. "The World Court Finds that U.S. Attacks on Iranian Oil Platforms in 1987-‐ 1988 Were Not Justifiable as Self-‐Defense, but the United States Did Not Violate the Applicable Treaty With Iran," ASIL (American Society of International Law) Insights, November 2003. Crook, John R. "The 2003 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice," The American Journal of International Law; Apr 2004, v 98, n 2; Law Module, p. 309. Murphy, Sean D. "U.S. Reaction to ICJ Judgement in Iranian Oil Platforms Case," The American Journal of International Law; Jul 2004, v 98, n 3; Law Module, p. 597. Orakhelashvili, Alexander, "Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Merits, Judgement of 6 November 2003," The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Oxford: Jul 2004, v 53, n 3, p. 753. Order of 12 December 1996 Concerning Preliminary Objections Concerning Jurisdiction Raised by United States. Schmertz, John R. Jr. and Mike Meier "International Court of Justice," International Law Update; November 2003, v 9. "World Court Confirms Jurisdiction in Iran-‐US Case," UN Chronicle; 1996; v 33, n 4; Research Library Core, p. 68. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW “Customary IHL.” ICRC. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://www.icrc.org/customary-‐ihl/eng/docs/home. “IHL -‐ Answers to Your Questions.” ICRC, October 2002. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0703.pdf. “IHL and Other Legal Regimes.” ICRC, October 29, 2010. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-‐and-‐law/ihl-‐other-‐legal-‐
regmies/overview-‐other-‐legal-‐regimes.htm. “International Law on the Conduct of Hostilities: Overview.” ICRC, October 29, 2010. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-‐
and-‐law/conduct-‐hostilities/overview-‐conduct-‐of-‐hostilities.htm. “Law of Armed Conflict Deskbook.” The United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, 2012. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOAC-‐Deskbook-‐2012.pdf. “The Laws of War.” Yale Law School. The Avalon Project. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp. “War and International Humanitarian Law.” ICRC, October 29, 2010. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-‐and-‐
law/overview-‐war-‐and-‐law.htm. Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://www.elac.ox.ac.uk/. 3