Docsity
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

ICJ Ruling: Unjustified Force on Iranian Oil Platforms, Summaries of English Language

Universiteit Antwerpen, UFSIAEnglish Language

A case summary of the international court of justice (icj) decision in the case of iran v. United states, concerning disputes over oil platforms in the persian gulf. The court's findings on the burden of proof for armed attacks, the mining of uss samuel b. Roberts, and the lawfulness of us military actions against iranian platforms. The court concluded that the us actions against the salman and nasr complexes could not be justified as necessary measures to protect essential security interests under the 1955 treaty.

Typology: Summaries

2021/2022

Uploaded on 07/04/2022

dirk88
dirk88 🇧🇪

4.4

(222)

3.1K documents

1 / 4

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
CASE CONCERNING OIL PLATFORMS
(Iran v. United States of America)
ICJ Decision of 6 November 2003
61. [t]he Court…finds that the evidence indicative of Iranian responsibility for the
attack on the Sea Isle City is not sufficient to support the contentions of the United States.
The conclusion to which the Court has come on this aspect of the case is thus that the
burden of proof of the existence of an armed attack by Iran on the United States, in the
form of the missile attack on the Sea Isle City, has not been discharged.
62. In its notification to the Security Council, and before the Court, the United States
has however not relied solely on the Sea Isle City incident as constituting the "armed
attack" to which the United States claimed to be responding. It asserted that that incident
was "the latest in a series of such missile attacks against United States flag and other
non-belligerent vessels in Kuwaiti waters in pursuit of peaceful commerce"… Before the
Court, it has contended that the missile attack on the Sea Isle City was itself an armed
attack giving rise to the right of self-defence; the alleged pattern of Iranian use of force, it
is said, "added to the gravity of the specific attacks, reinforced the necessity of action in
self-defense, and helped to shape the appropriate response". …
64. On the hypothesis that all the incidents complained of are to be attributed to Iran,
and thus setting aside the question, examined above, of attribution to Iran of the specific
attack on the Sea Isle City, the question is whether that attack, either in itself or in
combination with the rest of the "series of…attacks" cited by the United States can be
categorized as an "armed attack" on the United States justifying self-defence. The Court
notes first that the Sea Isle City was in Kuwaiti waters at the time of the attack on it, and
that a Silkworm missile fired from (it is alleged) more than 100 km away could not have
been aimed at the specific vessel, but simply programmed to hit some target in Kuwaiti
waters. Secondly, the Texaco Caribbean, whatever its ownership, was not flying a United
States flag, so that an attack on the vessel is not in itself to be equated with an attack on
that State. As regards the alleged firing on United States helicopters from Iranian
gunboats and from the Reshadat oil platform, no persuasive evidence has been supplied
to support this allegation. There is no evidence that the minelaying alleged to have been
carried out by the Iran Ajr, at a time when Iran was at war with Iraq, was aimed
specifically at the United States; and similarly it has not been established that the mine
struck by the Bridgeton was laid with the specific intention of harming that ship, or other
United States vessels. Even taken cumulatively, and reserving, as already noted, the
question of Iranian responsibility, these incidents do not seem to the Court to constitute
an armed attack on the United States, of the kind that the Court, in the case concerning
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, qualified as a "most
grave" form of the use of force (see paragraph 51 above).
71. As in the case of the attack on the Sea Isle City, the first question is whether the
United States has discharged the burden of proof that the USS Samuel B. Roberts was the
victim of a mine laid by Iran. The Court notes that mines were being laid at the time by
both belligerents in the Iran-Iraq war, so that evidence of other minelaying operations by
Iran is not conclusive as to responsibility of Iran for this particular mine. In its
pf3
pf4

Partial preview of the text

Download ICJ Ruling: Unjustified Force on Iranian Oil Platforms and more Summaries English Language in PDF only on Docsity!

CASE CONCERNING OIL PLATFORMS

(Iran v. United States of America) ICJ Decision of 6 November 2003

  1. [t]he Court…finds that the evidence indicative of Iranian responsibility for the attack on the Sea Isle City is not sufficient to support the contentions of the United States. The conclusion to which the Court has come on this aspect of the case is thus that the burden of proof of the existence of an armed attack by Iran on the United States, in the form of the missile attack on the Sea Isle City, has not been discharged.
  2. In its notification to the Security Council, and before the Court, the United States has however not relied solely on the Sea Isle City incident as constituting the "armed attack" to which the United States claimed to be responding. It asserted that that incident was "the latest in a series of such missile attacks against United States flag and other non-belligerent vessels in Kuwaiti waters in pursuit of peaceful commerce"… Before the Court, it has contended that the missile attack on the Sea Isle City was itself an armed attack giving rise to the right of self-defence; the alleged pattern of Iranian use of force, it is said, "added to the gravity of the specific attacks, reinforced the necessity of action in self-defense, and helped to shape the appropriate response". …
  3. On the hypothesis that all the incidents complained of are to be attributed to Iran, and thus setting aside the question, examined above, of attribution to Iran of the specific attack on the Sea Isle City, the question is whether that attack, either in itself or in combination with the rest of the "series of…attacks" cited by the United States can be categorized as an "armed attack" on the United States justifying self-defence. The Court notes first that the Sea Isle City was in Kuwaiti waters at the time of the attack on it, and that a Silkworm missile fired from (it is alleged) more than 100 km away could not have been aimed at the specific vessel, but simply programmed to hit some target in Kuwaiti waters. Secondly, the Texaco Caribbean, whatever its ownership, was not flying a United States flag, so that an attack on the vessel is not in itself to be equated with an attack on that State. As regards the alleged firing on United States helicopters from Iranian gunboats and from the Reshadat oil platform, no persuasive evidence has been supplied to support this allegation. There is no evidence that the minelaying alleged to have been carried out by the Iran Ajr, at a time when Iran was at war with Iraq, was aimed specifically at the United States; and similarly it has not been established that the mine struck by the Bridgeton was laid with the specific intention of harming that ship, or other United States vessels. Even taken cumulatively, and reserving, as already noted, the question of Iranian responsibility, these incidents do not seem to the Court to constitute an armed attack on the United States, of the kind that the Court, in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, qualified as a "most grave" form of the use of force (see paragraph 51 above).
  4. As in the case of the attack on the Sea Isle City, the first question is whether the United States has discharged the burden of proof that the USS Samuel B. Roberts was the victim of a mine laid by Iran. The Court notes that mines were being laid at the time by both belligerents in the Iran-Iraq war, so that evidence of other minelaying operations by Iran is not conclusive as to responsibility of Iran for this particular mine. In its

communication to the Security Council in connection with the attack of 18 April 1988, the United States alleged that "The mines were laid in shipping lanes known by Iran to be used by U.S. vessels, and intended by them to damage or sink such vessels" (paragraph 67 above). Iran has claimed that it laid mines only for defensive purposes in the Khor Abdullah Channel, but the United States has submitted evidence suggesting that Iran's mining operations were more extensive. The main evidence that the mine struck by the USS Samuel B. Roberts was laid by Iran was the discovery of moored mines in the same area, bearing serial numbers matching other Iranian mines, in particular those found aboard the vessel Iran Ajr (see paragraph 63 above). This evidence is highly suggestive, but not conclusive.

  1. The Court notes further that, as on the occasion of the earlier attack on oil platforms, the United States in its communication to the Security Council claimed to have been exercising the right of self-defence in response to the "attack" on the USS Samuel B. Roberts, linking it also with "a series of offensive attacks and provocations Iranian naval forces have taken against neutral shipping in the international waters of the Persian Gulf" (paragraph 67 above). Before the Court, it has contended, as in the case of the missile attack on the Sea Isle City, that the mining was itself an armed attack giving rise to the right of self-defence and that the alleged pattern of Iranian use of force "added to the gravity of the specific attacks, reinforced the necessity of action in self-defense, and helped to shape the appropriate response" (see paragraph 62 above). No attacks on United States-flagged vessels (as distinct from United States-owned vessels), additional to those cited as justification for the earlier attacks on the Reshadat platforms, have been brought to the Court's attention, other than the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts itself. The question is therefore whether that incident sufficed in itself to justify action in self- defence, as amounting to an "armed attack". The Court does not exclude the possibility that the mining of a single military vessel might be sufficient to bring into play the "inherent right of self-defence"; but in view of all the circumstances, including the inconclusiveness of the evidence of Iran's responsibility for the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, the Court is unable to hold that the attacks on the Salman and Nasr platforms have been shown to have been justifiably made in response to an "armed attack" on the United States by Iran, in the form of the mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts.
  2. As noted above (paragraph 43), in the present case a question of whether certain action is "necessary" arises both as an element of international law relating to self- defence and on the basis of the actual terms of Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the 1955 Treaty, already quoted, whereby the Treaty does "not preclude... measures... necessary to protect [the] essential security interests" of either party. In this latter respect, the United States claims that it considered in good faith that the attacks on the platforms were necessary to protect its essential security interests, and suggests that "A measure of discretion should be afforded to a party's good faith application of measures to protect its essential security interests". Iran was prepared to recognize some of the interests referred to by the United States -- the safety of United States vessels and crew, and the uninterrupted flow of maritime commerce in the Persian Gulf -- as being reasonable security interests of the United States, but denied that the United States actions against the platforms could be regarded as "necessary" to protect those interests. The Court does not however have to decide whether the United States interpretation of Article XX,

not satisfied that the attacks on the platforms were necessary to respond to these incidents. In this connection, the Court notes that there is no evidence that the United States complained to Iran of the military activities of the platforms, in the same way as it complained repeatedly of minelaying and attacks on neutral shipping, which does not suggest that the targeting of the platforms was seen as a necessary act. The Court would also observe that in the case of the attack of 19 October 1987, the United States forces attacked the R-4 platform as a "target of opportunity", not one previously identified as an appropriate military target (see paragraph 47 above).

  1. As to the requirement of proportionality, the attack of 19 October 1987 might, had the Court found that it was necessary in response to the Sea Isle City incident as an armed attack committed by Iran, have been considered proportionate. In the case of the attacks of 18 April 1988, however, they were conceived and executed as part of a more extensive operation entitled "Operation Praying Mantis" (see paragraph 68 above). The question of the lawfulness of other aspects of that operation is not before the Court, since it is solely the action against the Salman and Nasr complexes that is presented as a breach of the 1955 Treaty; but the Court cannot assess in isolation the proportionality of that action to the attack to which it was said to be a response; it cannot close its eyes to the scale of the whole operation, which involved, inter alia, the destruction of two Iranian frigates and a number of other naval vessels and aircraft. As a response to the mining, by an unidentified agency, of a single United States warship, which was severely damaged but not sunk, and without loss of life, neither "Operation Praying Mantis" as a whole, nor even that part of it that destroyed the Salman and Nasr platforms, can be regarded, in the circumstances of this case, as a proportionate use of force in self-defence.
  2. The Court thus concludes from the foregoing that the actions carried out by United States forces against Iranian oil installations on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified, under Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the 1955 Treaty, as being measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States, since those actions constituted recourse to armed force not qualifying, under international law on the question, as acts of self-defence, and thus did not fall within the category of measures contemplated, upon its correct interpretation, by that provision of the Treaty.