Student Data

 Name: Juan Sebastian Vásquez Parra

 Id: 0000082740
 Activity: Case Brief
 Professor: Carlos Arévalo Narváez
Identification Information
Nature of the case Contentious
Reference Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v.
United States of America), Judgment, I. C. J.
Reports 2003
Institution International Court of Justice
Date November 6th 2003
Key Words Clean hands; Self defense
Facts
 United States destroyed some oil complex belongs to Iran on 1987. Iran argued that those
acts constituted a breach of many relation as Friendship Treaty signed on 1955 and
International Law. Iran presented to the Court a request to declare the breach of the
obligations of United States.
 The Friendship Treaty stablishes the liberty between State to navigation and commerce.
Between Iran and Iraq on 1987-1988 was a conflict in the Persian Gulf, one ship from United
States was attacked, United States guilted Iran for that attack and respond attacking the oil
platforms.
 United States initially respond that the Court has no competence to solve the case, however
the Tribunal decided that it has competence. Then, US filed a counterclaim presenting facts
that consisted on the attacks made by Iran to some ships and the Court accepted that
counterclaim arguing that it was a part of the procedure.
 Both states asked to the Court that declares that the other one breached its obligations and
must repair the damages produced by that
Legal issues
 United Stated breached its international obligations due to the destruction of the oil
platforms and is obliged to repair the Iranian State for the damages produced?
Rule of Law
 Customary rules of international law of use of force.
 Principle of prohibition of use of force in international law
 Customary rules of international law for self defense
 Proportionality and necessity criteria
Holding and reasoning
 The original controversy refers to the actions of both states according to the use of force. No
one mention of the Friendship treaty was make when the facts occurred. For the Court, the
subject depends on the interpretation of the treaty, more exactly, article XX which specify
use of force on international law and the qualification of this principle constituted by self
defense principle. According with the above, any part can take the measures that consider a
necessity to protect its own security. In the present case, the question is if the measures took
by United States were necessary.
 To demonstrate that US have a legal reason to attack the platforms, the have to demonstrate
unless individual self defense that the attacks against them was made by Iran, specifically
armed attacks, also, they have to demonstrate that their actions are necessary and
 proportional to the attack from Iran and the platforms were a legitimate military objective
which can be attacked exercising self-defense.
 The Court found that there were not enough elements to demonstrate the attack from Iran
against US.
 According to the Court, the attacks made to the oil platforms and had serious consequences
to the installations. Is necessary to determine if the attacks made by US were justified, due
to the poor ways to prove that was necessary.
 The facts didn’t give enough evidence to the Court with relation to the attacks that can be
named as a self-defense. Moreover, the attacks committed on 1987 made a part of a great
operation called “Mantis Religiosa” which was a response for the mining of the sea but didn’t
fulfill the requirements to be self-defense.
 According to the obligation of “liberty of commerce” The Court found that there is not a
breach of this obligation from US due to the suspension of the extraction and processing
activity of the oil platforms while the attacks were committed.
Conclusion
 The actions taken by United States forces against Iranian oil installations on 19 October
1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified under Article xx(1)(d) of the 1955 Treaty as
measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States, since
such actions constituted a resort to armed force which does not meet the requirements of
international law relating to this matter to be used as a means of obtaining the consent of
the United States considers them to be acts of legitimate self-defense and, consequently,
they do not fall within the category of measures referred to, according to their correct
interpretation, by the abovementioned provision of the Treaty.
 US didn’t breach its international obligations, wherefore is not possible make way for the
claim of reparation to Iran.