جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « عهدنامه مودت » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

The principle of state immunity and the protection of state assets under international law have undergone a progressive evolution over time. Rooted in customary international law, this principle finds support in general and special treaties, customary rules, and judicial practice. It establishes that all property, locations, possessions, and tangible and intangible assets belonging to a State located in another jurisdiction must be respected are to be accorded respect and safeguarded against any form of attack or interference by administrative or executive actions. However, exceptions to immunity have emerged in light of the evolving nature of international law. In this regard, the United States courts, invoking the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act passed by Congress in 1996, have seized assets and properties belonging to the Iranian government, especially the bonds of Bank Markazi, on the grounds that Iran is considered a state sponsor of terrorism. Subsequently, Iran initiated legal proceedings against the United States before the International Court of Justice on June 14, 2016, alleging breaches of state immunity and the Treaty of Amity. The Court issued a jurisdictional ruling on February 13, 2019, and a substantive verdict on March 30, 2023. This research critically examines whether the Court considered (the assets of) the Central Bank of Iran as a sovereign and State entity entitled to immunity, or whether it construed the Bank as a corporate entity under the purview of the Treaty of Amity of 1955. Recruiting a descriptive-analytical approach to examine relevant treaties and court decisions, it concludes that, due to the sovereign nature of Bank Markazi of Iran, the seizure of assets belonging to this government institution falls outside the protective scope of the Treaty of Amity. Consequently, the Court possesses the authority to adjudicate on the issue of immunity concerning Bank Markazi. Notably, the Court's 2023 decision deviates from its previous 2019 decision, acknowledging the sovereign nature of Bank Markazi and the customary rule governing the dispute.

The decision of the International Court of Justice on March 30, 2023, is a significant achievement in the legal field of various claims between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States.
the International Court of Justice has divided central bank’s activities into two categories: 1- Commercial activities (banking operations, credit operations, buying and selling) 2- Sovereign actions (such as preserving the value of money and creating financial transparency) in the first category, the court found the United States in violation of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran Tehran and by considering the Central Bank as a company (in the field of its commercial activity), affirmed the discriminatory behavior of the United States against it and accordingly condemned the United States . At the end, the Court did not accept the United States’ claims and while rejecting its jurisdiction over the violation of the Central Bank’s property immunity, set a two-year deadline for the parties to negotiate over the compensation of damages. In this article, we sought to analyze the commercial performance of the Central Bank of Iran and criticize the judgment of the Court in the jurisdiction part.

This research examines the individual opinions expressed by judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of "Certain Iranian Assets", specifically focusing on the issue of excluding Bank Markazi (Central Bank of Iran) from the treaty's purview. The case revolves around Iran's effort to lift the seizure of approximately two billion dollars of assets held by the Bank Markazi of Iran in the United States, citing a violation of the Treaty of Amity. While the majority of judges agreed with excluding the Bank from the scope of the Treaty, a minority of five judges held a dissenting opinion. The core of contention among the judgescentered on whether the purchase and holding of twelve bonds by the Central Bank of Iran should be considered as a sovereign act or a commercial act. This research aims to analyze the reasoning employed by both the majority and minority judges in arriving at their respective conclusions. The study recruits a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources for data collection. Findings show that although the majority opinion did not secure Iran’s material interests in this case, it emphasized the sovereign nature of the purchase of bonds by theBank, thereby safeguarding Iran’s ultimate interests in maintaining the Bank’s immunity against actions by other governments.

Regarding “Certain Iranian Asset” case, International Court of Justice, faced with five preliminary objections with respect to the jurisdiction of ICJ and admissibility of the case which were raised by Respondent. As the second preliminary objection, the United States requested the Court to dismiss as outside the Court’s jurisdiction all claims, brought under the sovereign immunity as a customary international law. Iran relied on Article IV (2), Article X (1) and Article XI (4) of Treaty of Amity to support its claim. However ICJ upheld the second objection of USA based on its interpretation in accordance with the Treaty’s object and purpose and also its finding in “Immunities and Criminal Proceedings Case” and “Oil Platforms Case”. In contrary to ICJ’s opinion, a logic relationship can be seen between the object and the purpose of Treaty and the provisions which have been mentioned by Iran. Such conclusion could be reached by analogy and deductive method as well as analysis of separate opinion of judges.

The issue of the relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States is one of the most important political, economic, and social issues of the region and the world in the last four decades. The Amity Treaty was signed in 1955 between Iran and the United States to protect a healthy, peaceful relationship without economic and political tensions. Although the MOU has been the source of do's and don'ts for the parties, in many cases these obligations have not been applied or have been violated by the parties, regardless of whether or not they have violated the terms of the treaty. It became possible to bring justice and jurisdiction to this organization. Now, although the United States has announced its withdrawal from the treaty and this decision has affected the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, it is possible for the Iranian government and its persons to comply with their obligations in the event of a breach of the treaty until the treaty expires. It does not preclude the claim for damages resulting from a breach of its obligations. As a result, the Court's performance in its rulings reflects the Court's approach to narrowly interpreting the Convention, on the basis of its jurisdiction, and has adhered to its decisions and findings in matters of form and jurisdiction; as the Court's view is that irreparable damages are not merely financial, but also damages to human lives.

In 1976, the United States enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA). The Act disregarded the immunity of States committing terrorism in U.S. courts. On 19 January 1984, the U.S. Ministry of Foreign Affairs designated Iran as a State sponsor of terrorism. In 1996, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was enacted by the U.S. Congress, which in lawsuits against terrorist States provided for financial compensation. As a result of these Acts, numerous lawsuits have been filed by U.S. nationals and in the U.S. courts against Iran. The U.S. courts sentenced Iran to compensation and confiscation of the Central Bank assets instead of State-owned property. The pleading of the Central Bank to the U.S. judicial authorities during the review and appeal proceedings was not successful and the Central Bank assets were confiscated. On 14 June 2016, Iran filed an application against the U.S. in the ICJ, referring to non-observance of State immunity and violation of the 1955 Treaty. The judgment of the Court on jurisdiction was issued on 13 February 2019. The present article examines this judgment in two areas of legal personality of State-owned corporations and immunity of State-owned assets and concludes that the ICJ, according to its inherent obligation, emphasized on the common intention of the parties as the basis of its jurisdiction.

After the U.S withdrawal from Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) and re-imposition of sanctions, Iran filed its application in ICJ with regard to claims for damages arising from violation of Treaty of Amity and re-imposition of sanctions, and indications of provisional measures. By indicating such measures, ICJ orders the U.S to lift sanctions against Iran and meanwhile the U.S declared its withdrawal from Treaty of Amity. In this paper, we examined the legal effects of the U.S withdrawal from Treaty of Amity and its impact on proceedings in ICJ using a descriptive-analytical method. Research findings show that Iran and its individual subjects could request the U.S to be bound by obligations associated with Treaty of Amity by the time it is in force and termination of the Treaty does not preclude claims for damages from violation of its obligations. Additionally, Iran has the right to require performance of duties arising from provisional measures and claim for compensation due to violating it in ICJ.

The International Court of Justice, on October 11, 2018, responded unanimously to Iran's request for an interim order in the alleged violations of the treaty of amity case and required the United States to take the necessary measures on free exportation to Iran about humanitarian needs, including medicines and medical devices, foodstuffs and agricultural commodities, spare parts, equipment and associated services necessary for the safety of civil aviation, and do not create no restrictions on the payments and other transfers of funds related to these measures. In the course of the proceedings of The Court, the United States, in addition to proposing multiple objections to the conditions of issuing the interim order (prima facie jurisdiction, the plausibility of the claimed rights and its relation to the interim order, the urgency and irreparable prejudice), argued that the requested interim order will violate the USA's sovereignty. The Court, in its conclusions, which often was as a result of the acceptance of the arguments of the Iranian legal team, affirmed the necessary conditions for the issuance of a interim order. According to The Court, the criterion of irreparable prejudices is not merely financial damage, but damage to human lives.

Studies and analyses carried out about the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), have not properly and accurately addressed the impact of the agreement on Iran's strategic status. This article seeks to study and analyze the impact of the JCPOA on Iran's strategic status in the international system through defining an exact and measurable framework. The authors have studied and measured the impact of the JCPOA on Iran's strategic status with the help of documents and resources available in libraries or on the Internet and by using SWOT analysis to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The results and findings confirm the research assumption that the JCPOA has elevated Iran's strategic status in the international system.

The Amity treaty between Iran and the United States of America was signed in 1955. Since the Treaty creates rights and obligations for both parties and referring the cancellation or termination of the treaty by any of the parties has not been executed or submitted, as well as the claims of the two sides also referred to the International Court of Justice(ICJ), therefore, this treaty could be applicable for different legal cases at present and in the future inevitably. In this article we will try to investigate the provisions of the Treaty and the Vienna Convention as well as the International Court of Justice in the cases of Iran and America accordingly, mentioning the fact that this treaty has the ability to come into force in the cases involved between the two parties. Subsequently we shall try to state the American typology of sanctions against Iran, Showing that these sanctions are in violation of the provisions stated in the Treaty of Amity according to the treaty rights, and therefore can be discussed at the International Court of Justice.

The legal apparatus for protecting foreign investments in a host country is affected, on the one hand, by international law (international treaties, custom, principles of international law and doctrines) and, on the other hand, by domestic laws and political relations. Due to this multifaceted feature, such a legal regime is very complex. When the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran was passed, it was not easy to conceive that such treaty could be resorted to in domestic courts against parties of the treaty. McKesson’s dispute against the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite of restrictions expressed in Algiers Accords and other political and legal obstacles, brings the question up as to how the McKesson Corporation could establish jurisdiction in the American courts and how the United States courts issued the verdict against Iran by resorting to the Treaty of Amity and Iran’s law. This article aims to discuss the jurisdiction of domestic courts in the United States to rule on actions of Iran’s government and private right of action against Iran by resorting to the Treaty of Amity and Iran’s law. It also considers obstacles in establishing domestic court jurisdiction based on the sovereign immunity principle and doctrine of foreign States’ acts.

The 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights was signed on August 15 in Tehran. It secured the most-favored-nation treatment in matters of the rights of American and Iranian citizens and companies and also of trade and consular relations. This treaty replaced the temporary trade agreement and the temporary agreement on personal status and family right (1928). It was concluded for ten years and is to be automatically renewed.After 1980 some sanctions on Iran, taking some reciprocal measures, and actual interruptions in consular and diplomatic relations by the parties of the said treaty, many focused on some doubts about the validity of this document in mutual relations of Iran and the U.S.In this essay we will take a look at some practical and theoretical debates concerning the validity of the said text in mutual relations.