Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Decisions
a. (1) By fourteen votes to two, the court finds that the attacks made by the
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
and feels like the court could have used the opportunity to be more
extensive on the development on the law regarding the use of force.
VII.
Principles
a. The court decided to use the provisions with Article XX, paragraph I, of the 1955
treaty, in regards to whether or not the United States actions were justified. While
looking into this provision, the court chose to examine the United States
justification of citing self-defense in regards to their use of force. The court found
that the U.S. exceeded the limits in light of international law on the use of force
and tossed their claim of protection under Article XX, paragraph I, of the 1955
Treaty. In regards to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the U.S. failed to provide
enough adequate evidence to blame Iran for the Sea Isle City missile attack and
the mining of USS Samuel B. Roberts. The Court cited the Nicaragua Case in
terms of necessity and proportionality in regards to the accused attacks by Iran
used by the U.S. to justify their actions against the oil platforms, and the court felt
the accused Iranian attacks were not severe enough to justify self-defense as a
means for the U.S. recourse. The evaluation for self-defense was set by the court
in the case The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in terms of
necessity and proportionality, and the U.S., as previously noted, failed to meet
both requirements; therefore, could not be protected by Article XX, paragraph I,
of the 1955 Treaty.
VIII. Conclusion
a. This case presented significant impact on U.S. activities in the Middle East, since
they are constantly becoming involved in affairs in the region as well as a
measuring tool on the use of force in the region by other countries which
intervene. However, the case is also criticized because the court missed the
opportunity to lay out more clear ground rules on the aspects of commerce and
navigation and their ties to armed conflict in the Middle East. Both parties of the
case recognized the significant impact the self-defense issues brought up in the
case would have for the international community, and the conclusion of the case
did not take advantage of the opportunity to clear up confusion on the limits on
the use of force when self-defense is claimed. However, the significance of the
conditions required for necessity and proportionality were supplemented in
this case to address armed conflicts between states, especially in the Middle East.
The significance of the claim and counter-claim being rejected is due to the terms
explicitly outlined in each statement made to the court as well as the terms of the
1955 Treaty between the states.
IX.
Sources (MLA Format)
Bekker, Pieter H.F. "The World Court Finds That U.S. Attacks on Iranian Oil Platforms i 19871988 Were Not Justifiable as Self-Defense, but the United States Did Not Violate the
Applicable Treaty with Iran." 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. American Society of International Law, 11
Nov. 2003. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.
"Case Concerning Oil Platforms." Section of International and Comparative Law Bulletin 8.2
(1964): 37. ICJ-CIJ. International Court of Justice, 6 Nov. 2003. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
ERHAN, ZEYNEP. "SELF DEFENCE-OIL PLATFORM CASE." SELF DEFENCE-OIL
PLATFORM CASE (2012): n. pag. Strategic Outlook, Dec. 2012. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
Foster, Caroline E. "The Oil Platforms Case and The Use of Force in International Law."
Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law 7 (2003): 577-88. CommonLII.
Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law, 2003. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
Gordon, Geoff. "THE OIL PLATFORMS OPINION: AN ELEPHANT IN THE EYE OF A
NEEDLE." Amsterdam Law Forum. VU University Amsterdam, 2009. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
"IRAN: The 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights." IRAN: The 1955
Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights. Pars Times: Greater Iran &
Beyond, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.
Ochoa-Ruiz, Natalia, and Esther Salamanca-Aguado. "The Contribution of the ICJ Judgment of
6 November 2003 in the Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v.
United States of America) to International Law on the Use of Force in Self-defence." The
Contribution of the ICJ Judgment of 6 November 2003 in the (n.d.): n. pag. Esil-sedi.
Web. 5 Apr. 2016. <http://www.esil-sedi.eu/sites/default/files/OchoaRuizSalamanca_0.PDF>.
"Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), 2003 I.C.J. 161 (Nov. 6)." Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), 2003 I.C.J.
161 (Nov. 6). WorldCourts, 6 Nov. 2003. Web. 06 Apr. 2016.
"Oil Platforms (Iran v. USA)." The Hague Justice Portal. The Hague Justice Portal, n.d. Web. 4
Apr. 2016.
"U.S. Reaction to ICJ Judgment in Iranian Oil Platforms Case." The American Journal of
International Law. American Society of International Law, July 2004. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.