Legal Consequences Arising from Us International Responsibility for Violations of the Treaty of Amity | ||
| Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 1، شماره 2، شهریور 2023، صفحه 61-75 اصل مقاله (1.75 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22091/ijicl.2024.9785.1073 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Sattar Azizi* | ||
| Professor of International Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The term “legal consequences of international responsibility” covers the new legal relations which arise under international law as a result of a State’s Internationally Wrongful Act (IWA). In this context, three types of obligations can be identified: the duty (a) to perform the obligation breached, (b) to cease the wrongful conduct, and (c) to make full reparation for the injury caused. In the Certain Iranian Assets Case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the United States had breached Articles III (1); IV (1) & (2); and X (1) of the Treaty of Amity. This article seeks to explore the legal consequences of US international responsibility. Specifically, it examines these consequences in the light of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility and the relevant case-law. The study recruits a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources for collecting data. In the Certain Iranian Assets Case, the ICJ concluded that, due to the fact that the Treaty of Amity no longer creates obligations on the Parties, as of October 3, 2019, the US has not obligation to perform its duties under the Treaty or to cease the wrongful conduct. The Court only ruled that the US should provide reparation for the injury caused. The most important finding of this article is that the Court is likely to reach similar results in the Case of Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity. Consequently, the United States bears no obligation to comply with the Treaty of Amity following its termination in October 2019. Similar to the Certain Iranian Assets Case, this termination has similar implications concerning the US responsibility to compensate the damages incurred by the injured State. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Legal Consequences of International Responsibility؛ Reparation؛ Internationally Wrongful Acts؛ Treaty of Amity؛ Case-law | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Certain Iranian Assets, (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) I.C.J. Reports (2023) Certain Iranian Assets; (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), International Law Reports, Vol 201, (Cambridge University Press 2023) 1-88 Certain Iranian Assets; (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Memorial of 01 February 2017 Corten O, ‘The Obligation of Cessation’ in J Crawford, A Pellet, and S Olleson (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (First Ed, Oxford University Press 2010) Cortesi G A, ‘The Case of Certain Iranian Assets: The Standard for Joining Preliminary Objections to the Merits Revisited and the Treatment of State-Owned Enterprises before the International Court of Justice’ (2020) Vol 25 Austrian Review of International and European Law 219 Daugirdas K, ‘Member States' Due Diligence Obligations to Supervise International Organisations’ in H Krieger, A Peters and L Kreuzer (eds), Due Diligence in the International Legal Order (Oxford University Press 2020) Differences Between New Zealand and France arising from the Rainbow warrior affair, Ruling of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 6 July 1986 Factory at Chorzów case, Merits, 1928, PCIJ, Series A, No 17 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (1997) Higgins R, "Issues of State Responsibility before the International Court of Justice", in M Fitzmaurice and D Sarooshi (eds), Issues of State Responsibility before International Judicial Institutions (First Ed, Oxford and Portland Oregon 2010) Howse R, Appleton B, ‘Time and Tide Wait for No One: The Curious Consideration of Time in International Investment Treaty Law’ in K Polackova Van der Ploeg, L Pasquet and L Castellanos-Jankiewicz (eds), International Law and Time: Narratives and Techniques (Springer 2022) Klein N, ‘Iran and Its Encounters with the International Court of Justice’ (2020) Vol 21 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1 Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) case, ICJ Reports (1974) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (1996) (II) Rainbow Warrior Arbitration, UNRIAA, Vol. XX (Sales No. E/F.93. V.3), 1990 Shaw M, ‘The International Court, Responsibility and Remedies’ in M Fitzmaurice and D Sarooshi (eds), Issues of State Responsibility before International Judicial Institutions (First Ed, Oxford and Portland Oregon 2010) Stern B, ‘The Obligation to make Reparation’ in J Crawford, A Pellet and S Olleson (eds), The Law of International Responsibility, (First Ed, Oxford University Press 2010) The SS "I'm Alone" (Canada v. United States of America), 5 January 1935 Villiger M E., Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publisher 2009) Watts A, ‘The Art of Apology’ in M Ragazzi (ed), International Responsibility Today (First Ed, Koninklijke Brill NV 2005) Wyler E, Papaux A, ‘The Different Forms of Reparation: Satisfaction’ in J Crawford, A Pellet and S Olleson (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (First Ed, Oxford University Press 2004) | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 263 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 405 |
||