March 15, 2019
The World Court has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear an Iranian case challenging the right of the United States to seize Iranian assets for committing acts of terrorism.
The court made no ruling on the substance of Iran’s case. It merely acted on the procedural issue raised when the United States argued that the court had no jurisdiction even to consider Iran’s complaints.
Iran filed the case June 14, 2016. The court ruled on the jurisdiction issue February 13, 2019. So, it has now taken 2-2/3rds years just to decide that the case can go forward. The substance is not expected to be decided and the case concluded until well in the 2020s.
The World Court, formally titled the International Court of Justice, is famous for the slow nature of its proceedings. The court, with a panel of 15 judges, is an adjunct of the United Nations located in The Hague, Netherlands.
Iran filed the suit just weeks after the US Supreme Court rejected an Iranian appeal. The US Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of Bank Markazi assets was legal and the funds could be distributed to the “victims of terrorism” who suffered from acts of terror committed or abetted by Iran.
The United States raised five objections to Iran’s appeal to the World Court, saying they meant the court had no jurisdiction to take up the substance of the case. The court agreed with one of the American objections by a vote of 11-4. It said it could not rule at this time on a second objection, again by an 11-4 vote. On the other three points, it unanimously rejected the US arguments. Even though it agreed with one of the US points that it lacked jurisdiction, the case will still go forward.
Most of the points were technical legal issues. One point, however, argued that Iran lacks “clean hands” because of its frequent resort to terrorism and therefore should not be allowed to bring the case before the court.
But the court ruled, “Even if it were shown that [Iran’s] conduct was not beyond reproach, this would not be sufficient” cause for the court to reject the case.
The court then added on the next-to-last page of the 38-page opinion: “Such a conclusion is however without prejudice to the question whether the allegations made by the United States, concerning notably Iran’s alleged sponsoring and support of international terrorism and its presumed actions in respect of nuclear non-proliferation and arms trafficking, could, eventually, provide a defense on its merits.”
In effect, that invited the United States to flood the court with evidence of Iran’s use of terrorism around the world.
Iran brought the suit under the 1955 Iran-US Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights. Although there is obviously no “amity” between the two countries, minimal economic relations and few consular issues, the treaty is still a legal document and Iran contends that the treaty forbids the US judiciary from seizing any Bank Markazi funds.
The United States last October announced it would withdraw from the treaty, but no one disputes that the treaty was in effect when the US seized the assets Iran is seeking to get back.
The case deals narrowly with the US seizure of $1.75 billion in Bank Markazi funds. Thus, even if Iran wins the suit, the decision could be so narrowly phrased that it will not apply to the seizure of an Iranian government-owned building on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan or the other seizures of Iranian state property that are underway.
More recently, Iran has filed another case in the World Court, contesting the legality of the US sanctions on Iran. In that case, Iran asked for a preliminary injunction barring the sanctions from being imposed while the court considers the substance of the case. The court refused to issue such an injunction, though it told the United States it must not impede Iran’s efforts to buy pharmaceuticals, medical gear and foodstuffs, the three categories that are exempt from US sanctions.