On 14 June 2016, Iran lodged an application against the United States in the
Case concerning Certain Iranian Assets before the ICJ. The case was filed shortly after the US
Supreme Court’s judgment in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, confirming that victims of terrorist
attacks, in which Iran was allegedly involved, may execute domestic judgments against property
of Iran’s central bank. Over the course of the last decades, the US has gradually opened its
courts for tort claims of terrorism victims against Iran by various legislative and executive acts.
Iran now argues that those measures violate provisions of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic
Relations, and Consular Rights.
This article discusses the pressing question Iran’s application raises for contemporary
international law: To what extent may anti-terrorism measures prevail over State immunity
and treatment standards? To answer the question, this contribution provides an analysis of
legal issues raised in the application and discusses potential arguments by both States. By
doing so, it highlights the most controversial questions the ICJ is requested to resolve, such as
the legal validity of a terrorism exception to State immunity, the content of contemporary
treatment standards for foreign investments, and their relevance in light of unilateral measures
against State-owned corporations.
«On 14 June 2016, Iran lodged an application against the United States in the
Case concerning Certain Iranian Assets before the ICJ. The case was filed shortly after the US
Supreme Court’s judgment in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, confirming that victims of terrorist
attacks, in which Iran was allegedly involved, may execute domestic judgments against property
of Iran’s central bank. Over the course of the last decades, the US has gradually opened its
courts for tort claims of terrorism vic...
»