According to this objection, Iran's claims brought under the provisions of the Treaty of Amity that are predicated on "third country measures" fall outside the Court's jurisdiction which, according to the Applicant, is based on Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the bilateral Treaty of Amity concluded by the Parties in 1955.
The United States specified that its objection on "third country measures" concerns three categories of measures, namely those relating to
(i) the reimposition of certain sanctions provisions under United States statutes that had been waived pursuant to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (these provisions concern sanctions against non-US persons that engage in trade with Iran or Iranian companies and nationals);
(ii) the reinstatement, through issuance of Executive Order 13846, of certain sanctions authorities that were previously terminated (they concern sanctions against non-US persons that engage in trade with Iran or Iranian companies and nationals); and
(iii) the relisting of certain persons on the Department of the Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (or SDN List, which identifies natural or legal persons from specially designated countries or subject to a block on assets).
Iran, in its Application, claims that these measures constitute breaches of the United States' obligations under Article IV, paragraph 1, Article VII, paragraph 1, Article VIII, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article IX, paragraph 2, and Article X, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Amity. In its Memorial, Iran further expands this list of allegedly breached obligations by adding those under Article IV, paragraph 2, and Article IX, paragraph 3, of the Treaty of Amity.
However, the approach taken by the Court today radically departs from the one it adopted in 1996 when it had to determine its jurisdiction ratione materiae under the same Treaty between the same Parties5. In that case, Iran alleged that the acts complained of breached the United States' obligations under Article I, Article IV, paragraph 1, and Article X, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Amity and the Court, therefore, had jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain the case6. The United States, for its part, argued that Iran's claims bore no relation to the Treaty of Amity7.
Get access to the most extensive & reliable source of information in arbitrationREQUEST A FREE TRIAL
Already registered ?