Public international law

Case concerning United States diplomatic and consular staff in

Tehran

United States v Iran1

Facts

On the 29th of November 1979 the United States of America had instituted
proceedings against Iran in a case arising out of the situation at its Embassy in
Tehran and Consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz, and the seizure and detention as
hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran and two other citizens of the
United States. The United States at the same time requested the indication of
provisional measures, the Court, by unanimous Order of 15 December 1979,
indicated pending final judgment that the Embassy should immediately be given
back and the hostages released.

The United States embassy was attacked on the 4 th of November 1979 by Muslim
militants, who overran its premises, seized hostages, and appropriated its property.
The militants weren’t acting on behalf of the Iranian government. However the
Iranian State which as the state to which the mission was accredited was under the
obligation to take appropriate steps to protect the United States Embassy. They
Iranian State did nothing to prevent the attack or to stop it before it reached its
completion or instructed the militants to withdraw from the premises and to release
the hostages. The Iranian government remained silent.

The procedure then continued in accordance with the Statute and Rules of Court.
The United States filed a memorial and the court held public hearings on the 18, 19
and 20 March 1980. During the hearings the United States in its final submissions
requested it to adjudge and declare, inter alia that the Iranian government had
violated its international legal obligations to the United States and must ensure the
immediate release of the hostages, afford the United States diplomatic and consular
personal the protection and immunities to which they were entitled and provided to
them with facilities to leave Iran; submit the persons responsible for the crimes
1 United States v Iran order 12 v 81 ICJ 1981
committed to the competent Iranian authorities for prosecution or extradite them to
the United States and pay the United States reparation in a sum subsequently
determined by the Court.

Another issue brought before the Court by the United States was that Iran failed to
appear before it and put forward its arguments. The absence of Iran from the
proceedings brought into operation Article 53 of the Statutes, under which the Court
is required, before finding in the applicants favour, to satisfy itself that the allegations
of fact on which the claim is based are well founded.

Judgment

In its judgment the Court decided

(1) That Iran has violated and is still violating obligations owed by it to the United
States.
(2) That these violations engage in Iran’s responsibility.
(3) That the government of Iran must immediately release the United States
nationals held as hostages and place the premises of the embassy in the
hands of the protecting power.
(4) That no member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be kept
in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate in
them as a witness.
(5) That Iran is under an obligation to make reparation for the injury caused to the
United States.
(6) That the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the
parties shall be settled by the Court.

The court held that Iran violated its obligations to the United States under Articles 22
(2), 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations of
Article 5 and 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on consular Relations, and of Article
11(4) of the 1955 Treaty. The Iranian authorities were fully aware of their obligations
under the conventions in force and also of the urgent need for action on their part,
that they had the means at their disposal to perform their obligations, but that they
completely failed.

The court finds that Iran, by committing successive and continuing breaches of the
obligations laid upon it by the Vienna Convention of 1961 and 1963, the 1955 treaty
and the applicable rules of general international law has incurred responsibility
towards the United States. As a consequence, there is an obligation on the part of
the Iranian state to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States.

The court decided that the Islamic republic of Iran by its conduct, violated in several
respects and is still violating, obligations owed by it to the United States under
international conventions in force between the two countries as well as under long
established rules of general international law. The court further held that Iran must
immediately take all steps to redress the situation resulting from the events of 4
November 1979.

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo

Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda2

Facts

Uganda contends that on 11 August 1998 Congolese soldiers stormed the Ugandan
Embassy in Kinshasa threatened the ambassador and other diplomats, demanding
the release of certain Rwandan nationals. According to Uganda the Congolese
soldiers also stole money found in chancery. Uganda alleges that despite protest by
the Ugandan Embassy officials the Congolese government took no action. Uganda
further asserts that prior to their evacuation from the DRC on 20 august 1998 17
Ugandan nationals and Ugandan diplomats were likewise subjected to inhumane
treatment by FAC troops stationed at Ndjili International Airport.

Issue

Whether DRC troops acted within the context of international law and whether their
occupation was lawful.

Uganda claims that in September 1998 following the evacuation of the remaining
Ugandan diplomats from the DRC, DRC troops forcibly seized the Ugandan
chancery and the official residence of the Ugandan ambassador in Kinshasa.

2 Democratic Republic of Congo v Uganda ICJ No 116 2005

Uganda maintains that the Congolese troops stole property from the premises,
including four embassy vehicles. According to Uganda, on 23 November 1998 FAC
troops again forcibly entered the Ugandan chancery and the official residence of the
Ugandan ambassador in Kinshasa and stole property including embassy furniture,
household and personal effects belonging to the ambassador and to other diplomatic
staff. They also alleged that the Congolese troops occupied the chancery and the
official residence of the Ugandan Ambassador.

Uganda alleges that that the Congolese government permitted WNBF commander
Taban Amin to occupy the Ugandan Embassy in Kinshasa and establish his official
headquarters and residence at those facilities.

Judgment

The court held that the armed activities of Uganda in the democratic republic of
Congo between august 1998 and June 2008 violated the international prohibition
against aggressive use of force as well as international human and international
humanitarian law. It also held that as regards to the attacks on Uganda’s diplomatic
premises in Kinshasa, the DRC has breached its obligations under Article 22 of the
Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations.

Acts of maltreatment by DRC forces of persons within the Ugandan Embassy were
necessarily consequential upon a breach of the inviolability of the Embassy premises
prohibited by Article 22 of the Vienna Convention diplomatic relations. This is true
regardless of whether the persons were or were not nationals of Uganda or Ugandan
diplomats. In so far as the persons attacked were in fact diplomats, the DRC further
breached its obligation under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention.

The court ruled in favour of Uganda on its counter claim that the DRC violated
obligations owed to Uganda under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations.
The court ordered Uganda to pay reparations.