Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:20:10.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

International Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Get access

Extract

In a cable dated July 9, 1951, from Foreign Minister Bagher Kazemi to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Iran withdrew its acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. Referring specifically to the Court's order on interim measures (issued on July 5), the cable stated that the Court “had shaken the confidence” which the Iranian government and people had always had in international justice. The Iranian note made four specific points: first, the Iranian declaration (ratified on September 19, 1932) accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, and extended to the International Court of Justice under the latter's Statute, extended such jurisdiction only to disputes relating to the application of treaties and conventions. The Declaration excluded questions within the exclusive jurisdiction of Iran. Agreements or contracts under private and domestic law (such as concessions to work certain sources of natural wealth, commercial matters, and matters relating to Iran's sovereign rights) “were and still are excluded” from compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Second, the note pointed out that the concession granted the “former Anglo-Iranian Oil Company” in 1933 did not mention the United Kingdom in any capacity and reserved no rights or powers to that government.

Type
International Organizations: Summary of Activities: I. United Nations
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a summary of earlier developments in the Anglo-Iranian oil case, seeInternational Organization, V, p. 588.

2 United Nations, Bulletin, XI, p. 120Google Scholar.

3 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case, Order of August 22, 1951: ICJ Reports 1951, p. 106Google Scholar.

4 For a summary of earlier developments in the Ambatielos case, see International Organizetion, V, p. 591.

5 Ambatielos case, Order of July 30, 1951: ICJ Reports 1951, p. 103Google Scholar.

6 ICJ Communiqué 51/29, September 22, 1951.

7 For summaries of previous developments in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, see International Organization, III, p. 703; IV, p. 123; and V, p. 364.

8 This background material is taken from an article appearing in the New York Times, September 24, 1951.

9 New York Times, September 26, 1951.

10 ICJ Communiqué 51/35, October 1, 1951.