On November 5, 1982, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal decided a series of nine cases presenting issues of the greatest significance for the future course of that Tribunal’s work. The issue for decision in each case was the effect of a contractual choice-of-forum clause on the Tribunal’s own jurisdiction, an issue likely to arise in a great many cases. Squarely presented were issues pertaining to the relationship between public and private international law, the content of a state’s obligation under international law to maintain an adequate and effective system of local remedies, and the scope of “changed circumstances” as a ground for release from contractual obligations.

The “Hostages” case was surely one of the most remarkable ever to be presented to the World Court for a decision. And among its remarkable features, none is more striking than that prior to delivery of the Court’s Judgment the United States attempted to rescue the hostages by force. This attempt to accomplish by force what the United States had sought to achieve through the judicial process raised profound issues regarding the relationship between the use of force and adjudication, the purpose and effect of interim measures of protection, and the role of the Court in the contemporary international order. This article will analyze these issues in the light of the Court’s treatment of the rescue attempt.