ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE 1955 TREATY OF AMITY,

ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS

(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
Preliminary Opinion by Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf of Somalia

Table of Content

I. Factual Background of Iran and USA Page 1

II. Analysis Page 2

III. Conclusion Page 2

I. Introduction
The treaty of amity was signed between USA and Iran in 1955, Tehran to to emphasize their
cordial relationship and encourage reciprocal trade, investment, and economic
interdependence. The treaty was brought into action only in 1957. The violations of the
treaty started emerging only after 22 years(1979) of being in force as a result of Iranian
Revolution. The Iranian revolution can be traced back to be the root cause of emerging
conflicts between USA and Iran because Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took power in Iran
and turned Iran from Pro-West Monarchy to Anti- West Islamic Theocracy. As a result
series of consequences follow like the Iran Hostage Crisis, Iran- Iraq war where USA was
in favor of Iraq, the Beirut Barracks Bombing, and the repeated clashes eventually lead
Iran to conduct Ballistic missile test raising security concerns globally. The nuclear missile test
was dangerous enough for PS5 + 2 countries to negotiate a nuclear deal also known as JCPOA.
In 2018, however, the US withdrew from the deal and applied “maximum pressure” and
additional sanctions on Iran. As a result Iran turned to the International Court of Justice to
assess the alleged violations of the 1955 treaty of Amity. To which US replies by objecting that
the refute was about JCPOA and not Treaty of Amity.
 II. Analysis

Before US pulled out from JCPOA in 2018, the timeline illustrates that in 2017 US signed
executive order banning banning nations from seven Muslim majority nations including Iran
from entering US for 90 days. Hence violating Article II of Treaty of Amity even before
withdrawing from JCPOA. This could suggest that Iran’s main motive for filling the case is
itself related exclusively to the Treaty of Amity and not JCPOA. In addition to withdrawable
from JCPOA, the United States has imposed sanctions on designated individuals and
institutions for various purposes, including human rights abuses, that were not linked under
the JCPOA.

Iran responded to the 90 day ban motion by conducting a missile test in 2017 itself when
JCPOA was still active, resulting in raising concerns about the future of Iran’s Nuclear deal.
This angered response of Iranian government for the ban of muslim majorit could have been
the sole cause of US’s withdrawle from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Moreover, in
2016, Iran had twice violated the JCPOA’s heavy-water stockpile limits. Again risking the
future of the Nuclear deal. Therefore, it was inevitable for the US to stick to the deal with
increasing threats again leading to demolish JCPOA. Under the same article XX paragraph 1b,
that the treaty does not apply to regulating the measure relating to fissionable materials.
However, If Iran chooses to involve itself for the sanctions imposed on Iran because of
JCPOA, it will therefore, violate article XX , hence defeating the purpose of filing the case.
And lastly the sanctions imposed by the US also impact oil exports via cargo ships, once again
violating article X paragraph 1 of treaty of Amity.

III. Conclusion

This factual evidence suggests that the treaty of amity has been violated on multiple occasions
because of the “maximum pressure” strategy of the US after it withdrew from JCPOA. and
the objection of US (i.e,objecting that the refute was about JCPOA and not Treaty of Amity. )
could be proved baseless. However, the above evidence also suggests that Iran has equally
violated the treaty and the consequences and resolution should be in the favor of both parties.
The additional sanctions are a threat to Iranians’ access to essential medicine and their right to
health is being negatively impacted, and may well worsen if the situation remains unchanged,
thereby threatening the health of millions of Iranians. Regardless pulling away from both
JCPOA and Treaty of Amity, USA cannot interfere with the healthcare and human rights of
Iran hence, the claims made by Iran about the violation of the treaty are effective in so far as
they relate to the importation and purchase of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as
medicines and medical devices; and foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; as well as goods
and services required for the safety of civil aviation, such as spare parts, equipment and
associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and safety-related
inspections) necessary for civil aircraft. Anything beyond that would be unjust to the US, since
Iran has equal share of violating not just one but two(treaty of amity and JCPOA) treaties.