INTERNATIONAL LAW

(a) The court distinguishes between an early phase that covered among other things the attack on the
embassy by the militants the overrunning of its premises the seizure of its inmates as hostages the
appropriation of its property and achieves and the conduct of the Iranian authorities in the face of
those occurrences and a subsequent phase that commenced when the occupation of the premises
was a reality. it was only in the latter phase that the activities of the demonstration could be
attributed to the Iranian government. Why was it not the case with regard to the first phase?

In the first phase, we can see the events that occurred from the attack of the militants on the US
embassy which was carried out on 4 November 1979
We can note that the Iranian government was a receiving state and thus as stipulated in article 22
of the 1961 convention that the receiving state is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps
to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any
disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity and so, in this case, yes the
Iranian government was under the obligation to take and execute all the preventive measures to
ensure that they at least bring to an end the attack or put in measures to stop the militants but
instead they did nothing to show their concern and thus their inaction constituted clear and
serious violation of the Iranians obligation to the united states under the provisions of article 22
and articles 24 25 26 27 and 29 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic rights, however, does
not conclude that the Iranian government was connected to the attack by the militants.
The court also made conclusions that the Iranian government was fully aware of their obligations
under the convention in force to take appropriate steps to protect the premise of the Us embassy
and had the means at their disposal to perform their obligations hence they completely failed to
comply with these obligations which I agree with it but in line with the connection of the attack
on the embassy, I find no connection with the facts above to say Iran was connected with it and
so in this case, since there was no suggestion made that the militants when they were executing
their attack on the embassy had any form of official status as recognized agents or organs of the
Iranian government hence it was difficult to link the attacks with the Iranian government and it
would only put the connection to the Iranian government if in deed the militants claimed to be
working or doing the attack on behalf of the state.
When attacks were made by demonstrators on the Iranian consulates in Tabriz and shiraz the
Iranian authorities took steps to clear them of the demonstrators but on the other hand, the
Iranian government took no step or action to prevent the attack of Nov 5th, 1979 hence failing to
restore the consulates to the united states unlike when the attacks were made on the Iraqi
consulates where the government was quick and steps were taken to prevent the invasion so this
is where the activities of the demonstrators could be attributed to the Iranian government

(b)how could Iran violate its obligations under international law during the first phase of
the assault on the embassy if the Iranian government was not internationally responsible
for the acts of the demonstrators
In this first phase, we can see that Iran violated its obligations under international law in that it
did not take any steps to prevent and protect the embassy from the attack. the attack was an
operation that was done for a period of over three hours without any body of the police, any
military unit, or any Iranian official intervening to try to stop or impede it from being carried
through to its completion.
The Court's recent finding that the United States Embassy attack on November 4, 1979, and the
subsequent attacks on the Iranian consulates in Tabriz and Shiraz, cannot be attributed to the
Iranian State as a whole, does not absolve Iran of responsibility for those attacks because its
behavior violated its obligations under international law. By several clauses of the Vienna
Conventions of 1961 and 1963, Iran was required, as a receiving State, to take adequate
measures to secure the protection of the United States Embassy and Consulates, their staffs, their
archives, their means of communication, and the documents they hold.
The requirement that a receiving State upholds the inviolability of a diplomatic mission's
archives and records is outlined in Article 24, which states that they must be "inviolable at any
time and wherever they may be. Full facilities must be "accorded for the performance of the
functions of the mission," "ensure to all members of the mission freedom of movement and
travel in its territory," and "permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for
all official purposes," according to Articles 25 and 26 of the UN Charter. Similar clauses
covering the privileges and immunities of consular missions and their staff can be found in the
1963 Convention
The events of the attack on the embassy show that the Iranian government completely failed to
take any "necessary precautions" to defend the American mission's facilities, personnel, and
archives against terrorist attacks, as well as to take any measures to stop the attack in its tracks.
They also demonstrate that on November 5, 1979, the Iranian government failed to take the
necessary precautions to ensure the safety of the American consulates in Tabriz and Shiraz.
(c)why did the court conclude that Iran was internationally responsible for the activities
that took place during the second phase? which provision in the ILCs articles on state
responsibility is of relevance
The court concluded that Iran was internationally responsible for the activities that took place
during the 2nd phase because of various reasons.
According to international regulations, the Iranian Government was duty bound to safeguard
the life and property of foreign nationals it failed in putting in measures to even compel the
militants to withdraw from the attack and prevent further damage as it had also failed in the first
phase to prevent such attacks
When the religious leader of Ayatollah Khomeini himself made crystal clear the endorsement by
the State both of the take-over of the Embassy and Consulates of the detention of the Embassy
staff as hostages he asserted that the American Embassy was center the of espionage and
conspiracy" and that "those people who hatched plots against their Islamic movement in that
place would not enjoy international diplomatic respect". He further went ahead to declare that the
premises of the Embassy and the hostages would remain as they were until the United States had
handed over the former Shah for trial and returned his property to Iran.
The statement the Ayatollah made qualified only to the extent of requesting the militants holding
the hostages to "hand over the blacks and the women, if it is proven that they did not spy, to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs so that they may be immediately expelled from Iran". As to the rest
of the hostages, he made the Iranian Government's intentions all too clear:
Secondly, the court had ordered the Iranian government on 15 December 1979 indicating
provisional measures, which called for the immediate restoration of the Embassy to the United
States and the release of the hostages, and which was publicly rejected by the Minister for
Foreign Affairs. This was later on the following day ignored by all Iranian authorities
Thirdly the Iranian authorities’ inaction in taking any steps towards the attack and hence
allowing the continuation of the subjection of the premises of the United States Embassy to
occupation by militants of the Embassy staff to detention as hostages, clearly gave rise to
repeated and multiple breaches of the applicable provisions of the Vienna Convention even more
serious than those which arose from their failure to take any steps to prevent the attacks on the
inviolability of these premises and staff.
This continuation the of breach of its obligation of the Iranian government which was a receiving
state and hence was forbidden to carry out some things on the sending state
Also when in the letters by the Iranian foreign affairs minister where he blamed the US
government for various criminal actions against their government it was clear that he was trying
to say that they were revenging or taking advantage of the actions and way paying back but the
court said that this issue had to be proved to establish whether it was true or not. Also when
called upon to appear in court the minister did not show up

(II) which provision in the ILCs articles on state responsibility is of relevance

In my analysis of the facts above am of the view that there are two provisions of the ILCs on
state responsibility suited for the conduct of the Iranian government from the second phase above
Article 8 deals with the Conduct directed or controlled by a State
Which says that the conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State
under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of,
or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct.
So in this case when the militants’ actions were declared to have a connection with the Iranian
government it was no dought that perhaps their actions were being controlled by the government
or the state.
Further, it was now evident that the militants were acting on behalf of the government due to the
available evidence which proved that the inactiveness of the Iranian government in taking action
against the militants’ attack on the embassy
Article 11 deals with the Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own
And it states that the Conduct which is not attributable to a State under the preceding articles
shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent
that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own.