Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice

Not an official document

CCDRFU CHANNEL CASE (MERITS)

Judgment of 9 April11949

The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Brit-
ain and Northern Ireland-All'bania) arose frc~mincidents that
occurred On October 221141946, in the C : O ~ ~Strait:U two
British destroyers struck mines in Albanian waters and suf-
fered damage, including serious loss of life. 'fie United
Kingdom first seized the Security Counci,l of the United
Nations which, by a Resoluidon of April 9th, 1947, recom-
mended the Governmelltsto submit the to the
Court. The United Kingdbm accordingly submitted an
Application which, after an objection to its Hdmissibility had
been raised by Albania, was the subject of a Judgment, dated
March 25th, 1948, in whic]blthe Court dec.1-d that it pas-
sessed jurisdiction, onthe same day the m i e s con-
clu&d a Special Agreement asking the C o w to give judg-
ment on the following questions:
1. ISAlbania responsibjk for the e ~ p l ~ ~and i~is there
n~,
a duty to pay compensation'?
2. Has the United Kin;ydom violated international law
by the acts of its Navy in Alltbanian waters, first on the day on
which the explosions occunred and, secondly, 0x1 November
12th and 13th, 1946, when it undertook a sweep of the Strait?
In its Judgment the C o w declared on the first question, by
11 vo&s against 5 , that Albania responsible.
1, n:gard to the second question, it deck& by 14 votes
2 that the united ~ i did not~,,idate*1banian
~ d ~ ~
on october 22nd; but it declaaed unanimously
that it .violatedthat sovereigntyon ~~~~~h~ 12th/13th, and
that this declaration, in itself, constituted appropriate satis-
faction.
The facts are as On October 22nd* 1946*two
British cruisers and two desnoyers, coming from the s o u t h s
entered the North Corfu Strait. The channel they were fol-
lowing:, which was in Albanian waters, was regarded as safe:
it had been swept in 1944 and check-swept in 1945. One of
the destroyers, the Saumarez, when off Saranda, struck a
mine md was gravely damaged. The other 'lestroyer, the Vo-
lage, was sent to her assistanceand, while towing her, struck
another mine and was also seriously damaged: Forty-five
British officers and sailors lost their lives, and forty-two 0th-
ers were ~ ~ ~ n d e d .

Continued on next page

 An incident had already occurred in these waters on May
15th, 1946: an Albanian battery had fired in the direction of
two British cruisers. The United Kingdom Government had
protested, stating that innocent passage through straits is a
right recognized by international law; the Albanian Govern-
ment had replied that foreign warships and merchant vessels
had no right to pass through Albanian temtorial waters with-
out prior authorisation;and on August 2nd, 1946, the United
Kingdom Government had replied that if, in the future, fire
was opened on a British warship passing h u g h the chan-
nel, the fire would be returned. Finally, on September 21st,
1946, the Admiralty in London had cabled to the British
Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean to the following
effect: "Establishment of diplomatic relations with Albania
is again under consideration by His Majes~y'sGovernment
who wish to know whether the Albanian Giovernment have
learnt to behave themselves. Information is requested
whether any ships under your command have passed through
the North Corfu Strait since August and, if not, whether you
intend them to do so shortly."
After the explosions on October 22nd. tlhe United King-
dom Government sent a Note to Tirana annaluncing its inten-
tion to sweep the Corfu Channel shortly. The reply was that
this consent would not be given unless the operation in ques-
tion took place outside Albanian temtorial waters and that
any sweep undertaken in those waters would be a violation of
Albania's sovereignty.
The sweep effected by the British Navy took place on
November 12th/13th1946, in Albanian territorial waters and
within the limits of the channel previously swept. Wenty-
two moored mines were cut; they were mines of the German
GY type.
The first question put by the Special Agreement is that of
Albania's responsibility, under internation.al law, for the
explosions on October 22nd, 1946.
The Court finds, in the first place, that the explosions were
caused by mines belonging to the minefielcl discovered on
November 13th. It is not, indeed, contested that this mine-
field had been recently laid; it was in the channel, which had
been previously swept and check-swept and could be
regarded as safe, that the explosions had taken place. The
nature of the damage shows that it was due to mines of the
same type as those swept on November 13th. finally, the the-
ory that the mines discovered on November 1.3thmight have
been laid after the explosionson October 22nd is too improb-
able to be accepted.
In these circumstancesthe question arises what is the legal
basis of Albania's responsibility? The Court does not feel
that it need pay serious attention to the suggestion that Alba-
nia herself laid the mines: that suggestion WiB only put for-
ward pro memoria, without evidence in support, and could
not be reconciled with the undisputed fact that, on the whole
Albanian littoral, there are only a few launches and motor
boats. But the United Kingdom also alleged .the connivance
of Albania: that the minelaying had been canied out by two
Yugoslav warships by the request of Albania, or with her
acquiescence. The Court finds that this collusion has not
been proved. A charge of such exceptional gravity against a
State would =quire a degree of certainty that has not been
reached here, and the origin of the mines laid in Albanian ter-
ritorial waters remains a matter for conjecture.
The United Kingdom also argued that, whoever might be
the authors of the m~inelaying,it could not have been effected
without Albania's kaowledge. W e , the mere fact that mines
were laid in Albanian waters neither involves prima facie
responsibility nor does it shift the burden of proof. On the
other hand, the exclusive control exercised by a State within
its frontiers may make it impossible to furnish direct proof of
facts which would involve its responsibility in case of a vio-
lation of international law. The State which is the victim
must, in that case, be allowed a more liberal recourse to infer-
ences of fact and circumstantial evidence; such indirect evi-
dence must be regarded as of especial weight when based on
a series of facts, linked together and leading logically to a
single conclusion.
In the present case two series of facts, which corroborate
one another, have tc, be considered.
The first relates to the Albanian Government's attitude
before and after the catastrophe. The laying of the mines took
place in a period in which It had shown its intention to keep a
jealous watch on its territorial waters and in which it was
requiring prior authorisation before they were entered, this
vigilance sometimes going so far as to involve the use of
force: all of which render the assertion of ignorance a priori
improbable. Moreover, when the Albanian Government had
become fully aware of the existence of a minefield, it pro-
tested strongly agai:nst the activity of the British Fleet, but
not against the laying of the mines, though this act, if
effected without her consent, would have been a very serious
violation of her sov,ereignty; she did not notify shipping of
the existence of the minefield, as would be required by inter-
national law; and she did not undertake any of the measures
of judicial investigation which would seem to be incumbent
on her in such a case. Such an attitude could only be
explained if the Albanian Government, while knowing of the
minelaying, desirecl the circumstances in which it was
effected to remain se:cret.
The second series of facts relates to the possibility of
observing the minellaying from the Albanian coast. Geo-
graphically, the channel is easily watched: it is dominated by
heights offering excellent observation points, and it runs
close to the coast (the nearest mine was 500 m. from the
shore). The methodiical and well-thought-out laying of the
mines compelled the minelayers to remain from two to two-
and-a-half hours in the waters between Cape Kiephali and the
St. George's Monastery. In regard to that point, the naval
experts appointed by the Court reported, after enquiry and
investigation on the spot, that they considered it to be indis-
putable that, if a normal look-out was kept at Cape Kiephali,
Denta Point, and St. George's Monastery, and if the look-
outs were equipped with binoculars, under normal weather
conditions for this area, the mine-laying operations must
have been noticed by these coastguards. The existence of a
look-out post at Dents Point was not established; but the
Court, basing itself on the declarations of the Albanian Gov-
ernment that lock-0u.t posts were stationed at other points,
refers to the followingconclusions in the experts' report: that
in the case of minelaying 1) from the North towards the
South, the minelayers would have been seen from Cape
Kiephali; if from Sou.thtowards the North, they would have
been seen from Cape Kiephali and St. George's Monastery.
From all the facts iind observations mentioned above, the
Court draws the conclusion that the laying of the minefield
could not have been accomplished without the knowledge of
Albania. As regards the obligations resulting for her from
this knowledge, they are not disputed. It was her duty to
notify shipping and especially to warn the ships proceeding
through the Strait on October 22nd of the danger to which
they were exposed. In fact, nothing was attempted by Alba-
nia to prevent the disaster, and these grave onnissions involve
her international responsibility.
The Special Agreement asks the Court to say whether, on
this ground, there is "any duty" for Albania "to pay com-
pensation" to the United Kingdom. This text gave rise to cer-
tain doubts: could the Court not only decide on the principle
of compensation but also rlssess the amollnt? The Court
answered in the affirmative ;and, by a speciial Order, it has
fixed time-limits to enable the Parties to submit their views to
it on this subject.
The Court then goes on to the second question in the Spe-
cial Agreement: Did the United Kingdom violate Albanian
sovereignty on October 2;!nd, 1946, or on November
12th113th. 1946?
The Albanian claim to make the passage of ships condi-
tional on a prior authorisati.on conflicts with the generally
admitted principle that States, in time of peace, have a right
to send their warships through straits used for international
navigation between two part!; of the high seas, provided that
the passage is innocent. The (CorfuStrait belongs geographi-
cally to this category, even though it is on~lyof secondary
importance (in the sense tlb~atit is not a necessary route
between two parts of the high seas) and inespective of the
volume of traffic passing through it. A fiict of particular
importance is that it constitutes a frontier between Albania
and Greece, and that a part of the strait is wholly within the
territorialwaters of those States. It is a fact that the two States
did not maintain normal relations, Greece hiving made terri-
torial claims precisely with :regard to a part of the coast bor-
dering the strait. However, the Court is of q,inion that Alba-
nia would have been justified in view of these exceptional
circumstances, in issuing regulations in respect of the pas-
sage, but not in prohibiting s.11chpassage or in subjecting it to
the requirement of special a~~thorisation.
Albania has denied that the passage on October 22 was
innocent. She alleges that it was a political mission and that
the methods employed-the number of shiips, their forma-
tion, armament, manoeuvres, etc.-showed an intention to
intimidate. The Court examined the different Albanian con-
tentions so far as they appeared relevant. Its conclusion is
that the passage was innocent both in its principle, since it
was designed to affirm a right which had been unjustly
denied, and in its methods of execution, which were not
unreasonable in view of the firing from the Albanian battery
on May 15th.
As negards the operation on November 12th/13th, it was
executed contrary to the clearly expressed wish of the Alba-
nian G~vernment;it did not have the consent of the interna-
tional mine clearance organizations; it could not be justified
as the exercise of the right of innocent passage. The United
Kingdom has stated that its object was to secure the mines as
quickly as possible for fear lest they should be taken away by
the authors of the minelaying or by the Albanian authorities:
this was presented either as a new and special application of
the theory of intervention, by means of which the intervening
State was acting to facilitate the task of the international tri-
bunal, or as a method of self-protection or self-help. The
Court cannot accept these lines of defence. It can only regard
the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a pol-
icy of force which cannot find a place in international law. As
regards the notion of self-help, the Court iis also unable to
accept it: between independent States the respect for territo-
rial sovereignty is an essential foundation for international
relations. Certainly, the Court recognises the Albanian Gov-
ernment's complete failure to carry out its duties after the
explosions and the dilatory nature of its diplomatic Notes as
extenuating circumstances for the action of the United King-
dom. But, to ensure respect for international law, of which it
is the organ, the Court must declare that the action of the Brit-
ish Navy constituted a violation of Albanian sovereignty.
This declaration is in accordance with the request made by
Albania through her counsel and is in itself appropriate
satisfa~ction.
To the Judgment of the Court there are attached one decla-
ration and the dissenting opinions of Judges Alvarez, Winiar-
ski, Zoricic, Badawi Pasha, Krylov and Azevedo, and also
that of'Dr. Ecer, Judge ad hoc.
 Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR
STAFF IN TEHRAN
Judgment of 24 May 1980
In its Judgment in the case concerning Ul~itedStates Dip-
lomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, the Court decided (1)
that Iran has violated and is still violating albligations owed
by it to the United States; (2) that these viiolations engage
Iran's responsibility; (3) that the Govenuncznt of Iran must
immediately release the United States natiollals held as hos-
tages and place the premises of the em bass!^ in the hands of
the protecting power; (4) that no member of the United States
diplomatic or consular staff may be kept in1 Iran to be sub-
jected 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; and (6)
that the form and amount of such re pa ratio^^, failing agree-
ment between the parties, shall be settled by the Court. (The
full text of the operative paragraph is reproducedbelow.)
These decisions were adopted by large majorities: (1) and
(2)- 13votes a 2; (3) and (4)-unanimousl:y; (5)- 12 votes
to 3; (6)- 14 votes to 1 (the votes are re4:orde.d by name
below).
A separate opinion was appended to the Judgment by
Judge Lachs, who voted against operative paragraph 5. Dis-
senting opinions were appended by Judge Morozov, who
voted against parag~aphs1,2,5 and 6, and by Judge Tarazi,
who voted against paragraphs 1 , 2 and 5.
Procedure before the Court
(paras. 1-10)
In its Judgment, the Court recalls that on 29 November
1979the United Statesof America had institutedproceedings
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 more citizens of the United
States. The United Eitates having at the same time requested
the indication of provisional measures, the Court, by a unan-
imous Order of 15 Ebcember 1979, indicated, pending final
judgment, that the Embassy should immediately be given
back and the hostagc:~released (see Press Communiqu6 No.
8011).
The procedure then continued in accordance with the Stat-
ute and Rules of Court. The United States filed a Memorial,
and on 18, 19 and 3X)March 1980 the Court held a public
hearing at the close of which the United States, in its final
submissions, requested it to adjudge and declare, inter alia,
that the Iranian Government had violated its international
legd obligations to the United States and must: ensure the
immediate release of the hostages; afford the United States
diplomatic and consular personnel the protection and immu-
nities to which they -wereentitled (including immunity from
Continued on next page
criminal jurisdiction) and provide them with facilities to
leave Iran; submit the penons respnsibbe for the crimes
committed to the competent Iranian authoriities for prosecu-
tion, or extradite them to lhe United States; and pay the
United States reparation, in a sum to be subsequently deter-
mined by the Court.
Iran took no part in the prtneedings. It neither filed plead-
ings nor was represented at the hearing, anti no submissions
were therefore presented on its behalf. Its position was how-
ever defined in two letters addressed to the Cow. by its Min-
ister for Foreign Affairs on !) December 19'79 an.d 16 March
1980respectively. In these fte Minister maintained inter alia
that the Court could not and should not take cognizance of the
case.
The Facts
(paras. 11-32)
The Court expresses regrc:t that Iran did not appear before
it to put forward its argumexits. The absenw,of Iran from the
proceedings brought into operation Article t53 of the Statute,
under which the Court is required, before finding in the
Applicant's favour, to satisfy itself that the allegationsof fact
on which the claim is based <arewell founded.
In that respect the Court observes that it has had available
to it, in the documents presented by the United States, a mas-
sive body of information f i ~ mvarious sources, including
numerous official statements of both lrariian and United
States authorities. This information, the Court notes, is
wholly concordant as to the rnain facts and has all been com-
municated to Iran without evoking any denial. l'he Court is
accordingly satisfied that tht: allegationsof fact on which the
United States based its claim were weH founded.
Admissibility
(paras. 3 3 4 l )
Under the settledjurisprutience of the Cow, it is bound, in
applying Article 53 of its Statute, to investigate, on its own
initiative, any preliminary question of admissibility or juris-
diction that may arise.
On the subject of admissil>ility,the Court, aftel: examining
the considerations put forw;ard in the two betters from Iran,
finds that they do not disclost: any ground far concluding that
it could not or should not de:d with the case. Neither does it
find any incompatibility with the continuance of judicial pro-
ceedings before the Court in the establishment by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the agreement
of both States, of a Commission given a mandate to under-
take a fact-finding mission to Iran, hear Iran's grievances and
facilitate the solution of the crisis between the two countries.
Jurisdiction
(paras. 45-55)
Four instruments having teen cited by the United States as
bases for the Court's jurisdic:tion to deal wiith its claims, the
Court finds that three, nameily the Optional Protmols to the
two Vienna Conventions of 11961 and 1963 ton, respectively,
Diplomatic and Consular Relations, and the 1955 lfeaty of
Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between
the United States and Iran, do in fact provide such founda-
tions.
The Court, however, doas not find it necessary in the
present Judgment to enter into the question whether Article
13 of the fourth instrument so cited, namely the 1973 Con-
vention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against
Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic
Agents, provides a basis for the exercise of its jurisdiction
with n:spect to the United States' claims thereunder.
MERITS: Attributability to the Iranian State of the acts com-
plained of, and violation by Iran of certain obligations
(paras. 56-94)
The Court has also, under Article 53 of its Statute, to sat-
isfy itself that the claims of the Applicant are well founded in
law. To this end, it considers the acts complained of in order
to determine how far, legally, they may be attributed to the
Iranian State (as distinct from the occupiers of the Embassy)
and whether they are compatible or incompatible with Iran's
obligationsunder treaties in force or other applicable rules of
international law.
(a) The events of 4 November 1979
(paras.5 M 8 )
The first phase of the events underlying the Applicant's
claims covers the armed attack on the United States Embassy
carried out on 4 November 1979by Muslim Student Follow-
ers of the Imam's Policy (further referred to as "the mili-
tants" in the Judgment), the overrunning of its premises, the
seizure of its inmates as hostages, the appropriation of its
property and archives, and the conduct of the Iranian author-
ities in the face of these occurrences.
The Court pints out that the conduct of the militants on
that occasion could be directly attributed to the Iranian State
only if it were established that they were in fact acting on its
behalf. The information before the Court did not suffice to
establish this with due certainty. However, the Iranian
State--which, as the State to which the mission was a c c d -
ited, was under obligation to take appropriate steps to protect
the Uinited States Embassy-did nothing to prevent the
attack, stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the
militants to withdraw from the premises anti release the hos-
tages. This inaction was in contrast with the conduct of the
Iranian authorities on several similar occasions at the same
period, when they had taken appropriate steps. It constituted,
the Court finds, a clear and serious violation of Iran's obliga-
tions to the United States under Articles 22 (2). 24,25,26,
27 am1 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, of Articles 5 and 36 of the 1963 Vienna Conven-
tion or~Consular Relations, and of Article 111(4) of the 1955
lfeaty. Further breaches of the 1963 Convention had been
involved in failure to protect the Consulates at Tabriz and
Shim.
The Court is therefore led to conclude that on 4 November
1979the Iranian authorities were fully aware of their obliga-
tions 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 com-
pletely failed to do so.
(b) Events since 4 November 1979
(paras. 69-79)
The second phase of the events underlying the United
States' claims comprises the whole series; of facts which
o c c m d following the occupation of the Embassy by the
militants. Though it was the duty of the Iranian Government
to take every appropriate step to end the infringement of the
inviolability of the Embassy premises and staff, and to offer
reparation for the damage, it did nothing of the kind. Instead,
expressions of approval were immediately heard from
numenous Iranian authorities. Ayatollah Khomeini himself
proclaimed the Iranian State's endorsement of both the sei-
zure of the premises and the detention of the hostages. He
descril~dthe Embassy as a "centre of espitwage", declared
that the hostages would (with some exceptions) remain
"under arrest" until the United States lhad returned the
former Shah and his property to Iran, and foshade all negotia-
tion with the United States on the subject. Once organs of the
Iranian State had thus given approval to the acts complained
of and decided to perpetuate them as a meams of pressure on
the United States, those acts were transform.edinto acts of the
Iranian State: the militants became agents of that State,
which itself became internationally responsible for their acts.
During the six months which ensued, the situation underwent
no material change: the Court's Order of 19 December 1979
was publicly rejected by Iran, while the Ayatollah declared
that the detention of the hostages would c:ontinue until the
new Iranian parliament had taken a decision as to their fate.
The Iranian authorities' decision to continue the subjec-
tion of the Embassy to occupation, and of its staff to deten-
tion as hostages, gave rise to repeated and multiple breaches
of Iran's treaty obligations, additional to those already com-
mitted at the time of the seizure of the Emtbassy (1961 Con-
vention: Arts. 22,24,25,26,27 and 29; 1963 Convention:
inter alia, Art. 33; 1955Tkaty, Art. iI (4)).
With regard to the Charge d'affaires aid the two other
members of the United States mission who have been in the
Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 4 November 1979,
the Court finds that the Iranian authoritie:~have withheld
from them the protection and facilities necessary to allow
them to leave the Ministry in safety. Accordingly, it appears
to the Court that in their respect there have been breaches of
Articles 26 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention.
Taking note, furthermore, that various Iranian authorities
have threatened to have some of the hostages submitted to
trial before a court, or to compel them to Ixar witness, the
Court considers that, if put into effect, thal: intention would
constitute a breach of Article 31 of the same: Convention.
(c) tbssible existence of special circumstances
(paras. 80-89)
The Court considers that it should examine the question
whether the conduct of the Iranian Governmlent might be jus-
tified by the existence of special circumstances, for the Ira-
nian Mister for Foreign Affairs had alleged in his two let-
ters to the Court that the United States had canied out
criminal activities in Iran. The Court considers that, even if
these alleged activities could be consideredl as proven, they
would not constitute a defence to the United States' claims,
since diplomatic law provides the possibility of breaking off
diplomatic relations, or of declaring persona non grata
members of diplomatic or consular missions who may be car-
rying on illicit activities. The Court concludes that the Gov-
ernment of Iran had recourse to coercion against the United
States Embassy and its staff instead of making use of the nor-
mal means at its disposal.
(d) International responsibility
(paras. %92)
The Court finds that Iran, by committing successive and
continuing breaches of the obligations laid upon it by the
Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, the 1955'Reaty, and
the applicablerules of general international law, has incurred
responsibility towards the United States. A$;a consequence,
there is an obligation on the part of the Iranian State to make
reparation for the injury caused to the Unitt:d States. Since,
however, the breaches are still continuinr:, the form and
amount of such reparation cannot yet be deiirmined.
At the same time the Court considers it essential to reiter-
ate the observations it made in its Order 15 December
1979on the importance of the principles of international law
governing diplomatic and consular relations,. After stressing
the particular gravity of the case, arising out of the fact that it
108
is not any private individuals or p u p s that have set at naught
the inviolability of an embassy, but the very government of
the State to which the mission is accredited, the Court draws
the attention of the entire international community to the
imparable harm that may be caused by events of the kind
before the Court. Such events cannot fail to undermine a
carefully constructed edifice of law, the maintenance of
which is vital for the security and well-being of the interna-
tional community.
(e) United States operation in Iran on 24-25 April 1980
(paras. 93 amd 94)
Wlth regard to the operation undertaken in Iran by United
States military units on 24-25 April 1980,the Court says that
it cannot fail to express its concern. It feels bound to observe
that an operation undertaken in those circumstances, from
whatever motive, is of a kind calculated to undermine respect
for the judicial pmxss in international relations. Neverthe-
less, the question ofthe legality of that operation can have no
bearing on the evaluation of Iran's conduct on 4 November
1YJ9. The findings reached by the Court are therefore not
affected by that operation.
For these reasons, the Court gives the decision reproduced
in full below:
1. By thirteen votes' to two,2
Decides that the :IslamicRepublic of Iran, by the conduct
which the Court has; set out in this Judgment, has violated in
several respects, and is still violating, obligationsowed by it
to the United States of America under international conven-
tions in force between the two countries, as well as under
long-established rules of general international law;
2. By thirteen votes1to two,2
Decides that the violations of these obligations engage the
responsibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the
United States of Anierica under international law;
3. Unanimously,
Decides that the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran must immediately take all steps to redress the situation
resulting from the events of 4 November 1979 and what fol-
lowed from these events, and to that end:
(a) must immediately terminate the unlawful detention
of the United States Charg6 d'affaires and other diplomatic
and consular staff and other United States nationals now held
hostage in Iran, and must immediately release each and every
one and entrust thein to the protecting Power (Article 45 of
the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations);
(b) must ensure that all the said persons have the neces-
sary means of leaving Iranian territory, including means of
transport;
*@omposed as follclws: President Sir Humphrey Waldock; Wce-
Resident Elias; Judges Pmter, Gros, Lachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singh,
Rude. Mosler, Tarazi, &la, Ago. El-Erian. Sette-Camara and Baxter.
'PresidentSir ~umphreyWaldock; Wee-PresidentElias; Judges Foster,
Gros, Laths, Nagmdra !lingh, Ruda, Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian,
h mand Baxter.
2~ulgos Mommv and mi.
 (c) must immediately place in the hands of the protecting
Pbwer the premises, property, archives and ~docuimentsof the
United States Embassy in Tehran and of its C!onsulatesin Iran,
4. Unanimously,
Decides that no member of the United States diplomaticor
consular staff may be kept i11Iran to be subjtxted to any form
of judicial proceedings or to1 participate in them as a witness;
5. By twelve votes3 to three:
Decides that the Governinnent of the Islamic Republic of
Iran is under an obligation to make reparation to the Govem-
ment of the United States of America for the: injury caused to
the latter by the events of 4 November 19'79 and what fol-
lowed from these events;
6. By fourteen votes5 to one:
Decides that the form andl amount of such reparation, fail-
ing agreement between the Parties, shall be settled by the
Court, and reserves for this purpose the subseqluent proce-
dure in the case.
Judge Lachs indicated tha~the voted against the first part of
operative paragraph 5, as he found it redundlant. 'The respon-
sibility having been establisl~ed,the whole question of repa-
rations should have been 1e:fi to the subsequent procedure,
including the question of forin and amount as provided by the
Judgment.
The opinion stresses the importance of the Judgment for
diplomatic law, and the major part of it is devoted to the
question of the practical sol~ltionby diplomiatic nneans of the
dispute between the Ruties. Once the legal issues have been
clarified by the Judgment, the parties should lake speedy
action and make maximum c:fforts to dispel tension and mis-
trust, and in this a third-party initiative may be important.
Judge Lachs visualizes a particular role for the Secretary-
General of the United Natioin~sin this respect and the work of
a special commission or mediating body. In .viewof the grav-
ity of the situation, the need :fora resolution is urgent.
In his dissenting opinion..,Judge Morozov indicates that
operative paragraph 1 of tht: Judgment is tlrafted in such a
way that it is not limited to the question of the violation of the
Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, but also covers, if
read with some para phs d the reasoning, the question of
f"
alleged violations o the 1955 'Ikaty of Amity, Economic
Relations and Consular Rights between h n and the United
States; this treaty, he believc:~, does not provide: the parties
with an unconditional right to invoke the c~ompulsoryjuris-
diction of the Court, and in the circumstanc:es the Court has
in fact no competence to corlsider the alleged violations.
M e r m o r e , Judge Morozov observes, the United States
committed during the period of the judicial deliberations
many unlawful actions, cul~iunatingin the tnilitruy invasion.
'President ~ i ~ u m p h r Waldock;
ey Vice-presidentHias; Judges Forster,
Gros. Nagcndra Singh. Ruda, Moaler, Oda, Ago, El-Erian, Sene-Camara
antBaxter.
Judges Lachs, M m v and Tauazi.
'President SiHumphrey Waldock; Vice-PresidentIllias; Judges Fmter.
Groe. Lachs, Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Moslcr, Tarazi, 13da. Ago, ECErian,
Sette-Camara and Baxter.
6~udge Morowv.
of the territory of the Islamic Republic of I m , and has there-
fore lost the legal right to refer to the l b t y in its relations
with Iran.
Judge Morozov voted against operative paragraphs 2, 5
and 6 because he had noted that a series of actions was under-
taken by the United States of America against Iran in the
course of the judicial deliberations, in particular the freezing
by the United States of very considerable Iranian assets,
combined with the intention, clearly expressed in a statement
made Iby the President of the United States on 7 April 1980,
to make use of these assets, if need be, in accordance with
decisions that would be taken in the domestic framework of
the United States; that meant that the United States was act-
ing as a "judge" in its own cause. In Judge Morozov's view,
the situation, created by actions of the IJnited States, in
which the Court carried on its judicial deliberations in the
case h a dno precedent in the whole history of the administra-
tion of internationaljustice either before the Court or before
any other international judicial institution. The United
States, having caused severe damage to Iran, had lost the
legal as well as the moral right to reparations from Iran, as
mentioned in operative paragraphs 2 , 5 and 6.
Judge Morozov also finds that some paragraphs of the rea-
soning part of the Judgment describe the circ:umstances of the
case in an incorrect or one-sided way.
He considers that, without any prejudice to the exclusive
compe:tence of the Security Council, the Court, from a purely
legal p i n t of view, could have drawn attention to the undeni-
able fact that Article 5 1 of the United Nations Charter, estab-
lishing the right of self-defence to which the United States of
America referred in connection with the events of 24-25
April, may be invoked only "if an armed attack occurs
against a member of the United Nations", and that there is no
evidence of any armed attack having occurred against the
United States.
Judge Morozov also stresses that some indication should
have been included in the Judgment to the effect that the
Court considered that settlement of the dispute between the
United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran should be
reached exclusively by peaceful means.
Judge Tarazi voted in favour of operative paragraphs 3 and
4 of the Judgment, because he considered that the seizure of
the embassy, and the detention as hostages of those present in
it, constituted an act in breach of the provi2iions of the 1961
and 1%3 Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular
Relations.
On the other hand, Judge Tarazi felt impelled to vote
against operative paragraph 1, because he considered that
only the 1%1 and 1963Vienna Conventionsconferredjuris-
diction on the Court in the present case.
He tilso voted against paragraphs 2 and 5, because, in his
view, the Court, at the present stage of the proceedings and
considering the concomitant circumstances, could not make
any ruling as to the responsibility of the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran.
On the other hand, Judge Tarazi voted in favour of para-
graph 6,because he considered that, in the event of any repa-
rations being owed, they should be determined and assessed
by the International Court of Justice; it was not admissible
for them to be the subject of proceedings in courts of domes-
tic jurisdiction.