Territorial Disputes: The Role of the International Court of Justice and the Case of the Three Islands in the Persian Gulf

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Master's degree student in international law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

10.22091/ijicl.2026.12960.1159

Abstract

Territorial disputes are among the most sensitive issues in international law, where non-intervention and respect for territorial integrity are crucial. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has developed consistent jurisprudence emphasizing treaties, effective and continuous exercise of sovereignty, and tacit acquiescence in determining territorial title. This study applies these principles to the Persian Gulf dispute over the three Iranian islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb. Although not formally submitted to the ICJ, the dispute can be analyzed based on the Court’s precedents, highlighting the significance of tangible governmental acts—administrative, military, economic, and legal—in establishing ownership. Mere historical claims without effective control hold little weight in international law. The findings indicate that Iran’s effective, manifest, and continuous sovereignty over the three islands consolidates its ownership, and the interruption caused by the British occupation does not impair this sovereignty and title. The UAE’s historical claims predating its establishment cannot be relied upon before the Court due to the acts occurring during occupation (not colonial rule) and their inconsistency with historical and formal documents confirming Iran’s sovereign and ownership rights over the islands.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 08 February 2026

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics