"Between Procedure and Substance: A Legal Analysis of the ICJ Judgment in Certain ‎Iranian Assets (Iran v United States)‎"

This article provides a legal analysis of the International Court of Justice’s judgment in Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. United States), a treaty-based dispute arising from legislative, executive, and judicial measures adopted by the United States. These measures, including amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, and Executive Order 13599, enabled terrorism-related judgments to be enforced against assets associated with Iranian state-connected entities. Iran argued that these measures breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity, exposing broader tensions between domestic enforcement mechanisms, sovereign control over state-linked assets, and international treaty obligations in contexts shaped by economic pressure and national security policy.



A central theme of the article is the interaction between procedural and substantive dimensions of ICJ adjudication. It explains how the Court’s preliminary objections phase, particularly the 2019 judgment, functioned as a decisive procedural filter, narrowing the dispute to claims falling within the Treaty’s ratione materiae scope while excluding arguments framed as violations of customary international law concerning sovereign immunity. This delimitation significantly shaped the subsequent merits analysis and the remedies available.



The article also clarifies a common misunderstanding regarding the outcome. Although the dispute was publicly associated with the attachment of approximately USD 1.75 billion in assets linked to Bank Markazi, the Court did not order their return. It held that claims advanced on behalf of Bank Markazi fell outside the Treaty’s protections because Iran failed to demonstrate that the bank engaged in commercial activities capable of bringing it within the Treaty’s concept of a protected “company.” By contrast, other Iranian entities were found to fall within the Treaty framework, and certain United States measures were held to breach obligations relating to juridical status, treatment of companies, unlawful taking of property, and freedom of commerce.



Finally, the article examines the Court’s rejection of the United States’ essential security defence and its approach to remedies, emphasizing compensation and the principle of full reparation following the Treaty’s termination.