The Standard of State Control in Attributing the Conduct of Non-State Actors in International Law: A Review of the Practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of International Law, Law faculty, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Professor of International Law, Law faculty, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

Abstract

The attribution of conduct to a state in international law, particularly in international claims, is a fundamental and complex subject that determines how states are held accountable for the actions of non-state entities. While the general principle is to attribute the conduct of state organs to the state, under specific circumstances, the conduct of non-state actors may also be attributable to the state, contingent upon the state’s control or direction over those entities. The standard of control, particularly in the practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT/ Tribunal), is a critical aspect in determining state responsibility. The IUSCT maintains that for a state to be held responsible for the actions of non-state entities, it must be proven that the state exercised effective control over those actions. This control requires an examination not only of the mandates and statutes of the non-state entities but also proof of the state’s direct influence on their operations. In cases involving the Islamic Revolutionary Committees and private entities, the Tribunal has considered clear indications of state responsibility, especially when tangible state control and direction have been established. For instance, in conditions of chaos such as during a revolution, a state cannot evade its responsibility by citing the prevailing disorder; however, at the same time, for the acts of private entities to be attributable to the state, mere state ownership is insufficient. The Tribunal emphasizes that it must be proven that the actions of the non-state entities were carried out pursuant to the state’s instructions or under its direction. In summary, the IUSCT strongly emphasizes the necessity of “effective control” and a causal link between this control and the violation of international law to prevent the undue imposition of responsibility on states.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Books

    1. Brownlie I, System of the Law of Nations: State Responsibility (Part 1) (Clarendon Press 1986)
    1. International Law Commission,Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Text and Commentary (tr A Ebrahim Gol, Shahr-e Danesh 2023) [In Persian].
    2. Khalilian K,Legal Claims of Iran and the United States before the Hague Tribunal (Sherkat-e Sahami-ye Entesharat 2003) [In Persian].
    3. Mozaffari A and Nikfar M,Selected Awards of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (Volume 2) (Qoqnoos 2020) [In Persian].

    Chapters in Edited Books

    1. Zamani SG, ‘The Place of the Principles and Rules of International Responsibility of States in the Oil Platforms Case’ in The Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Oil Platforms Case(Markaz-e Pazhuhesh-ha-ye Majles-e Shoura-ye Eslami 2015) [In Persian].

    Journal Articles

    1. Griebel J and Plücken M, ‘New Developments Regarding the Rules of Attribution? The International Court of Justice’s Decision in Bosnia v. Serbia’ (2008) 21 Leiden Journal of International Law 601
    2. Mačák K, ‘Decoding Article 8 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Attribution of Cyber Operations by Non-State Actors’ (2016) 21 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 405
    3. Milanovic M, ‘State Responsibility for Acts of Non-State Actors: A Comment on Griebel and Plücken’ (2009) 22 Leiden Journal of International Law 307

    International Cases

    1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) (Judgment) [2007] ICJ Rep 43
    2. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)(Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14
    3. Prosecutor v Tadić (Judgment) ICTY-94-1-A (15 July 1999)
    4. Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom App no 7601/76; 7806/77 (ECtHR, 13 August 1981)

    Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Cases

    1. Economy Forms Corp v Islamic Republic of Iran(1982) 3 Iran-US CTR 42
    2. Eastman Kodak Co v Iran(1987) 17 Iran-US CTR 153
    3. Flexi Van Leasing Inc v Iran(1986) 12 Iran-US CTR 335
    4. Foremost Tehran Inc v Islamic Republic of Iran(1986) 10 Iran-US CTR 228
    5. Hyatt International Corp v Government of Islamic Republic of Iran(1985) 9 Iran-US CTR 72
    6. Otis Elevator Co v Islamic Republic of Iran (1987) 14 Iran-US CTR 283.
    7. PepsiCo Inc v Islamic Republic of Iran(1986) 13 Iran-US CTR 3
    8. Phelps Dodge Corporation v Iran(1986) 10 Iran-US CTR 121
    9. Schering Corporation v Islamic Republic of Iran(1984) 5 Iran-US CTR 361
    10. Starrett Housing Corp v Government of Islamic Republic of Iran(1983) 4 Iran-US CTR 122

    International Law Commission (ILC) & UN Documents

    1. Ago R, ‘Third Report on State Responsibility’ (1971) UN Doc A/CN.4/246 and Add.1-3
    2. Crawford J, ‘First Report on State Responsibility’ (1998) UN Doc A/CN.4/490 and Add.1-7
    3. ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-Second Session’ (2000) UN Doc A/55/10
    4. ILC, ‘Summary Records of the Meetings of the Fiftieth Session’ (1998) UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1998
    5. ILC, ‘Summary Records of the Meetings of the Twenty-Sixth Session’ (1974) UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1974
Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 3, Issue 2
December 2025

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics