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 CertainIranian 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 tothe Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, and Executive Order13599, enabled enforcement of terrorism-related judgments against assets associated with Iranianstate-connected entities. Iran argued that these measures breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity,exposing broader tensions between domestic enforcement mechanisms, sovereign control overstate-linked assets, and international treaty obligations in contexts shaped by economic pressureand national security policy. A central theme of the article is the interaction between proceduraland substantive dimensions of ICJ adjudication. It explains how the Court’s preliminary objectionsphase, particularly the 2019 judgment, functioned as a decisive procedural filter, narrowing thedispute to claims falling within the Treaty’s ratione materiae scope while excluding argumentsframed as violations of customary international law concerning sovereign immunity. Thisdelimitation significantly shaped the subsequent merits analysis and the remedies available. Thearticle also clarifies a common misunderstanding regarding the outcome. Although the disputewas publicly associated with the attachment of approximately USD 1.75 billion in assets linkedto Bank Markazi, the Court did not order their return. It held that claims advanced on behalf ofBank Markazi fell outside the Treaty’s protections because Iran failed to demonstrate that the bankengaged 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, andcertain United States measures were held to breach obligations relating to juridical status, treatmentof companies, unlawful taking of property, and freedom of commerce. Finally, the article examinesthe 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.