## Facts

- In 1933, Iran granted a long-term oil concession to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom.
- In 1951, Iran enacted legislation nationalizing its oil industry, terminating the concession and taking control of related facilities.
- The United Kingdom instituted proceedings against Iran before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), asserting diplomatic protection of the company and alleging international responsibility arising from Iran’s nationalization measures and refusal to arbitrate.
- The United Kingdom relied on both states’ declarations under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute accepting compulsory jurisdiction.
- The ICJ indicated provisional measures in July 1951, expressly without prejudging jurisdiction.
- Iran raised a preliminary objection, arguing the ICJ lacked jurisdiction; the ICJ addressed only that objection in its 1952 judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the ICJ had jurisdiction under Article 36(2) based on the parties’ optional-clause declarations and the principle of reciprocity.
2. Whether the dispute concerned the interpretation or application of a “treaty or convention” concluded after the date limits set by Iran’s declaration, given the United Kingdom’s reliance on the 1933 concession and related instruments.
3. Whether a concession contract between a state and a foreign company could be treated as a treaty between the two states for jurisdictional purposes.

## Decision

- The ICJ (9–5) upheld Iran’s preliminary objection and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court held that its jurisdiction depended on the states’ optional-clause declarations and, by reciprocity, could not exceed the limits of Iran’s more restrictive declaration.
- Iran’s declaration covered only disputes relating to treaties or conventions concluded after the declaration’s relevant date limits; the United Kingdom’s claims were found to be directly or indirectly based on instruments outside that scope.
- The Court rejected the characterization of the 1933 concession as a treaty between the United Kingdom and Iran because the United Kingdom was not a party to the concession, which remained a contract between Iran and a private company.
- Because the Court lacked jurisdiction, the provisional measures previously indicated ceased to have effect.

## Legal Principles

- The ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) rests on state consent; the scope of consent is determined by the terms of the parties’ declarations.
- Under reciprocity, the narrower optional-clause declaration sets the outer boundary of the Court’s jurisdiction in a given case.
- Jurisdictional clauses limited to disputes concerning “treaties or conventions” do not extend to disputes grounded in concession contracts between a state and a private company, absent a qualifying treaty between the states.
- Facilitation or involvement by international bodies in the background of a concession dispute does not, without more, convert a state–company contract into an inter-state treaty.
- When the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction, provisional measures previously indicated lapse because the Court has no power to proceed on the merits.

## Conclusion

The ICJ declined to hear the United Kingdom’s claims arising from Iran’s oil nationalization because Iran’s optional-clause declaration did not extend to the dispute, and the 1933 concession could not be treated as a post-limitation treaty between the two states; accordingly, the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the provisional measures terminated.


Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (U.K. v. Iran), 1952 I.C.J. 93 (1952)