## Facts

- Iran filed an application alleging that U.S. naval attacks in October 1987 and April 1988 destroyed three Iranian offshore oil production complexes operated commercially by the National Iranian Oil Company.
- Iran claimed the attacks breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, relying on the treaty’s compromissory clause for ICJ jurisdiction.
- The United States raised a preliminary objection, arguing the dispute was really about the lawfulness of force under the U.N. Charter and that a commercial treaty did not cover military operations.
- The United States further argued that Article I (peace and friendship) was too general to create justiciable obligations, Article IV(1) did not cover the conduct alleged, and Article X(1) (freedom of commerce and navigation) was not implicated by the attacks.
- The United States also invoked the treaty’s essential security exception (Article XX(1)(d)) as a justification for its actions.

## Issues

1. Whether the ICJ had jurisdiction under Article XXI(2) of the 1955 Treaty of Amity over Iran’s claims.
2. Whether Iran’s pleadings presented a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of Article X(1) (freedom of commerce and navigation).
3. Whether alleged use of force is categorically outside the scope of a treaty primarily addressing economic and consular relations.
4. Whether Article I or Article IV(1) could independently support jurisdiction, and whether Article XX(1)(d) affected jurisdiction at the preliminary stage.

## Decision

- The ICJ rejected the United States’ preliminary objection.
- The Court held it had jurisdiction under Article XXI(2) to hear Iran’s claims insofar as they were based on Article X(1) (freedom of commerce and navigation).
- The Court found a dispute existed regarding the interpretation or application of Article X(1) and that destruction of the platforms was capable of affecting Iran’s oil export trade and thus freedom of commerce.
- The Court held Article I could not, by itself, ground jurisdiction, and Article IV(1) did not cover the type of conduct alleged for jurisdictional purposes.
- The Court treated Article XX(1)(d) as a merits defense rather than a bar to jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- A compromissory clause covering disputes about the “interpretation or application” of a treaty confers jurisdiction where the applicant plausibly links challenged conduct to a treaty obligation.
- Conduct involving military force is not per se excluded from a commercial treaty’s scope; if an act (by whatever means) is incompatible with treaty obligations, it may be unlawful under the treaty.
- General “peace and friendship” clauses function primarily as interpretive objectives and ordinarily do not create standalone, justiciable obligations sufficient to found jurisdiction.
- Treaty “essential security” exceptions generally operate as defenses to be examined on the merits, not as preliminary limitations that defeat jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The ICJ held that Iran’s allegations stated a dispute over the interpretation and application of the Treaty of Amity’s freedom of commerce and navigation provision, allowing the case to proceed on the merits under the treaty’s jurisdiction clause while rejecting jurisdictional reliance on more general or inapposite treaty provisions.


Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), 1996 I.C.J. 803 (Dec. 12)