## Facts

- During the Iran–Iraq war, U.S. naval forces attacked and destroyed Iranian offshore oil production complexes in the Persian Gulf on **19 October 1987** and **18 April 1988**, owned and operated for commercial purposes by Iran’s National Iranian Oil Company (including platforms commonly identified as **Reshadat/Rashadat, Resalat, Nasr, and Salman**).
- Iran instituted proceedings on **2 November 1992** against the United States under the **1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights** (Treaty of Amity), relying on the compromissory clause in **Article XXI(2)**.
- In its **12 December 1996** judgment on preliminary objections, the Court found it had jurisdiction under Article XXI(2) **to entertain Iran’s claims under Article X(1)** of the Treaty (freedom of commerce and navigation).
- Article X(1) provides: **“Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there shall be freedom of commerce and navigation.”**
- The United States denied treaty responsibility and argued that the attacks were defensive responses to Iranian actions in the Gulf (including mining and attacks on shipping), and that the Treaty’s **essential security interests** clause, **Article XX(1)(d)**, permitted measures “necessary to protect” those interests.
- The United States filed a **counterclaim** alleging that Iran’s mining and attacks on vessels violated **Article X(1)** by interfering with protected commerce and navigation.
- By **Order of 10 March 1998**, the Court held the U.S. counterclaim was admissible and formed part of the same proceedings.
- The merits phase culminated in a single **6 November 2003** judgment resolving both Iran’s claim and the U.S. counterclaim.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S. attacks and destruction of Iranian oil platforms in 1987 and 1988 breached **Article X(1)** of the Treaty of Amity (freedom of commerce and navigation “between the territories” of Iran and the United States).
2. How **Article X(1)** should be interpreted, including what qualifies as “commerce” and the required connection to commerce and navigation **between the parties’ territories**, rather than commerce in the Gulf generally.
3. Whether, if Article X(1) was engaged, the U.S. actions were saved by **Article XX(1)(d)** as measures “necessary to protect” the United States’ essential security interests, assessed by reference to necessity and proportionality.
4. Whether Iran’s conduct (including mining and attacks on shipping), as alleged in the U.S. counterclaim, breached **Article X(1)** by interfering with qualifying commerce and navigation between the territories of the two States.
5. Whether the evidence presented by either party was sufficient to establish the factual predicates for the alleged treaty breaches and the asserted security justification.

## Decision

- The Court **dismissed Iran’s claim**, holding that Iran did not establish that the U.S. attacks constituted a breach of **Article X(1)** because the required effect on **commerce and navigation between the territories** of Iran and the United States was not shown on the record.
- The Court found that the United States **did not justify** the attacks under **Article XX(1)(d)**: the platform strikes were not shown to be “necessary” to protect the United States’ essential security interests, when assessed in light of necessity and proportionality.
- The Court **dismissed the U.S. counterclaim**, holding that the United States did not prove that Iran’s alleged mining and attacks on vessels amounted to a breach of **Article X(1)** as properly interpreted, including the requirement of a sufficient connection to commerce and navigation between the parties’ territories.
- Because both the principal claim and the counterclaim failed, **no declaratory relief or reparation** was awarded to either party under the Treaty.

## Legal Principles

- When jurisdiction rests on a compromissory clause in a bilateral treaty, the Court addresses the dispute **within the treaty framework** and grants relief only for proven violations of treaty obligations that fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.
- **Article X(1)** protects “freedom of commerce and navigation” **between the territories** of the parties; it is not a general guarantee of commercial security in a region, and it requires a demonstrated link between the challenged conduct and qualifying bilateral commerce or shipping between the two States.
- A claimant alleging an Article X(1) breach bears the burden to show that the impugned acts had a legally relevant impact on protected commerce or shipping between the parties’ territories, supported by specific evidence rather than general assertions about regional trade.
- The **essential security interests** exception in **Article XX(1)(d)** requires that the measures invoked be **necessary** to protect such interests; the Court assessed necessity in a manner that draws on necessity and proportionality reasoning familiar from self-defence analysis, without converting the case into a direct ruling on the U.N. Charter.
- The Court may choose the ground for decision and resolve a dispute on **treaty interpretation and application** even where the parties’ arguments rely heavily on the lawfulness of the use of force.
- Findings on justification under a security exception do not, by themselves, establish treaty responsibility if the claimant has not proved that the substantive treaty obligation (here, Article X(1)) was breached.

## Conclusion

In its merits judgment of 6 November 2003, the ICJ treated the dispute as one under the 1955 Treaty of Amity and held that Iran failed to prove the U.S. destruction of Iranian oil platforms breached Article X(1)’s guarantee of freedom of commerce and navigation between the parties’ territories, even though the Court also concluded the attacks were not justified as “necessary” measures to protect essential security interests under Article XX(1)(d); the Court likewise rejected the U.S. counterclaim for failure to prove an Article X(1) breach by Iran.


Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), Judgment, 2003 I.C.J. 161 (Nov. 6)