## Facts

- On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took U.S. diplomatic and consular personnel hostage; related U.S. consular premises and records were also affected.
- Iran’s authorities did not prevent the seizure, did not promptly protect the premises and personnel, and did not take effective steps to end the occupation and detention.
- The United States instituted proceedings against Iran on November 29, 1979, alleging breaches of obligations owed under the Vienna Conventions, the 1955 Treaty of Amity, and general international law.
- The ICJ indicated provisional measures on December 15, 1979, directing Iran to restore the premises, release the hostages, and comply with protections required by diplomatic and consular law.
- Iran did not appear on the merits; it sent limited communications disputing the Court’s competence and the propriety of adjudication given political context.
- The ICJ proceeded despite non-appearance and issued a merits judgment on May 24, 1980, while the hostages were still detained.

## Issues

1. Whether Iran incurred international responsibility for the embassy and consular seizures, the taking and continued detention of hostages, and the failure to protect mission premises and personnel.
2. Whether Iran breached obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the 1955 Treaty of Amity, and general international law protecting diplomatic and consular relations.
3. What remedies were required, including cessation, restoration, release of hostages, and reparation.

## Decision

- The ICJ held that Iran had violated, and was continuing to violate, its international obligations to the United States under the Vienna Conventions, the 1955 Treaty of Amity, and general international law.
- The Court concluded Iran’s international responsibility was engaged and that Iran was required to:
  - secure the immediate release of the hostages,
  - restore the U.S. Embassy premises to the possession of the United States, and
  - make reparation for the injury caused to the United States.
- On attribution, the Court found insufficient basis to treat the militants’ initial seizure as directly attributable to Iran at its inception, but held Iran responsible for failing to protect the mission and for later endorsement and perpetuation of the occupation and detention, which transformed the continuing conduct into acts of the state.
- The Court rejected Iran’s objections that political grievances about prior U.S. conduct deprived the Court of competence or excused noncompliance with diplomatic and consular obligations.
- Despite Iran’s non-appearance, the Court independently examined jurisdiction and the merits and required the United States to substantiate its claims in fact and law.

## Legal Principles

- The receiving state must take appropriate steps to protect diplomatic and consular premises, archives, and personnel; inviolability of envoys and missions is a fundamental rule for inter-state relations.
- A state may incur responsibility not only through direct attribution at the outset, but also by failing to prevent or end attacks on protected missions and by later adopting, endorsing, or maintaining private conduct as state conduct.
- Alleged prior wrongdoing by another state does not justify violations of independent obligations concerning the protection of diplomatic and consular agents and premises.
- A respondent’s non-appearance does not bar adjudication; the court must still satisfy itself of jurisdiction and that the applicant’s claims are well founded in fact and law.
- Where responsibility is established, remedies include cessation of the wrongful act, restoration where applicable, and reparation for injury caused.

## Conclusion

The ICJ ruled that Iran breached core treaty and customary obligations protecting diplomatic and consular missions and personnel, and it ordered Iran to end the violations by releasing the hostages, restoring U.S. premises, and providing reparation, while confirming that non-appearance and political disputes do not excuse compliance with these duties.


United States Diplomatic & Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3 (May 24)