The International Court of Justice and its Role in Relations Between Iran and the United States

This article explores the role of the international court of justice (hereafter icj) in the relations between iran and the united states (hereafter u.s.), with reference to the last disputes between the two countries over the 1955 treaty of amity, economic relations and consular rights. the article argues that the icj has both jurisdiction (ratione materiae) and substantive competence (merits) to adjudicate the case, based on the trans-analytical method. the article draws on the past judgments of the icj in similar cases between iran and the u.s., such as the case concerning us diplomatic and consular staff in tehran, the case concerning the aerial incident, and the case concerning oil platforms, to support its findings. the article also discusses the implications of the u.s. decision to terminate the treaty of amity and to challenge the icj’s jurisdiction. the article predicts that the icj will establish its judgment based on article 10 of the treaty of amity, which affirms the principle of free trade, and conclude that the u.s. sanctions violate the treaty of amity.