legal consequences arising from us international responsibility for violations of the treaty of amity

The term “legal consequences of international responsibility” covers the new legal relations which arise under international law as a result of a state’s internationally wrongful act (iwa). in this context, three types of obligations can be identified: the duty (a) to perform the obligation breached, (b) to cease the wrongful conduct, and (c) to make full reparation for the injury caused. in the certain iranian assets case, the international court of justice (icj) found that the united states had breached articles iii (1); iv (1) (2); and x (1) of the treaty of amity. this article seeks to explore the legal consequences of us international responsibility. specifically, it examines these consequences in the light of the international law commission’s articles on state responsibility and the relevant case-law. the study recruits a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources for collecting data. in the certain iranian assets case, the icj concluded that, due to the fact that the treaty of amity no longer creates obligations on the parties, as of october 3, 2019, the us has not obligation to perform its duties under the treaty or to cease the wrongful conduct. the court only ruled that the us should provide reparation for the injury caused. the most important finding of this article is that the court is likely to reach similar results in the case of alleged violations of the 1955 treaty of amity. consequently, the united states bears no obligation to comply with the treaty of amity following its termination in october 2019. similar to the certain iranian assets case, this termination has similar implications concerning the us responsibility to compensate the damages incurred by the injured state.