The Individual Opinions of the ICJ Judges in the Certain Iranian Assets Case: Exclusion of Bank Markazi from the Scope of the Treaty of Amity

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

Azizi Sattar

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: International Law Review Year:2024 | Volume:41 | Issue:73 Page(s): 157-180

Download Full-Text

Persian Verion

View:

Download:

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

The Individual Opinions of the ICJ Judges in the Certain Iranian Assets Case: Exclusion of Bank Markazi from the Scope of the Treaty of Amity

Author(s)

Azizi Sattar | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

Central bank

Certain Iranian Assets

ICJ

Treaty of Amity

sovereign acts

commercial acts

Individual opinions

Abstract

This research examines the Individual opinions expressed by judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of "Certain Iranian Assets", specifically focusing on the issue of excluding Bank Markazi (Central bank of Iran) from the treaty's purview. The case revolves around Iran's effort to lift the seizure of approximately two billion dollars of assets held by the Bank Markazi of Iran in the United States, citing a violation of the Treaty of Amity. While the majority of judges agreed with excluding the Bank from the scope of the Treaty, a minority of five judges held a dissenting opinion. The core of contention among the judgescentered on whether the purchase and holding of twelve bonds by the Central bank of Iran should be considered as a sovereign act or a commercial act. This research aims to analyze the reasoning employed by both the majority and minority judges in arriving at their respective conclusions. The study recruits a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources for data collection. Findings show that although the majority opinion did not secure Iran’s material interests in this case, it emphasized the sovereign nature of the purchase of bonds by theBank, thereby safeguarding Iran’s ultimate interests in maintaining the Bank’s immunity against actions by other governments.

Multimedia

No record.

Cites

No record.

References

No record.

Cite

Related Journal Papers

No record.

Related Seminar Papers

No record.

Related Plans