I. Case Concerning Concerning United States Diplomatic Diplomatic and Consular Consular Staff in Tehran Tehran (United (United States States of America v. Iran) International Court of Justice 1980 II. Facts cts a. Filed in The The Internat International ional Court of Justic Justicee on 24 May 1980. b. On 4 November 1979, a militant group of Iranian students entered the United States Embassy and overtook it, taking its its 65 occupants hostage. 13 women and blacks were released, leaving 52 hostages. hostages. Although Iran had promised protection to the U.S. Embassy, the guards disappeared during the takeover and the government did not attempt to stop it or rescue rescue the hostages. The U.S. arranged to meet with Iranian Iranian authorities to discuss the release of the hostages; however, Ayatollah Khomeini forbid officials to meet them. The U.S. subsequently ceased relations with Iran, stopped U.S. exports, oil imports, and Iranian assets were blocked. Although the militants were not acting on behalf of the State, neither did the State uphold their agreement to protect U.S. nationals. The militants said they would hold the hostages until the Shah, who was receiving medical treatment in the U.S., was returned to Iran. c. The United United States States argued that that Iran Iran violated violated the Vienna Vienna Convention Convention of 1961 1961 which stated stated the Embassy would be protected, as well as the Vienna Convention of 1963 which stated the nationals would be protected while while in their country. Furthermore, the 1955 Treaty was in effect, which promoted good relations between the U.S. and Iran and promised protection to its territory and nationals. d. Iran did not not argue its its side, side, instead instead deciding deciding to make make no response response to the Court’s Court’s notices. notices. III.Questions a. Did Did Ira Iran n vio viola late te the the Vie Vienn nnaa Conv Conven enti tion onss of of 196 1961 1 and and 1963 1963 as well well as the the 1955 1955 Treaty? b. Even though the State of Iran did not overtake the United States Embassy, does it have the responsibility of ensuring the hostages’ release? c. Shoul Should d Ira Iran n be be hel held d res respo pons nsib ible le for for the the take takeov over er by the the mil milit itan ants ts?? That That is, is, sho shoul uld d Iran have to make reparation to the United States for these actions? IV. Decision Decision a. The Court Court found found that the the Vienna Vienna Conventions Conventions and and the Treaty Treaty were were violated violated,, as the Government of Iran knew of the militants’ actions and made no attempt to help h elp the United States’ hostages. Iran had stepped in on other militant militant attacks of embassies, embassies, but did not do so in this case. Therefore, the Court determined that that the Government knowingly decided to not intervene in this case. b. Iran, through its 1955 Treaty and the Vienna Conventions, must ensure the protection of the United States’ citizens citizens while they are in Iran. Therefore, Iran is responsible responsible for releasing the hostages even though they themselves themselves did not contain them. Iran was under obligation to ensure that the people peop le as well as the property were protected, and therefore should remedy this. c. The Court Court determi determined ned that Iran was was more more than than negligent negligent in these these circumst circumstances. ances. They had, on 1 March 1979, claimed to be making arrangements to prevent the United States from any takeovers or attacks. Many Iranian authorities approved of the takeover and the
Foreign Minister claimed that America was responsible for the incident. Iran deliberately ignored requests for the hostages to be released and should, for these reasons, be help to make reparation for the actions. V. Principles a. The international law elements are the power of Treaties and Vienna Conventions and, from that, the responsibility of a State to enforce these against militant groups. b. The rules of law in this case are the Vienna Convention of 1961 , the Vienna Convention of 1963 , and the 1955 Treaty . c. This case touches on the extradition rules, as it discusses bringing the militants to the United States if Iran did not try them. It discusses the importance of Government responsibility over its unruly citizens. Furthermore, it addresses the importance of keeping to binding documents made between States. VI. Conclusions This case stressed the importance of the Vienna Convention’s rules as well as Treaties. Additionally, it emphasized that a Government is responsible for what goes on within its boundaries even if the actions are not specifically Government-related. The Government should be held to the Vienna Conventions and Treaties, no matter the circumstances. Furthermore, the case heavily impacted the relations between the United States and Iran even still today as this was a pivotal moment in the relationship between the two States. VII. Bibliography Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980 Submitted Carin Morrell, September 17, 2009
