Case and Comment Oil on Troubled Waters—the Icj Tackles Use of Force

ON 6 November 2003, the International Court of Justice delivered its long-awaited judgment in Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment raises important issues relating to both jurisdiction and the law governing the use of force. By way of background, the Court was seised of a claim by Iran and a counterclaim by the USA alleging breaches of their 1955 bilateral Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (‘‘the Treaty’’). The case arose out of two actions by the US Navy against Iranian offshore oil platforms during the 1984–88 ‘‘Tanker War’’, which occurred in the course of the conflict between Iran and Iraq. The first incident, on 19 October 1987, was claimed by the USA to be a defensive response to a missile attack on the reflagged US tanker Sea Isle City. Subsequently, on 18 April 1988, the US Navy severely damaged further platforms after the warship USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine in international waters. The Treaty required the parties to submit any dispute concerning its ‘‘interpretation or application’’ to the Court. As a result of a 1996 ruling on US jurisdictional challenges (Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (Preliminary Objection) [1996] I.C.J. Reports II, p. 803), Iran was left with only one issue to pursue to the merits, namely, whether the USA had breached its obligations under Article X(1) of the Treaty. This article guarantees freedom of commerce and navigation ‘‘[b]etween the territories’’ of Iran and the USA. The USA denied any violation of the article and contended, alternatively, that even if