The International Court of Justice on Thursday rejected Iran’s offer to unlock nearly $2 billion in central bank assets frozen by the United States, but ruled that Washington had illegally seized other funds.
UN high court judges said Washington had “violated” the rights of several Iranian individuals and companies and should compensate them, but ruled they had no jurisdiction over the banking case, which involved a much larger amount.
Both archenemies claimed the ICJ verdict as a victory. Tehran said the decision underscores the “illegal behavior” of the United States, with Washington calling it a “great victory.”
Iran dragged the United States to The Hague in 2016 after the US Supreme Court ruled that year that assets should be paid to victims of attacks blamed on Tehran, including the 1983 bombing of a Navy barracks. American in Beirut.
“The court by ten votes to five upholds the jurisdictional objection raised by the United States of America” on the central bank issue, ICJ Judge Kirill Gevorgian said as he read the 66-page ruling.
The contentious trial comes amid tensions over recent US attacks on Iran-linked groups in Syria, as well as Tehran’s nuclear program and its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine.
– ‘Unreasonable’ –
Tehran, which denies responsibility for the terrorist attacks alleged by Washington, argued that the freezing of funds violated the 1955 “Friendship Treaty” between the United States and Iran.
The agreement was signed well before the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the pro-American shah and severed ties with the United States.
Iran had asked for the return of $1.75 billion belonging to the Central Bank of Iran, or Bank Markazi, plus interest, along with assets belonging to Iranian companies and citizens.
The US Supreme Court ruled that funds should go to the families and survivors of the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 299 people, including 241 US soldiers, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 people and other attacks.
On the main issue, the ICJ ruled that there was no case to answer on the Iranian central bank issue.
He said the bank did not count as a company, as Tehran had argued, and that only companies were protected by the decades-old treaty.
But ICJ judges said Washington had “breached its obligations” under the decades-old US-Iran treaty, including that it had been “unreasonable” in recognizing the legal status of some Iranian companies.
“Iran is entitled to compensation for the damage caused,” the court said.
He gave the United States and Iran 24 months to agree on a payment amount; otherwise he would do it himself.
– ‘Great victory’ –
ICJ rulings are binding and cannot be appealed, but they do not have enforcement powers.
“The verdict… once again shows the legitimacy” of Iran’s positions “and the illegal behavior of the United States,” Tehran’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
Acting legal counsel Rich Visek of the US State Department said the court had “rejected the vast majority of the Iran case.”
“This is a great victory for the United States and the victims of Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism,” he said.
But State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said Washington was “disappointed” that the court ruled that the United States violated the treaty.
“The treaty was never intended to protect Iran from having to compensate American victims of its sponsorship of terrorism,” he said.
The United States formally withdrew from the Friendship Treaty in 2018 after the ICJ, in a separate case, ordered Washington to lift nuclear-related sanctions on humanitarian goods for Iran.
The frozen assets trial takes place in a context of growing tensions.
Tehran recently condemned US airstrikes against Iran-linked forces in Syria that reportedly killed 19 people, which Washington said it carried out following a deadly drone strike on US forces on Thursday.
Meanwhile, talks have long been stalled over reviving a landmark 2015 multinational deal on Iran’s nuclear activity that the United States withdrew from in 2018.
