Call for direct talks between Iran, U.S. over legal issues
Iran’s Vice President in Legal Affairs Mohammad Dehqan has suggested to the government to hold direct negotiations with the U.S. government on legal issues. Dehghan said that the proposal for this dialogue is to determine the amount of damage caused by the U.S. after a ruling by the International Court of Justice that Washington had illegally allowed courts to freeze Iran’s assets.
Dehghan believes that dialogue is the best way to settle the issue.
The case was initially brought by Tehran against Washington in 2016 for breaching a 1955 Treaty of Amity.
About seven years ago, the Iranian government filed a complaint with the ICJ, protesting the U.S. move to seize and confiscate about two billion dollars of the assets of the Central Bank of Iran and some Iranian companies and institutions.
Iran says the U.S. actions are in contradiction with the standards of international law, especially the provisions of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Tehran and Washington.
The Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran was signed in Tehran on August 15, 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957.
According to Clause 2, Article 21 of the Treaty, any dispute between the two countries regarding the implementation of the Treaty that cannot be resolved through diplomatic means, must be referred to the ICJ in The Hague.
In April 1980, the U.S. filed a complaint against Iran to the international court regarding the 1979 takeover of its embassy by the Iranian students who also took 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days.
Iran’s first complaint against the U.S. based on the Treaty dates back to a decade later, when the U.S. aircraft carrier, Vincennes, targeted an Iranian passenger plane with 176 people on board.
In 1992, Iran once again filed a complaint against the U.S. attack on its oil facilities at the court, and naturally, the U.S. filed a counter-complaint.
All these cases indicate that, despite the lack of diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington, the 1955 Treaty of Amity has been recognized by the international court.
In May 2016, the U.S. government questioned the court’s jurisdiction over Iran’s complaint.
However, the ICJ rejected the U.S. claims and started the hearings. Finally, in March, the court condemned the U.S. government for not honoring its obligations under the Treaty. The ICJ ordered the U.S. to pay compensation to Iranian companies after ruling that Washington had illegally allowed courts to freeze their assets.
The Hague Court in its decision rejected the U.S. defense. However, the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction over $1.75 billion in frozen assets from Central Bank of Iran held in a Citibank account in New York.
The International Court of Justice gave Tehran and Washington two years to negotiate and reach a conclusion to determine and assess the amount of damage. If no agreement is reached during the period, upon the request of one of the parties to the dispute, the ICJ will interfere in the case.
Now, the Iranian vice president has proposed direct negotiations between representatives from Iran and the U.S. in a bid to resolve the dispute.
Mohammad Dehqan told ISNA that he does not think that his proposal would face any objection.
Dehqan said that his proposal is that the negotiations should be pursued in a court of arbitration established in the ICJ about 40 years ago to settle disputes between Iran and the U.S.
There are three arbitrators from Iran, three arbitrators from the U.S. and three arbitrators, who are appointed by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. Iran and the U.S. each have one representative in that court.
Dehqan believes that the best way for the settlement of such arguments is direct negotiations between the two sides’ representatives in the same court because its location is predetermined and it does not require new arrangements. During these years, he added, several rounds of talks have been held between Iran and the U.S. on several issues, including legal issues and the compensation fee.