The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSUEAR STAFF IN TEHRAN (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. IRAN) The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States following the occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on 4 November 1979, and the capture and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. On a request by the United States for the indication of provisional measures, the Court held that there was no more fundamental prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the hostages. In its decision on the merits of the case, at a time when the situation complained of still persisted, the Court, in its Judgment of 24 May 1980, found that Iran had violated and was still violating obligations owed by it to the United States under conventions in force between the two countries and rules of general international law, that the violation of these obligations engaged its responsibility, and that the Iranian Government was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the Embassy premises, and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government. The Court reaffirmed the cardinal importance of the principles of international law governing diplomatic and consular relations. It pointed out that while, during the events of 4 November 1979, the conduct of militants could not be directly attributed to the Iranian State -- for lack of sufficient information -- that State had however done nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises and release the hostages. The Court noted that, after 4 November 1979, certain organs of the Iranian State had endorsed the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them, so that those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State.
The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States following the occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on 4 November 1979, and the capture and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. On a request by the United States for the indication of provisional measures, the Court held that there was no more fundamental prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the hostages. In its decision on the merits of the case, at a time when the situation complained of still persisted, the Court, in its Judgment of 24 May 1980, found that Iran had violated and was still violating obligations owed by it to the United States under conventions in force between the two countries and rules of general international law, that the violation of these obligations engaged its responsibility, and that the Iranian Government was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the Embassy premises, and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government. The Court reaffirmed the cardinal importance of the principles of international law governing diplomatic and consular relations. It pointed out that while, during the events of 4 November 1979, the conduct of militants could not be directly attributed to the Iranian State -- for lack of sufficient information -- that State had however done nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises and release the hostages. The Court noted that, after 4 November 1979, certain organs of the Iranian State had endorsed the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them, so that those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State.
by ARGeezer - Nov 7 67 comments
by Oui - Nov 7 5 comments
by Oui - Nov 7 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2 63 comments
by fjallstrom - Oct 31 3 comments
by gmoke - Oct 30 2 comments
by Oui - Nov 1 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 25 21 comments
by Oui - Nov 9
by Oui - Nov 75 comments
by Oui - Nov 711 comments
by ARGeezer - Nov 767 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 263 comments
by Oui - Nov 14 comments
by Oui - Oct 31
by fjallstrom - Oct 313 comments
by gmoke - Oct 302 comments
by Oui - Oct 29
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2521 comments
by Oui - Oct 243 comments
by Oui - Oct 205 comments
by Oui - Oct 192 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1747 comments
by Oui - Oct 171 comment
by Oui - Oct 134 comments
by Oui - Oct 124 comments