Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

The Functions and Approaches of the ICJ Excluding “the Essential Security Interests” Exception; with an Emphasis on the Case of Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity

Document Type : Original Research

Author
Heidar Piri
Assistant Professor in Public International Law, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
10.48311/clr.2025.101663.0
Abstract
In numerous rulings, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been compelled to give its opinion on concepts such as the essential security interests of states, national interests, and national security. These concepts, which are widely cited, have created significant ambiguities in the interpretation and application of international rules due to their general and flexible nature. These ambiguities have not only been a source of disputes among states, but have also provided an opportunity to misuse these concepts to justify unilateral actions or breaches of international obligations. In this regard, the question arises: what interpretations have the Court and, consequently, its judges offered for these ambiguous and political concepts, and what have been the consequences and effects of these interpretations on states’ actions and the Court’s future rulings? The article also addresses the question of whether states’ actions that violate international law, particularly unilateral sanctions, are justified based on the exceptions related to security interests.
   The findings of this research indicate that international law has imposed limitations on exceptions pertaining to security interests and similar concepts. Furthermore, the extent of states’ discretion in invoking these concepts depends on the specific wording within the security exception, varying from one tribunal to another and from one clause to another. Specifically, exceptional clauses that contain self-judging language (such as Article XXI of the GATT) grant greater discretion to the states. However, the Court’s rulings, particularly the provisional measures order of October 3, 2018, and the preliminary objections in the case concerning the alleged breaches of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, demonstrate that even when states rely on their own subjective discretion and assessment based on clauses with a self-judging nature in determining meaning and interpretation, they must act in compliance with the obligation of good faith stipulated in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention. Moreover, the essential security interests mentioned in Article XX of the 1955 Treaty of Amity lack self-judging language; consequently, they neither hinder the Court’s jurisdiction, nor compliance with legal formalities, equality of arms, nor the Court’s mission to realize justice. In the merits phase of defense, this is equivalent to interests threatened by armed attacks or other emergencies where the life of the state is endangered. In this context, economic interest can only be considered a security interest if it causes widespread disorder, severe political turmoil, or other security threats.







 
Keywords
Essential Security Interests, International Court of Justice, Jurisdiction, Provisional Measures, 1955 Treaty of Amity

Subjects

7. منابع
1-7) منابع فارسی
الف) کتب
1.   پیری، حیدر (1403). منافع ملی حیاتی و حقوق بین‌الملل، چاپ دوم، تهران: انتشارات مجد.
2.   ساعد، نادر (1384). «حمایت از منافع اساسی امنیتی دولت‌ها در پرتو رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه سکوهای نفتی»، در مجموعه مقالات پیرامون: رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه سکوهای نفتی. زیرنظر دکتر جمیشد ممتاز، تهران: مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی.
 
ب) مقالات
3.   آذری، هادی (1403). «بررسی تأثیر احتمالی رأی 30 مارس 2023 دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری بر رأی آتی دیوان در دعوای نقض‌های ادعایی عهدنامه مودّت»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، دوره 41، شماره 73، صص 257-277.
4.   زمانی، سید قاسم و حیدر پیری (1391). «کارکرد منافع ملی حیاتی در حوزه‌های انسانی حقوق بین‌الملل؛ حقوق بشردوستانه»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، دوره 76، شماره 79، صص 39-71.
5.   سواری، حسن و حیدر پیری (1391). «منافع ملی حیاتی دولت‌ها در پرتو معاهدات خلع سلاح و کنترل تسلیحات»، فصلنامه روابط خارجی، دوره 4، شماره 3، صص 243-286.
6.   سیف‌زاده، فرزانه؛ زمانی، سید قاسم؛ سواری، حسن و مسعود راعی دهقی (1396). «بررسی مأموریت شورای امنیت در اعمال دکترین مسئوولیت حمایت»، فصلنامه پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 21، شماره 1، صص 53-79.
7.   شریفی‌، حسین و حیدر پیری (1391). «منافع ملی حیاتی در پرتو آراء قضایی بین‌المللی»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دوره 4، شماره 38، صص 9-37.
8.   کدخدایی، عباسعلی و سید رضا جلیلی (1403). «استناد به امنیت ملی در رویه حقوقی بین‌المللی»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره 54، شماره 1، صص 1-24.
9.   میرفخرائی، سیدحسن، و پیری، صادق(1395). «استنادپذیری عهدنامه مودّت 1955 درباره تحریم‌های غرب علیه ایران»، فصلنامه مطالعات روابط بین‌الملل، دوره 9، شماره 34، صص 93-126.
 
2-7) منابع انگلیسی
 A) Articles
10. Abdullin, A. I., & Khasanova, L. A. (2017). “The concept of “essential security interests” and justification of economic sanctions under WTO law”, Revista Publicando, 4(13 (3)), 450-458.
11. Brew, R. (2019). “Exception clauses in international investment agreements as a tool for appropriately balancing the right to regulate with investment protection”, Canterbury Law Review, 25, 205-242.
12. Briese, R. (2009). “Djibouti v France: self-judging clauses before the international court of justice”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 10(1), 308-328.
13. Coleman, A. (2003). “The International Court of Justice and highly political matters”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 4(1), 29-75.
14. Heath, J. B. (2019). “Trade and security among the ruins”, Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L., 30, 223.
15. Menkes, M. J. (2019). “The legality of US investment sanctions against Iran before the ICJ: a watershed moment for the essential security and necessity exceptions”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international, 56, 328-364.
16. Moon, W. J. (2012). “Essential security interests in international investment agreements”, Journal of International Economic Law, 15(2), 481-502.
17. Połatyńska, J. (2021). “Essential Security Interests of States-Some Observations on the Emerging Practice under International Law”, Eastern European Journal of Transnational Relations, 5(2), 85-92.
18. Ranjan, P. (2024). “Essential security interests in international investment law—A trend towards GATTization”, ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, 39(3), 489-503.
19. Rose-Ackerman, S., & Billa, B. (2007). “Treaties and national security”, NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol., 40, 437.
20. Ruiz, Jason (2020). ‘‘National Security Exceptions under International Law’’, The Treaty Examiner, 0(3), 89-97.
21. Warrier, A. (2020). “The Essential Security Interest Conundrum for India”, NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol., 53, 1031.
 
B) Cases
22. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, ICJ Rep, 2018.
23. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, ICJ Rep, 2021.
24. Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, ICJ Rep, 1996.
25. Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), ICJ Rep, 1997.
26. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), ICJ Rep, Merits, 2023.
27. Certain Iranian Assets, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Rep, 2019.
28. Certain Iranian Assets, ICJ Rep, Separate Opinion of Judge Iwasawa, 2023.
29. Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), ICJ Rep, 2008.
30. Corfu Channel Case, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania, ICJ Rep, 1949.
31. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), ICJ Rep, Judgment of 2 February 1973.
32. Military and Paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, ICJ Rep, 1986.
 
(C) Documents
33. Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti and France), 1986.
34. ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc A/56/83 (3 August 2001).
35. Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran and USA), 1955.
36. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation (USA-Nicaragua), 1956.
 
[In persian]:
(A) Books
37. Piri, H. (2024). Vital National Interest & International Law, 2nd ed., Tehran: Entesharate Majd.
38. Saeed, N. (2005). ‘‘The Protection of States' Essential Security Interests in the Light of the International Court of Justice's Judgment in the Oil Platforms Case’’, in Collected Essays Regarding: The International Court of Justice's Judgment in the Oil Platforms Case. Supervised by Dr. Jamshid Momtaz, Tehran: markeze pajohesh‌haye majlse shoraye eslami.
 
(B) Articles
39. Azari, H. (2024). ‘‘The Potential Impact of the ICJ’s Judgment of Certain Iranian Assets Case on the Impending Judgment in the Case Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity: A Legal Analysis’’, International Law Review, 41(73), 257-278. doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2024.2024779.2527
40. Zamani, S G. and Piri, H. (2012). “Function of the Vital National Interest in Humanity Scopes of International Law: Humanitarian Law”, The Judiciarys Law Journal, 76(79), 39-71. doi: 10.22106/jlj.2012.11046
41. Savari, H; Piri, H. (2012). ‘‘Vital National Interests of States in the Shadow of the Disarmament and Arms Control Treateis’’, International Quarterly of Foreign Relations, 4(3), pp.243-286. 20.1001.1.20085419.1391.4.3.6.6
42. Seifzadeh, F; Zamani, S Gh; Savari, H; Raie Dahaghi, M. (2017). ‘‘The Study of the Mission of the Security Council to Apply the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine’’, Comparative Law Researches, 21(1), 53-79. 20.1001.1.22516751.1396.21.1.4.1
43. Sharifi Tarazkohi, H. and Piri, H. (2011). “The Vital National Interest in the Light of International Judicial Procedure (Jurisprudence)”, Public Law Researsh, 14(38), 9-37.
44. Kadkhodaei, A. and Jalili, S. R. (2024). “Invoking National Security in International Legal Practice”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 1-24. doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2022.299679.2929
45. Mirfakhraei, S. H., Piri, S. (2016). “Study on Applicability of Amity Treaty of 1955 for Propounding the Case in the ICJ in Regard to the Western Sanctions against Iran”, International Relations Studies, 9(34), 93-126.