Project Description

Substantive Jurisdiction of International Court of Justice in the Case of Violation of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (1955)

Authors: Faramarz Yadegarian (corresponding author), Dr. Mohsen Mohebi, Dr Amir Hossein Molkizadeh. International Journal Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2 (81), Summer 2024.


Following the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the reinstatement of US sanctions against Iran, and the cancellation of all oil, commercial, and economic agreements, all of which were the result of the JCPOA, Iran decided to sue the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Trade Relations, and Consular Rights (hereinafter the Treaty). The jurisdictional decision and temporary injunction have brought Iran closer to claiming its rights. However, the primary issues this study addressed were whether the ICJ has substantive jurisdiction and whether the final verdict will be in favor of Iran. Accordingly, the main research hypothesis was as follows: since the ICJ has substantive jurisdiction, if it renders an uncontested final verdict in Iran’s favor, the US must reimburse Iran and return the situation to its pre-trial state. To answer the above-mentioned questions and examine the hypothesis, this study employed a meta-analysis method.


Treaty of Amity and Consular Rights (1955)؛ International Court of Justice (ICJ)؛ Substantive jurisdiction of ICJ؛ Violation of Treaty of Amity Economic Relations and Consular Rights (1955)؛ Resolution 2231؛ Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).