International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America
The Certain Iranian Assets case, or Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, is a complex case that delves into the connections between international law, investment law, and state sovereignty. The case stems from decades of political and diplomatic tension between Iran and the United States.
The origins of the case trace back to the bombing of a U.S. military base in Beirut, Lebanon, during the ongoing crisis between the Lebanese government and multiple militant groups in the region. Following the killing of 241 U.S. servicemen, the United States accused Iran of arming these militant groups and causing this attack of terrorism.
In response, between 1983 and 2016, the U.S. government froze Iranian assets in numerous banks, including nearly $2 billion held in a New York bank. While these actions were aimed at satisfying judgments against Iran for its alleged involvement in terrorist activities, the legitimacy of these accusations has been a subject of ongoing debate. Iran subsequently challenged the U.S. in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), claiming that the asset seizures violated the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights signed between the two nations in 1955.
This case raises fundamental questions about the limits of state immunity, the enforcement of international treaties, and the legality of asset seizures under investment law. In examining this dispute, delegates will need to consider various events and legislative measures supporting each country's position, including the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) and the Executive Order of 2012. Delegates must not only grapple with complex legal arguments but also reflect on how these decisions could shape the future of U.S.-Iran relations and challenge established norms in international law. This case will push delegates to critically evaluate the legitimacy of both nations' claims and challenge the status quo.
Marshall Islands v. India
The Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament, or Marshall Islands v. India, case presents a unique and compelling exploration of international law and nuclear disarmament.
The Republic of the Marshall Islands, a small island nation in the Pacific, was deeply affected by nuclear testing in the mid-20th century. The country brought this case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India, alleging that India failed to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and customary international law to negotiate in good faith toward nuclear disarmament.
This case originates from the nuclear testing conducted on the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1996. The Marshall Islands filed cases against all nine nuclear-armed states involved in the development of atomic weaponry at the ICJ, though only the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and India responded, while others disputed the Court’s jurisdiction. India has been accused of failing to fulfill obligations under international law, violating the International Law Commission Articles 43 and 44, and quantitatively improving its nuclear arsenal despite being a signatory of the NPT.
The case raises broader issues concerning global nuclear disarmament and the responsibilities of nuclear-armed states, particularly regarding differing obligations for NPT signatories and non-signatories. It prompts important questions about accountability for nations failing to uphold international disarmament agreements and the long-lasting impacts of nuclear testing on vulnerable populations, including the Marshallese people.
Delegates examining this case will find it both challenging and enriching, as it requires balancing the legal obligations of states, the importance of international security, and the historical context of nuclear proliferation that continues to affect civilian populations. The case also highlights the importance of international law in addressing global security challenges.
