The Diplomatic and Consular Staff Case brief

The Diplomatic and Consular Staff Case (US v. Iran; ICJ 1980; p. 271)

• Iran violated intl law (treaties and customary law) b/c it wouldn’t return the hostages from the Embassy unless the US sent the Shah back to Iran.
• State succession—treaty of amity entered into in 55 by the Shah.
• Muth: No question that Iran was bound by the treaty of amity—Khomeni is not a “new state.” Bringing this case may not have been wise.
• Ct concedes that initial decision to attack was not state sanctioned (until later).
• Nothing really to argue—case taken to ICJ to make a political point. Ct accepts jurisdiction even tho both the ct and the US know Iran will not appear or abide by any decision. N. 4, p. 286: The proper role of the court—shld it turn away when it is being used? Is this a negative effect on the ICJ’s rep?
• How does a ct operate effectively when state’s won’t cooperate?
• Ct makes note that US military incursion (helicopters sent by Carter to free hostages) was inappropriate and undermined justice.
• Another possible purpose of the ICJ: develop intl law—maybe ok then.