RJ Rose Cel A.

Torres
China
Republic of Iran vs. United States of America

The issue at hand concerning Iran and the United States of America came from the alleged unprecedent attacks
of the latter to the oil platforms of the former. The United States of America invoked the principle of self-defense, at the
expense of Iran’s economic losses.

The case has been brought into the attention of the International Court of Justice. It currently begs the question,
whether or not the United States of America violated Article 10, subsection 1 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic
Relations and Consular Rights of 1955, which stated, “Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there
shall be freedom of commerce and navigation.”

Treaties have been sought as one of the sources of international law. It is binding between signatory states and could
render indemnities when it is subsequently breached out of bad faith.

The treaty was signed during the time when Islamic State of Iran and the United States of America maintained friendly
relations. And in consonance to international law, regardless of the current diplomatic tensions between two states, its
bilateral agreements remain binding, unless otherwise revoked by one of the parties, with the consent of the other.

The contention of Iran in the matter is that since the oil to be extracted from the platforms were to be destined to be
exported to the United States territory, there is a clear breach of the clause.

However, the United had maintained its stance that the attack was not against the treaty, and it has no responsibility for
the reparation of damages. Furthermore, the attacking of vessels, laying mines in the gulf and military actions from 1987-
1988 that were dangerous and detrimental to maritime commerce, all these actions of Iran, should make the Islamic state
culpable instead of the reparations rather than the United States.

It is imperative to note that the United States and Iran had no commerce between Iran and the United State in respect
of oil produced by these platforms at the time of the attacks.

In regards with the contention of the past decision of the International Court of Justice, it has been clear that the court
finds that the United States of America, in relation to the topic, had formed a well-founded belief that it has never
violated the said clause of the treaty.

Thus, with the foregoing facts enumerated, it is of logical consequence that the United States of America has no
obligations to Iran and never breached the freedom of commerce and navigation, therefore the claims of Iran of remedy
to injury are not substantiated before the court.

On the account that further advice is needed and adhered, it is crucial for both parties to settle disputes in a diplomatic
and peaceful manner. International affairs should be governed by order and not chaos, by unity and not by division. It
must be driven with the spirit of cooperation and soft power, not coercion and hard power. In the midst of disputes and
unreconciled differences, there must be effective dialogue and initiative coming from the concerned states. Bilateral
agreements should be reviewed, renegotiated if needed to adapt with the changing times. After all, the bottom line
should be always for the good of the majority and constituency, and pursuing serene coexistence and development.
RJ Rose Cel A. Torres
China
Legality of the threat or use of Nuclear Weapons
The International Court of Justice is also responsible with giving advice as to the legality of questions that are
in dire need of an answer.

In the foregoing statement, the court is expected to assess and conclusively determine the legality of the possession of
nuclear weapons by a state and the circumstances that suffice as severe to warrant the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have been widely used especially in World War II, that claimed millions of lives worldwide. Its usage
and development has grown further since the recent world war, and efforts have been made in order to stop or prevent
its spread around the world.

The talk involving these weapons is imperative and alarming in international affairs and global politics for it is hardly
dangerous and the consequences of it being used could be a turning point of chaos for the current international order.

According to Public International Law, the cardinal principles constituting the Fabric of Humanitarian Law are as
follows: that states must never make civilian the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are
incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets, and it is prohibited to cause unnecessary suffering to
combatants. (ICJ, 1996)

In relation to the usage of nuclear weapons, international law has been clear that it shall never be used for purposes that
shall be detrimental to the lives and well-being of the civilians and military targets alike.

Furthermore, the Charter of the United Nations recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in
an armed-attack occurs. The entitlement to resort to self-defense to the conditions of necessity and proportionality. A
further lawful use of force is envisage whereby the Security Council may take military enforcement measures in
conformity of the Charter.

It has been understood that nuclear weapons (that is interpreted as force) should only be used when necessary, and of
last resort. As much as possible, traditionally allowable measures in international law that should be explored in the
exercise of self-defense are as follows: severance of diplomatic ties, retorsion, reprisal, embargo, boycott, non-
intercourse and pacific blockade.

The international community of states and organizations recognizes the importance of peace and cooperation in
fostering a better world for humanity.

This has been reaffirmed by the declaration of the five (5) nuclear weapon states such as United States, Russia (the
successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China, which have detonated nuclear weapons in
the past, of their adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons
technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear
disarmament and general and complete disarmament. 1

The treaty’s approach is the “no first use rule”, which refers to a pledge given by a nuclear state to not use its nuclear
weapons unless first attacked by nuclear weapons too. The response of each state in the treaty has been remarkable,
given that it has 191 signatories already and its binding effect has been deemed in force indefinitely. Thus, the
continuance of its observance by states and multilateral cooperation in its enforcement is vital for the legality of its use
for self-defense and never for mass destruction.

1
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/