US Asks World Court to Deny Iran Claims Over Frozen Assets

The United States on Wednesday asked judges at the International Court of Justice in The Hague to dismiss claims by Tehran that Washington illegally allowed courts to freeze assets of Iranian companies.
Iran brought the case against Washington in 2016 for  breaching a 1955 friendship treaty by allowing US courts to freeze assets of Iranian companies, including $1.75 billion from Iran's central bank, to be given in compensation to victims of alleged terrorist attacks, newswires reported.
"Iran's case should be dismissed in its entirety because of the principle of 'unclean hands'," Richard Visek, acting legal adviser of the US State Department said.
Visek argued that Iran cannot complain about US courts confiscating assets because the actions that led to the asset freeze were, as he claimed, the result of Iran's own illegal conduct.
The 1950s friendship treaty that is the basis for the claim was signed long before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the US-backed Shah, and the subsequent severing of US-Iranian relations. 

Iran and the US have had no formal diplomatic relations since April 1980. The ICJ case revolves around the question of whether the external assets of a sovereign central bank enjoy some form of immunity from being seized and diverted by another country.
On Monday Iran said the US had allowed an "industry of litigation" against Iranian companies to flourish in breach of the treaty.
The hearings also come at a sensitive time, with the Biden administration and US allies trying to revive the Iran nuclear deal, which the preceding Trump administration had abandoned in 2018.
In 2012, while the case was still pending, the Obama administration froze all assets of the Iranian government in the US, including the Citibank account. 
Further, the US Congress added a section to the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 that allowed frozen foreign assets to be used to satisfy judgments. The legislation even mentioned the Bank Markazi v. Peterson case by name, and its case docket number.
Iran’s central bank opposed the move, arguing that it was ‘unconstitutional’ and a violation of the US’s doctrine of the separation of powers, implying that the legislature was attempting to dictate the judicial process.
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, is the United Nations' top court dealing with disputes between states. Its rulings are binding, though the ICJ has no power to enforce them. A ruling in this case is expected next year.