The top court of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), began public hearings on Monday in a high-profile case concerning the seizure of Iranian assets in the US.
The case — known officially as Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) — was filed in the ICJ by Tehran in 2016. It seeks the unfreezing and return of nearly $2 billion in Iranian assets held in the US, The Print reported.
Iran and the US have had no formal diplomatic relations since 7 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. The hearings are bound to have far-reaching implications, especially amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
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.
Iran lodged the case against the US in the ICJ on 14 June 2016 in response to the US Supreme Court’s April 2016 ruling in a case known as Bank Markazi v. Peterson that had been under litigation since the early 2000s.
The suit involved over 1,300 individuals who had secured favorable verdicts in several separate cases against Iran for its alleged role in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and other attacks.
Petitioners had sought compensation via funds in a Citibank account in New York connected with Iran’s central bank, known as Bank Markazi.
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.
In April 2016, the US Supreme Court in a 6-2 ruling said such a law was not unconstitutional and did not amount to a violation of the separation of powers.
However, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. criticized Congress’ attempt to “pick” winners of court cases by passing laws directed at cases that were still under litigation.
Since 2016, Tehran has argued that Washington violated the 1955 Treaty of Amity — an agreement of friendship signed by the two countries — by seizing Iranian assets in the US and diverting them to other parties.
In 2018, when the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, the ICJ ordered Washington to ensure that sanctions imposed against Tehran did not affect humanitarian aid such as food and medicine.
Intro:
