Case Laws

Anglo-lranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran)

1
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran) case was a dispute
between the UK andIran, in which the UK alleged that the Iranian Oil
Nationalization act of 1951 wascounter to a convention agreed upon
by the (then) Anglo-Persian Oil Co. (nowBritish Petroleum) and the
Imperial Government of Persia (now Iran) in 1933, which granted
theA n g l o - I r a n i a n O i l C o . a 6 0 -
y e a r l i c e n s e t o m i n e o i l i n 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e m i l e s (260,00
0 km) of Iran in return for a percentage royalty. On26 May 1951, the UK
took Iran to theInternational Court of Justice, demanding
thatt h e 1 9 3 3 a g r e e m e n t b e u p h e l d a n d t h a t I r a n p a y d a m
a g e s a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r disrupting the UK-incorporated
company's profits.On22 July 1952, the ICJ decided because Iran had
only conceded to ICJ jurisdiction incases involving treaties agreed
upon after 1932, and as the only treaty cited by the UK after that
date was between Iran and a foreign company (and not the UK itself), that
it hadno jurisdiction in this matter (Iran's original contention).

Australia v. France and New Zealand v. France (1974 ICJ Rep 253).
France continued to test in the atmosphere until 1974 in the South
Pacific. The Frenchtest sites on Mururoa and Fangtufa atolls were
about 3700 miles east of Australia , and both Australia and New
Zealand brought suit in the International Court of Justice in
aneffort to bring a halt to the tests. The ICJ granted a preliminary
injunction but thenissued an opinion declining to rule on the merits,
since France had issued a statement thatit had ?taken steps to [continue
with only underground testing] as early as next year.?The C ou rt
i ndic at ed tha t Au st rali a or N ew Z e al and c oul d re- ope n th e
c a se i f F ra nce breached its commitment to them not to conduct
such tests. When France declared in1995 that it was going to conduct
eight more underground tests in the South Pacific, NewZealand
attempted to re-open the case. New Zealand sought to enjoin the
tests becauseof adverse effects on the marine environment, and
requested an environmental impactassessment. The ICJ ruled
against New Zealand (which had been joined by Australia ),saying that its
new complaint did not fit in under the clause permitting the 1974
case to be re-opened. Moreover, France had removed itself from
general ICJ jurisdiction in1974, preventing an entirely new case from
being brought
Negligence; Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case
No. ARB(AF)/12/5