Iran's Central Bank Responds to US Supreme Court Ruling: 'Clear Violation'

On Friday, the Central Bank of Iran published an interview with Hamid Ghanbari, the head of its legal studies department, describing the seizure of the Central Bank's assets as a 'violation of an important principle of international law' and a 'clear violation.' This statement followed the news that the US Supreme Court had allowed US courts to pay compensation to the families of Americans killed in the 1983 attacks in exchange for the Central Bank's assets. The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that $2 billion of Iran's frozen assets should be paid to the families of American victims of the 1983 bombings at the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and other attacks related to Iran. The Central Bank explained that the interview was published to clarify media misconceptions linking the Supreme Court's ruling to the JCPOA. In this explanation, the connection between the Supreme Court's ruling and the JCPOA and Iran's nuclear agreement with the P5+1 countries was rejected. Hamid Ghanbari emphasized that the Supreme Court's ruling was issued against the Central Bank of Iran at a time when, according to him, 'Central banks in almost all countries of the world enjoy immunity, and even in some cases, including in the US, there are various laws and regulations that consider the immunity of central banks even more than that of governments.' He described the US action as 'unprecedented' and stated: 'The United States, without regard for these international norms, ignored one of the most important principles of international law by issuing a series of default judgments and proceeded to seize the Central Bank's dollar securities.' According to the head of the legal studies department, this seizure occurred in 2008, and the Central Bank of Iran has since protested this action by participating in the related legal proceedings. Ghanbari noted that one of the Central Bank's arguments in this case was the 'non-existence' of the Central Bank's dollar assets in the US. He also mentioned the 'independence' of the Central Bank from the government as another argument presented in this case. He further emphasized that 'it would not be an exaggeration to say that the United States has shown itself to be one of the most unsafe countries for holding foreign banks' currency reserves with this decision.' In response to a question about the connection of this case to the JCPOA, Ghanbari referred to the historical context of this case, stating: 'The legal foundations for such rulings have been established in the US since the late 1990s, and the initial and appellate rulings were issued prior to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).' He also emphasized that 'the JCPOA contains commitments of the US government towards Iran, and judicial rulings of US courts are not subject to the JCPOA.' Although the head of the legal studies department described the US government's practice of issuing such rulings against the Iranian government as contrary to international law and even against the fundamental principles of its own legal system, he believes that 'this case and its developments cannot be linked to the JCPOA and the commitments contained therein regarding the lifting of sanctions.' After providing these explanations, Ghanbari stated: 'This [the Central Bank's case in the US Supreme Court and its ruling] cannot be considered in line with the spirit governing the JCPOA.' Previously, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, had also stated in an interview that Iran does not recognize the US Supreme Court's ruling.