Iran's Complaint Against the U.S. and the 1955 Treaty of Friendship

Two years after the dust settled from the coup of August 28, on "August 23, 1955, corresponding to August 15, 1955, in Tehran, a treaty titled 'Treaty of Friendship and Economic Relations and Consular Rights' was signed between the United States and Iran. This is one of the few treaties drafted in both Persian and English and was signed in Tehran by representatives of the U.S. government and the Imperial Government of Iran. This document is registered under three titles 'Consular and Diplomatic Relations, Trade, Friendship' in the UN treaty registration under number 4132. The text of the document is available in both English and Persian in the United Nations treaty collection. The first paragraph of Article 23 of this treaty refers to 'sufficient opportunity for consultation' for any objection that the other party may have, and the second paragraph of the same article suggests that if there is a dispute between the parties and it cannot be satisfactorily resolved through diplomacy, it will be referred to the International Court of Justice unless... it is resolved by other peaceful means. On Tuesday, July 25, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Foreign Minister and chief negotiator of Iran's nuclear agreement with the 1+5 countries, announced via Twitter that Iran had submitted a complaint to the International Court of Justice against the U.S. Apparently, the complaint is based on the U.S. violation of the aforementioned Treaty of Friendship. Iran is requesting compensation from the court. What is the scope of this treaty? Mostafa Samiei, the permanent deputy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Imperial Government of Iran, and Selden Chapin, the then extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador of the United States in Tehran, each signed this treaty on behalf of the highest authority of their respective countries (the Shah of Iran and the President of the United States). The treaty states in its first article: 'There shall be established peace and friendly relations between the United States of America and Iran.' The provisions of the treaty cover almost all legal aspects of the life of a national of one country (the origin) in the country (the destination); such a national is entitled to the right to form associations, freedom of expression and religion, establish communication with other citizens, freedom of employment, and to benefit from fair legal and judicial treatment, etc. The fourth paragraph of the second article specifies that a national of either country in the other will enjoy 'the highest degree of protection and lasting security' and if detained for any reason, they will be treated 'fairly and humanely' and 'upon their request, without unnecessary delay, the political or consular representative of their country will be informed and given full opportunity to protect their interests.' Additionally, parts of the treaty address trade relations and consular relations regarding other aspects of citizens' rights in the other country and the limits of tax and trade laws as well as consular powers. Article four of this treaty legally protects the economic interests of companies, the property of nationals, even the residences and offices and warehouses of the parties to the treaty, and considers them somewhat immune from intrusion and inspection unless there is a legal cause and justification. Here, the texts of Articles eighteen and nineteen, which seem very interesting, are quoted verbatim from the original Persian document below: Article eighteen: 'Consular officers and consular employees shall not be subject to local regulations for acts performed in their official capacity within the limits of their authority. No consular officer or consular employee shall be obliged to present their official files to the courts or make statements regarding the contents of the files.' Article nineteen: 'A consular officer shall have the right in his area of jurisdiction: (a) to interview and communicate with any national of the country of origin and assist and advise them; (b) to investigate any incidents that may arise affecting their interests or rights; and (c) to assist them in their trials before the authorities of the host country or in their relations with the authorities of the host country and to arrange for the assistance of legal counsel where they have the right to have such counsel. A national of the country of origin shall at all times have the right to communicate with the consular officer of their country and, except in cases where they have been detained according to law, shall be permitted to meet with the said officer at the consulate.' Is the 1955 treaty still valid? The author has not found any text referring to this treaty in the literature of the first decade of the Iranian Revolution. However, Farshad Kashani, an international law expert, in an article dated June 9, 2016, in the publication 'National Interest,' points out an important fact by detailing several historical events. He states that this treaty is not only still valid but that Iran and the U.S. are still considered friendly countries by virtue of it. Kashani refers to a series of events following the 1979 Revolution in Iran that caused friction between Iran and the U.S., and subsequent to the actions of Imam Khomeini's students in taking American diplomats hostage in Tehran—which effectively negated the content of the 1955 treaty—the U.S. government announced the first sanctions against Iran and froze all Iranian deposits in the U.S. During the hostage crisis, the U.S. referred to Article four of the Treaty of Friendship 1955 and the consular rights mentioned therein to the International Court of Justice and filed a complaint against Iran. The court ruled in favor of the U.S. and demanded the immediate release of the hostages. The second event occurred about ten years after the hostage crisis and involved the U.S. Navy's attack on an Iranian passenger airliner in the Persian Gulf, which resulted in the deaths of 290 passengers on a commercial flight. The last time Iran filed a complaint against the U.S. based on this treaty was in 1992 due to American attacks on Iranian oil rigs in the Persian Gulf. In both cases, the International Court of Justice referred to the provisions of the 1955 treaty. A treaty of friendship minus friendship. Over the past 40 years, despite the existence of this treaty and its validity, Iran and the U.S. have fundamentally had no interest in 'friendship' with one another, and apart from three instances of legal recourse to this treaty, they have never publicly acknowledged the existence of this treaty or shown interest in adhering to its provisions. When the initial sanctions were imposed in the 1980s or when unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran were imposed for various reasons, including nuclear activities, recourse to this treaty could have regulated and softened relations. However, Iran has fundamentally opposed having relations. Even at the time of signing the nuclear agreement, Iran could have requested a referral of the text of the agreement to the provisions of this treaty and used it as a valid legal backing to secure Iran's long-term interests through communication or at least by referencing this treaty. However, the issue was fundamentally flawed, and the Islamic Republic, by detaining Americans and Iranian-Americans, effectively nullified the consular rights along with a significant portion of the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship 1955, as the closure of embassies and the reduction of relations between the two countries to a interests section operating under the flag of another country in the capitals of both countries essentially undermined the legal standing of this document. What is the International Court of Justice? The United Nations consists of several main bodies and organs, including the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. The International Court of Justice is located in the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands) and is one of the six main organs of the United Nations that is located outside New York. Is there still a way after forty years of 'Death to America' slogans? The tweet from Iran's Foreign Minister has once again brought this treaty to light. Iran has requested that the United States pay damages for financial losses resulting from its withdrawal from the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) and the re-imposition of sanctions. The initial response from the U.S. has been that the legal claim is baseless and that they are prepared to defend themselves in the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice has confirmed the receipt of this complaint on its website, but no official reaction from the court has been shown yet, and the date of the hearing is not specified. Some believe that Zarif acted under domestic pressure to file the complaint. Others see a message in this lawsuit. In this context, several questions arise that we still do not have answers to: * Has forty years of shouting 'Death to America' left a path open for claiming damages using the provisions of the 'Treaty of Friendship'? * Does Iran want to use this complaint and refer to the legal framework of this treaty, which is arguably still valid, to create a basis for negotiations with U.S. representatives without directly initiating negotiations or through intermediaries? * If this is the goal, is the 'Oman' channel for mediation closed, or does Zarif want to justify direct negotiations by invoking the presence in court sessions and silence his opponents? * Finally, the current online space is filled with demands from the people and groups for the government to negotiate directly with the U.S. Is the appointment of Parvin Farshchi as the new ambassador of the Islamic Republic in Finland (considering the essential role of women in Finnish society) related to the whispers of negotiations with the U.S., or is this appointment merely a one-time gesture in support of women? And is Ms. Farshchi's role to create a suitable environment for potential negotiations through Finland, which has a well-established role as a neutral mediator in the international community? (Of course, direct negotiations have their opponents, which requires a more detailed discussion). The opinions expressed in this note do not necessarily reflect the views of Radio Farda.