Case Digest: UJS. v. Iran (1987) [Short v. Iran]
Public International Law | Act of Revolutionaries
Facts:
- The claimant, an American national, was employed by Lockheed, an American company, in Iran.
- On February 8, 1979, three days before the Islamic Revolutionary Government took office, the claimant was evacuated from Iran on company orders because of the deteriorating situation.
- The claimant sought compensation for salary and other losses resulting from his alleged expulsion contrary to international law.
Issue:
- Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for salary and other losses resulting from his alleged expulsion contrary to international law NO.
Held:
- Where a revolution leads to the establishment of a new government the State is held responsible for the acts of the overthrown government insofar as the latter maintained control of the situation. The successor government is also held responsible for the acts imputable to the revolutionary movement which established it, even if those acts occurred prior to its establishment, as a consequence of the continuity existing between the new organization of the State and the organization of the revolutionary movement. See Draft Articles on State Responsibility, supra, Commentary on Articuel 15, paras. 3 and 4....
- The Claimant relies on acts committed by revolutionaries. ... He is unable, however, to identify any agent of the revolutionary movement, the actions of which compelled him to leave Iran. The acts of supporters of a revolution [as opposed to its agents] cannot be attributed to the government following the success of the revolution just as the acts of supporters of an existing government are not attributable to the government. This was clearly recalled by the International Court of Justice in United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran), 19801.CJ. 3,29, para. 58 [above, p. 358]....
- The Claimant.... [relies] on the declarations made by the leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini... While these statements are of anti-foreign and in particular anti-American sentiments, the Tribunal notes that these pronouncements were of a general nature and did not specify that Americans should be expelled en masse. On this issue also, it is worthwhile to quote the International Court of Justice, in the judgment [para. 59] just referred to [above, p. 359], ... Similarly, it cannot be said that the declarations referred to by the Claimant amounted to an authorization to revolutionaries to act in such a way that the Claimant should be forced to leave Iran forthwith. Nor is there any evidence that any action prompted by such statements was the caused of the Claimant’s decision to leave Iran. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is of the view that the Claimant has failed to prove that his departure from Iran can be imputed to the wrongful conduct of Iran. The claim is therefore dismissed.
Comments
Post a Comment