Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:23:24.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2017

Wm. W. Bishop JR.
Wm. W. Bishop JR.*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is believed that certain background information will facilitate an understanding of the decision of July 5, 1951, by the International Court of Justice regarding interim measures of protection in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case, reprintedinfra, page 789. The dispute between the United Kingdom and Iran grows out of the unilateral termination by the Iranian Government, as a part of its oil nationalization program, of a concession contract which entered into force May 29, 1933, between the Government of Iran and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British corporationin which the British Government holds a large share of the stock.

Type
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , October 1950 , pp. 749 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It is expected that when the Court gives its decision on the merits the full text or a digest will be carried in a future issue of this JOURNAL.

2 League of Nations Official Journal, 1933, p. 1653.

3 The D‘Arcy concession, granted by the Persian Government May 28, 1901, for a sixty-year term. This concession provided that “ any dispute or difference in respect of its interpretation or the rights or responsibilities of one or the other of the parties therefrom resulting” should be submitted to arbitration.

4 No legal difficulties arose from the change in name of the state from “Persia” to“Iran,” or in the corresponding change in the name of the company from “Anglo-Persian” to “Anglo-Iranian.”

5 Following controversies as to the proper royalty to be paid Persia by the concessionary company, the Persian Government canceled the D‘Arcy concession on Nov. 27, 1932. Protests and requests for arbitration by the company were unsuccessful. The United Kingdom submitted the dispute to the Council of the League of Nations by letter of Dec. 14, 1932 (League of Nations Official Journal, 1932, p. 2296), and memorandum of Dec. 19 (ibid., p. 2298). The Persian Government replied in a memorandum of Jan.18, 1933 (League of Nations Official Journal, 1933, p. 289). After argument by British and Persian representatives (ibid., pp. 197-211), the League Council suspended proceedings until the parties might have an opportunity to work out a solution for themselves(ibid., p. 252). After the new concession resulted from direct negotiations between the company and the Persian Government, the League Council expressed its pleasure that the dispute was settled (ibid., pp. 827, 1606).

6 If the President were a national of either party, then the Vice President of the Court was to act instead.

7 Art. 25 provided that “The Company shall have the right to surrender this Concession at the end of any Christian calendar year, on giving to the Government notice in writing two years previously.”

8 English translation in Application Instituting Proceedings, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case, p. 58 (Annex C) .

9 English translation, ibid., p. 66.

10 Thus in the translation; it is believed that “international law” may express what was intended.

11 Published by the International Court of Justice, 1951, General List, No. 16.

12 Art. 36, par. 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (this JOURNAL, Vol. 39 (1945), Supp., p. 215) reads:

“The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:(a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c)the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for thebreach of an international obligation.”

13 Seventh Annual Eeport of the Permanent Court of International Justice, P.C.I.J. Series E, No. 7, p. 465. See also International Court of Justice Yearbook, 1946-1947,p. 211. Art. 36, par. 5, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides:“Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms.”

14 English translation by League of Nations Secretariat. The official French text reads:

“Le Gouvernement impérial de Perse déclare reconnaϮtre comme obligatoire, de plein droit et sans convention spéciale, vis-à.-vis de tout autre Etat acceptant la même obligation, c’est-à-dire sous condition de réiciprocité, la juridietion de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale, conformément à l’article 36, paragraphe 2, du Statut de la Cour, sur tous les différends qui s’élèveraient après la ratification de la présente déclaration, au sujet de situations ou de faits ayant directement ou indirectement trait à l’application des traités ou conventions acceptés par la Perse et postérieurs à la ratification de cette déclaration, exception faite pour:

“a) les differénds ayant trait au statut territorial de la Perse, y compris ceuxrelatifs à ses droits de souveraineté sur ses îles et ports;

“b) les differénds au sujet desquels les Parties auraient convenu ou conviendraient d'avoir recours à un autre mode de règlement pacifique;

“c) les différends relatifs à des questions qui, d'après le droit international,relèveraient exclusivement de la juridiction de la Perse.”