The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is one of the institutions striving to govern international law in relations between states. Although countries ostensibly attempt to present themselves as adherents to these institutions, the reality often differs. In the years following the Iranian Revolution, the United States unlawfully seized Iranian assets multiple times, leading Iran to file a complaint against the U.S. in the court. The main question of this research is whether the ICJ’s actions in the case of the seizure of Iranian assets were based on the principles of international justice. The research hypothesis posits that a minimal set of international legal traditions exists, which both political entities in the international system and international institutions can adhere to in order to peacefully resolve their disputes. The findings indicate that the jurisprudence established in the ICJ is grounded in international law rules, which has sought to promote justice in the international arena and move toward the establishment of a law-based international order. Accordingly, in the case of the seizure of Iranian assets, the court did not deviate from this framework. The approach of the article is analytical-descriptive, and the method of data collection was library and documentary research.
 
Introduction
This article examines the alignment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the principles of international justice in the case of the seizure of Iranian assets by the United States. In the years following the Islamic Revolution, the U.S. government unlawfully seized and confiscated Iranian assets, often justifying these actions on the grounds of supporting terrorism, which constitutes a violation of the principle of state immunity in international law. In response, Iran filed a lawsuit against the U.S. at the ICJ, citing the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The primary question is whether the ruling issued by the court is consistent with the components of international judicial justice.
 
Research Methodology
The research method used in this study is descriptive-analytical, based on library and documentary data. The authors utilized credible legal sources, official documents from the court, issued rulings, international treaties, and legal theories to analyze the subject. The main focus is on examining the theoretical foundations of international justice and its alignment with the actions of formal institutions such as the ICJ.
 
Theoretical Framework
In this article, international judicial justice is understood as impartial, rule-based, and fair adjudication in international disputes. Concepts such as the impartiality of judges, adherence to procedural rules, the possibility of appeal, and the use of credible legal sources (such as international custom, treaties, and judicial precedents) are considered essential components of justice. It is also emphasized that the jurisdiction of the court, unlike domestic courts, is based on the consent of the parties, which poses a significant challenge to the execution of justice.
The article provides a detailed analysis of the structure of the ICJ and examines its performance in adjudicating disputes. The court consists of 15 judges from various nationalities who are elected based on the UN Charter. In cases where one party lacks a national judge, they are allowed to appoint a special judge. In the case of Iran against the United States, Iran exercised this right by appointing Dr. Jamshid Momtaz as a special judge, which reflects adherence to judicial balance and is an example of fair trial.
The case study focuses on the seizure of Iranian assets in the U.S., referred to as the “Peterson case.” This action was taken based on a law passed by the U.S. Congress, allowing U.S. courts to seize the assets of states deemed to support terrorism. In response, Iran complained to the ICJ. After examining the arguments of both parties, the court issued its ruling based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The final ruling determined that the U.S. was guilty of violating Articles 3, 4, and 10 of the Treaty and established its international responsibility.
 
Strengths of the Court’s Performance
The court’s ruling is assessed as being consistent with international justice principles in several respects:

The presence of an Iranian judge in the court ensured judicial balance.
The court referred to a valid treaty as the basis for its jurisdiction.
The court rejected the weak U.S. defenses based on “national security” and “tainted hands.”

These points indicate that the court has been able to play an effective role in achieving justice in certain instances.
 
Critique and Weaknesses
A notable weakness in the court’s performance is its rejection of Iran’s defenses regarding the Central Bank. The court did not recognize the Central Bank as a protected entity under the Treaty, viewing it instead as a commercial institution. The authors of the article consider this decision unfair, as the court could have established its jurisdiction in support of the Central Bank based on international custom and Iranian domestic law.
 
Conclusion
The authors conclude that the International Court of Justice has demonstrated a generally acceptable performance in the case of Iran against the United States. The ruling issued was based on legal principles, the Treaty of Amity, and considerations of fair trial. However, challenges such as the limited jurisdiction of the court, the impact of politics on certain cases, and weaknesses in fully supporting state sovereignty remain serious obstacles to achieving international justice. This study emphasizes that in order to promote global justice, reforming the structure of the court and strengthening the enforcement mechanisms of its rulings is essential.