The Challenge of Judicial Impartiality at the International Court of Justice: The Case of Iran’s Airspace and Maritime Violations against the United States

Masoudi, Navid; Mousazadeh, Reza; Mahmoudi, Amir; Keyhanlou, Fatemeh

The Challenge of Judicial Impartiality at the International Court of Justice: The Case of Iran’s Airspace and Maritime Violations against the United States

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Navid Masoudi ¹

Reza Mousazadeh ²

Amir Mahmoudi ³

Fatemeh Keyhanlou ³

¹ Ph.D. Student, Department of International Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

² Professor, Department of Diplomacy and International Law, Faculty of International Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tehran, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

This article examines the principle of judicial impartiality at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) through an analysis of the case brought by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the United States concerning violations of Iran’s airspace, maritime rights, and economic interests under the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The central research question asks whether the ICJ adhered to the standards of judicial impartiality in its handling of provisional measures (2018) and its final judgment on jurisdiction and merits (2023). The study hypothesizes that structural characteristics of the Court, including the consent-based nature of jurisdiction, the presence of ad hoc judges, and geopolitical pressures exerted by major powers, have influenced the Court’s reasoning and limited its impartial performance. Using a qualitative and analytical legal method, the article draws on ICJ judgments, separate and dissenting opinions, treaty interpretation, and scholarly critiques. The findings indicate that while the Court formally upheld procedural neutrality, its restrictive interpretation of treaty jurisdiction and selective engagement with Iran’s claims raised serious concerns regarding substantive impartiality and the legitimacy of international adjudication.

Introduction
Judicial impartiality constitutes a foundational pillar of international adjudication and a core element of the legitimacy of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Impartiality in this context extends beyond the personal neutrality of judges and encompasses structural, procedural, and institutional dimensions, including judicial selection, jurisdictional doctrines, and interpretive practices. The credibility of the ICJ, and the willingness of states to accept its judgments, depend significantly on the perception that the Court applies international law consistently and without political bias. This issue becomes particularly salient in disputes involving major powers. The case initiated by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the United States under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, following the reimposition of U.S. sanctions in 2018, provides a critical opportunity to assess the Court’s impartiality in practice.

Materials and Methods
This research adopts a qualitative and analytical legal methodology. Primary sources include ICJ judgments and orders issued in 2018 and 2023, separate and dissenting opinions of judges, and official documents related to the Treaty of Amity and relevant United Nations resolutions. Secondary sources consist of scholarly works on judicial impartiality, legitimacy, and the political dimensions of international adjudication. The analysis is informed by theoretical frameworks of procedural justice and legitimacy, particularly those advanced by Thomas Franck and critical international legal scholars such as Martti Koskenniemi. The study employs doctrinal analysis to evaluate treaty interpretation and jurisdictional reasoning, alongside a comparative approach that situates the Iran–United States case within the broader jurisprudence of the ICJ, including cases such as Nicaragua v. United States.

Discussion
The findings reveal a complex and ambivalent pattern in the Court’s approach. On the one hand, the ICJ affirmed its jurisdiction under the Treaty of Amity and issued provisional measures in 2018 requiring the United States to ensure humanitarian trade and aviation safety. This decision was widely viewed as an affirmation of Iran’s legal position and an indication of the Court’s willingness to constrain unilateral power. On the other hand, the Court’s 2023 judgment adopted a notably restrictive interpretation of treaty provisions, excluding significant aspects of Iran’s claims—particularly those related to banking sanctions, oil trade, and broader economic measures—from substantive review.
This narrow interpretive approach contrasts with earlier ICJ jurisprudence, most notably in the Nicaragua case, where the Court relied extensively on customary international law and general principles rather than confining itself to treaty text alone. The presence of ad hoc judges and the voting patterns observed in the Iran–United States case further fuel concerns about structural bias, as empirical studies have shown a strong tendency for ad hoc judges to support the appointing state. Additionally, the Court’s reluctance to engage with broader principles of state responsibility and proportionality suggests a form of “judicial restraint” that may function as de facto partiality when powerful states are involved.

Conclusion
The analysis demonstrates that while the ICJ formally adhered to procedural requirements of neutrality, its substantive approach in the Iran–United States case raises serious questions about judicial impartiality. Structural constraints—such as consent-based jurisdiction, lack of enforcement mechanisms, and geopolitical pressures—significantly limit the Court’s capacity to act as an independent arbiter of international justice. The Court’s cautious and restrictive reasoning, particularly in the 2023 judgment, undermines perceptions of equality before the law and weakens the legitimacy of international adjudication. Strengthening judicial impartiality at the ICJ requires not only doctrinal refinement but also institutional reforms aimed at enhancing transparency, consistency, and independence from political influence.

Keywords

International Court of Justice

Judicial impartiality

Treaty of Amity

Iran&ndash

United States disputes

International adjudication

Provisional measures

Jurisdiction

Akehurst, M., & Malanczuk, P. (2004). A Modern Introduction to International Law, Routledge.

Atlantic Council. (2023). What the ICJ ruling on the Central Bank of Iran means for the US and the Islamic Republic. Retrieved from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/what-the-icj-ruling-on-the-central-bank-of-iran-means-for-the-us-and-the-islamic-republic-and-those-seeking-reparations-for-state-sponsored-atrocities/

BBC. (2018). International Court of Justice orders US to ease Iran sanctions. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45729397

Executive Order NO. 13846. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarkspresident-trump-signing-executive-order-iran-sanctions

Franck, Thomas M. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. Oxford University Press.

Gray, C. (2008). International Law and the Use of Force, Oxford University Press

Hepburn, J. (2023). Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America). University of Melbourne Law School.

International Court of Justice (ICJ). (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America).

International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2023). Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America).

International Court of Justice. (2023). Final Judgment on Preliminary Objections and Merits (30 March 2023).

J. VERHOEVEN, Considerations on what is common, General course of public International law, Collection of Courses, Volume 334, 2008, pp. 369/370.

Kolb, Robert. (2013). The International Court of Justice. Hart Publishing.

Koskenniemi, Martti. (2005). From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge University Press.

Mirzaei Yengjeh, S. (1987). Decision of the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua vs. United States. Foreign Policy(NO. 4 (ISC)). Retrieved 07 20, 2020

Pellet, A. (1999). “Note sur la jurisprudence récente de la Cour internationale de Justice”, Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 103(4), 823–832.

Posner, E. A., & De Figueiredo, M. F. (2005). Is the international court of justice biased?. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34(2), 599-630.

Rosenne, S., & Ronen, Y. (2006). The law and practice of the International Court, 1920-2005 (Vol. 2). M. Nijhoff Publishers.

Shahbazi, A. (2012). Validity of 1955 Treaty of Amity and its Reliability in Iran-US Relations. International Journal of Law, Journal of the International Legal Affairs Center of the Presidency, year 28th(44).

Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of international courts. Oxford University Press, USA.

Shaw, M. N. (2017). International law. Cambridge university press.

United Nations Security Council. (2015). Resolution 2231 (2015), adopted by the Security Council at its 7488th meeting, on 20 July 2015. S/RES/2231 (2015). Retrieved from https://undocs.org/S/RES/2231(2015)

Yadegarian, F. (2021). The International Court of Justice and its role in the legal relations between Iran and the United States. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 13(35), 89-112.

References [In Persian]

Akbari Roudposhti, A., & Zamani, S. Q. (2020). The concept and instances of judicial impartiality in international instruments and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Legal Research Quarterly, 9, 1–30. (in Persian)

Akehurst, M., & Malanczuk, P. (2004). A Modern Introduction to International Law, Routledge.

BBC. (2018). International Court of Justice orders US to ease Iran sanctions. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45729397

Executive Order NO. 13846. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarkspresident-trump-signing-executive-order-iran-sanctions

Franck, Thomas M. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. Oxford University Press.