ICJ Rejects Iran's Bid to Release Assets Frozen by US

Members of the US and Iranian delegations before the judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague (AP)
Members of the US and Iranian delegations before the judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague (AP)
TT

ICJ Rejects Iran's Bid to Release Assets Frozen by US

Members of the US and Iranian delegations before the judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague (AP)
Members of the US and Iranian delegations before the judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague (AP)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has rejected Iran's legal bid to release about $2 billion owned by the Markazi Bank frozen by the US.

The Associated Press reported that the largest part of the case focused on Bank Markazi and its frozen assets of $1.75 billion in bonds and accumulated interest in a Citibank account in New York.

The court said it did not have jurisdiction based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity because its protections do not extend to central banks.

The highest UN judicial body, based in The Hague, said it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the Iranian claim linked to the Markazi Bank but considered that Washington "violated" the rights of Iranian individuals and companies and must compensate them, according to AFP.

Reuters described the ruling as a "partial victory" for Iran, saying Washington had illegally allowed courts to freeze assets of some Iranian companies and ordered the United States to pay compensation but left the amount to be determined later.

The case before the ICJ was initially brought by Iran against the US in 2016. Tehran alleged Washington breached a 1955 friendship treaty by allowing US courts to freeze the assets of Iranian companies.

The assets should be paid to victims of attacks blamed on Tehran, including the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut.

Acting legal adviser Rich Visek of the US State Department said the court had "rejected the vast majority of Iran's case," saying it was a "major victory."

Visek stated: "This is a major victory for the United States and victims of Iran's state-sponsored terrorism."

In response, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said that the "verdict... shows once again the legitimacy" of Iran's positions "and the illegal behavior of the United States."

The complex 67-page ruling comes amid escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran, following exchanged attacks between Iranian-backed militants and US forces in Syria last week.

Relations were strained after Russia's use of Iranian drones against Ukraine, and efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major world powers stalled.

Shortly after its 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, Washington announced it would formally end the 1955 treaty.

The US Supreme Court ruled that money from Iran's central bank could be used as compensation for the 241 US troops who died in the 1983 bombing that targeted a military base, which was believed to be linked to Tehran.

Iran denies responsibility for the terror attacks alleged by Washington.

The ICJ rulings are binding and not subject to appeal but have no enforcement powers. Countries can resort to the Security Council if another country does not comply with a resolution.

The United States and Iran are among a handful of countries that have previously disregarded its decisions.

Earlier this month, New York District Judge Loretta Preska ordered Iran's central bank and a European intermediary to pay out $1.68 billion to family members of the troops killed in the 1983 car bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon.

Victims and their families won a $2.65 billion judgment against Iran in federal court in 2007 over the attack.

Six years later, they sought to seize bond proceeds allegedly owned by Bank Markazi and processed by Clearstream to satisfy the court judgment partially.

Bank Markazi argued that the lawsuit was not permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), which generally protects foreign governments from liability in US courts.

Preska said the 2019 law authorizes US courts to allow the seizure of assets outside the country to satisfy judgments against Iran in terrorism cases, "notwithstanding" other laws such as FSIA that would grant immunity.

A Luxembourg court in 2021 ordered Clearstream not to move the funds until a court in that country recognizes the US ruling. Clearstream has appealed that decision.

Information about frozen Iran assets abroad is conflicting. Some unofficial estimates put it between $100 billion and $120 billion.

The former governor of the Markazi Bank of Iran, Valiollah Seif, said that after the nuclear deal was announced in 2015, the agreement would release $30 billion of Iran's frozen assets.

Iran is currently demanding the release of the frozen funds in South Korean and Japanese banks that were being used to pay for oil imports and the export of goods, and the revenues from the sale of gas and electricity in Iraq.



Taliban Say India Is a ‘Significant Regional Partner’ after Meeting

Photo: AFP
Photo: AFP
TT

Taliban Say India Is a ‘Significant Regional Partner’ after Meeting

Photo: AFP
Photo: AFP

The Taliban's foreign office said they saw India as a "significant regional and economic partner" after meeting with its most senior foreign ministry official, the highest level talks with Delhi since their takeover of Afghanistan in 2021.
India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri met acting Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi in Dubai on Wednesday.
Afghanistan's foreign ministry said in a statement that they had discussed expanding relations with Afghanistan and to boost trade through Chabahar Port in Iran, which India has been developing for goods to bypass the ports of Karachi and Gwadar in its rival Pakistan, Reuters reported.
"In line with Afghanistan's balanced and economy-focused foreign policy, the Islamic Emirate aims to strengthen political and economic ties with India as a significant regional and economic partner," the statement from Afghanistan's foreign ministry said late on Wednesday.
India's foreign ministry said after the Delhi meeting that India was considering engaging in development projects in Afghanistan and looking to boost trade ties.
No foreign government, including India, officially recognizes the Taliban administration.
However, India is one of several countries with a small mission in Kabul to facilitate trade, aid and medical support and has sent humanitarian aid to Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Regional players including China and Russia have signaled they are willing to boost trade and investment in Afghanistan.
The Delhi meeting could ruffle Pakistan, which borders both countries and has fought three wars in the past against India.
Pakistan and Afghanistan also have a strained relationship, with Pakistan saying that several militant attacks that have occurred in its country have been launched from Afghan soil - a charge the Afghan Taliban denies.
Earlier this week India's foreign office told journalists they condemned airstrikes conducted late last year by Pakistan on Afghan soil.