Shifting Interpretation in International Court of Justice’s Decision in the Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America: A Deliberate Step?

Iran and the United States (US) have resorted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on five occasions to settle their disputes. The latest dispute was initiated by Iran and pertains to US’s decision of withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement and re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, including its nationals and companies. In this brief critique, the authors have analysed the preliminary objections and the ICJ’s approach in deciding the dispute. The authors have noticed that the ICJ digressed from its earlier decisions which involved the Treaty of Amity 1955 between Iran and the US. It is also to be noted that the ICJ has not substantiated its deviation with analytical observation. Also, it is opined that although the international adjudication lacks a system of precedent, it is the sacrosanct duty of the ICJ to establish a coherent jurisprudence in the interest of justice, which the ICJ has consciously neglected to achieve in this present dispute.