Oil Platforms Case (Islamic Republic of Iran V. United States of America), icj

The International Court of Justice case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) was a result of the destruction of three Iranian offshore oil platforms and multiple United States Navy.

In a unique twist, the legal proceedings and following verdict were not centered around general international law but rather a bilateral trade agreement between Iran and the United States called Treaty of Amity, Economic, and Consular Rights Between the United States of America and Iran. In 2003, 11 years after the initial application was submitted by Iran, the ICJ rejected the claims of both states.

In the Oil Platforms Case the US raised an issue of a preliminary character. It requested the court to dismiss the claims of Iran because of the latter's own unlawful conduct. Iran characterized the objection as being based on a ‘clean hands’ theory which was, so it claimed, irrelevant in direct State-to-State claims as a ground for inadmissibility of a claim, although it may be relevant in claims for diplomatic protection. Iran, however, acknowledged that the principle might be relevant at the merits stage. The ICJ rejected the argument that the claim of the US was one of inadmissibility but found that it was unnecessary to deal with the request to dismiss the claim of Iran on the basis of conduct attributed to the latter. The Court left open the question whether the ‘clean hands’ principle was a ground for inadmissibility of a claim only in the context of diplomatic protection, omitting to deal with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Platforms_(Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_v._United_States_of_America)

La Grand Case (Germany V. Usa ), icj, 2 March 1999 Germany brings a case against the United States of America and requests the indication of provisional measures

In Arizona arrested a German bank robber. Germany asked to give its citizens, but the Americans executed him.

In the La Grand Case the US objected to Germany's claim on grounds which appeared to relate to the ‘clean hands’ theory. The US argued that Germany's submissions were inadmissible on the ground that Germany sought to have a standard applied to the US which was different from that of its own practice.

The US maintained that it would be contrary to basic principles of administration of justice and equality of the parties to apply against the US alleged rules that Germany appeared not to apply to itself. Germany denied that it was seeking adherence to standards with which Germany itself did not comply. The ICJ found that it did not need to decide whether the objection of the US, if proven, would result in the inadmissibility of Germany's submissions because the evidence adduced by the US did not support the conclusion that Germany's own practice failed to conform to the standards it demanded of the US.

The court also found that the United States violated the Vienna Convention through its application of procedural default. The court was at pains to point out that it was not passing judgment on the doctrine itself, but only its application to cases involving the Vienna Convention.

On June 27, 2001, the ICJ, rejecting all of the United States' arguments, ruled in favor of Germany. The ICJ held that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 (Vienna Convention) granted rights to individuals on the basis of its plain meaning, and that domestic laws could not limit the rights of the accused under the convention, but only specify the means by which those rights were to be exercised.

The ICJ also found that its own provisional measures were legally binding. The nature of provisional measures has been a subject of great dispute in international law; the English text of the Statute of the International Court of Justice implies they are not binding, while the French text implies that they are. Faced with a contradiction between two equally authentic texts of the statute, the court considered which interpretation better served the objects and purposes of the statute, and hence found that they are binding. This was the first time in the court's history it had ruled as such.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=348&code=gus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=104&k=04

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaGrand_case