US DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR STAFF IN

TEHRAN CASE
(United States v. Iran) (Merits)
1980 I.C.J 3
On 4 November 1979, Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran and a
number of consulates in outlying cities. The Iranian authorities failed to protect the
Embassy and later appeared to adopt the students actions. Over 50 US nationals (mostly
diplomatic and consular staff) were held for 444 days. The ICJ had indicated provisional
measures against Iran (1979 I.C.J. 7), and in this case the US sought a declaration, inter
alia, that Iran had violated the two Vienna Conventions, and ceiling for the release of the
hostages and the vacation of the Embassy and consulates. The Court considered whether
the initial attack by the students could be attributed to the Iranian government and
whether Iran was therefore in violation of its international obligations.
68. The Court is therefore led inevitably to conclude, in regard to the first phase of
the events which has so far been considered, that on November 1979 the Iranian
authorities:
(a) were fully aware of their obligations under the conventions in force
to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the United States
Embassy and its diplomatic and consular staff from any attack and from
any infringement of their inviolability, and to ensure the security of such
other persons as might be present on the said premise;
(b) were fully aware, as a result of the appeals for help by the United
States embassy, of the urgent need for the action on their part;
(c) had the means at their disposal to perform their obligations;
(d) completely failed to comply with these obligations.
Similarly, the Court is led to conclude that the Iranian authorities were equally aware
of their obligations to protect the United States consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz, and of
the need for action on their part, and similarly failed to use the means which were at their
disposal to comply with their obligations.
69. The second phase of the events which are the subject of the United States
claims compromises the whole series of facts which occurred following the completion
of the occupation of the United States Embassy by the militants, and the seizure of the
Consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz. The occupation having taken place and the diplomatic
and consular personnel of the United States mission having been taken hostages, the
action required of the Iranian Government by the Vienna Conventions and by general
international law manifest. Its plain duty was at once to make every effort, and to take
every appropriate step, to bring this flagrant infringements of the inviolability of the
premises, archives and diplomatic consular staff of the United States Embassy to a
speedy end, to restore the Consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz to the United States control,
and in general to re-establish the status quo and to offer reparation for the damage.
76. The Iranian authorities, decision t continue the subjection of the premises of the
United States Embassy to occupation by militants and by the Embassy Staff to detention
as hostages, clearly gave rise to repeated and multiple breaches of the applicable
provisions of the Vienna Conventions even more serious than those which arose from
their failure to take any steps to prevent the attacks on the inviolability of these premises
and staff.
87. In the present case, the Iranian Government did not break off diplomatic
relations with the United States; and in response to a question put to him by a member of
the Court, the United States Agent informed the Court that no time before the events of 4
November 1979 had the Iranian Government declared, or indicated any intention to
declare any member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff in Tehran persona
non grata. The Iranian Government did not, therefore, employ the remedies placed at its

disposal by diplomatic law specifically for dealing with activities of the kind of which it
now complains. Instead, it allowed a group of militants to attack and occupy the United
States Embassy by force, and to seize the diplomatic and consular staff as hostages;
instead, it has endorsed that action of those militants and has deliberately maintained
their occupation of the Embassy and detention of its staff as a means of coercing the
sending States. The Court, therefore, can only conclude that Iran did not have the
recourse to the normal and efficacious means at its disposal, but resorted to coercive
action against the United States Embassy and its staff.
92. It is a matter of deep regret that the situation which occasioned those
observations has not been rectified since they were made. Having regarded to their
importance the Court considers it essential to reiterate them in the present judgment. The
frequency with which at the present time the principles of international law governing
diplomatic and consular relations are set in naught by individuals or groups of
individuals is already deplorable. But this case is unique and of very particular gravity
because here it is not only private individuals or groups of individuals that have
disregarded and set at naught the inviolability of a foreign embassy, but the government
of the receiving State itself,. Therefore in recalling yet again the extreme importance of
the principles of law which it is called upon to apply in the present case, the Court
considers it to be its duty to draw the attention of the entire international community, of
which Iran itself has been a member since time immemorial, to the irreparable harm that
may be caused by events of the kind now before the Court. Such events cannot fail to
undermine the edifice of law carefully constructed by mankind over a period of
centuries, the maintenance of which is vital for the security and well-being of the
complex international community of the present day, to which it is more essential than
ever that the rules developed to ensure the ordered progress of relations between its
members should be constantly and scrupulously respected.

UNITED STATES V IRAN

[1980] ICJ Rep.

In its Judgment in the case concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular
Staff in Tehran, the Court decided:
(1) that Iran has violated and still violating obligations owed by it to the United
States; (2) that these violations engage Irans responsibility; (3) that the Government
of Iran must immediately release the United States nationals held as hostages and
place the premises of the Embassy in the hands of the protecting power; (4) that no
member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be kept in Iran to be
subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or participate in them as witness; (5)
that Iran is under an obligation to make reparation for the injury caused to the United
States; and (6) that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement
between the parties, shall be settled by the Court.

(a) The events of 4 November 1979 (paras. 56-68).

The first phase of the events underlying the Applicants claims covers the armed
attack on the United States Embassy carried out on 2 November 1979 by Muslim
Student Followers of the Imams Policy (further referred to as the militants in the
judgment), the overrunning of its premises, the seizure of its inmates as hostages, the
appropriation of its property and archives, and the conduct of the Iranian authorities
in the face of these occurrences.
The Court points out that the conduct of the militants on that occasion could be
directly attributed to the Iranian State only if it were established that they were in fact
acting on its behalf. The information before the Court did not suffice to establish this
with due certainty. However, the Iranian State which, as the State to which the
mission was accredited, was under obligation to take appropriate steps to protect the
United States Embassy did nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it reached its
completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises and release the
hostages. This inaction was in contrast with the conduct of the Iranian authorities on
several similar occasions at the same period, when they had taken appropriate steps.
It constituted, the Court finds, a clear and serious violation of Irans obligations to the
United States under Articles 22(2), 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Articles 5 and 36 of the 1963 Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, and of Article 11(14) of the 1955 Treaty. Further
breaches of the 1963 Convention had been involved in failure to protect the
Consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz.
The Court is therefore led to conclude that on 4 November 1979, the Iranian
authorities were fully aware of their obligations under the conventions in force, and
also of the urgent need for action on their part, that they had the means at their
disposal to perform their obligations, but that they completely failed to do so.
(b)

Events since 4 November 1979 (paras. 69-79).

The second phase of the events underlying the United States claims comprises the
whole series of facts which occurred following the occupation of the Embassy by the
militants. Though it was the duty of the Iranian Government to take every appropriate
step to end the infringement of the inviolability of the Embassy premises and staff,
and to offer reparation for the damage, it did nothing of the kind. Instead, expressions
of approval were immediately heard from numerous Iranian authorities. Ayatollah
Khomeini himself proclaimed the Iranian States endorsement of both the seizure of
the premises and the detention of the hostages. He described the Embassy as a

centre of espionage, declared that the hostages would (with some exceptions)
remain under arrest until the United States had returned the former Shah and his
property to Iran, and forbade all negotiation with the United States on the subject.
Once organs of the Iranian State had thus given approval to the acts complained of
and decided to perpetuate them as a means of pressure on the United States, those
acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State: the militants became agents of
that State, which itself became internationally responsible for their acts. During the
six months which ensued, the situation underwent no material change: the Courts
Order of 15 December 1979 was publicly rejected by Iran, while Ayatollah declared
that the detention of hostages would continue until the new Iranian parliament had
taken a decision as to their fate.
The Iranian authorities decision to continue the subjection of the Embassy to
occupation, and of its staff to detention as hostages, gave rise to repeated and
multiple breaches of Irans treaty obligations, additional to those already committed
at the time of the seizure of the Embassy (1961 Convention: Arts. 22, 24, 25, 26, 27
and 29, 1963 Convention: inter alia, Art. 33; Treaty, Art. II[4]).
With regard to the Charge` d affaires and two other members of the United States
mission who have been in the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 4 November
1979 the Court finds that the Iranian authorities have withheld from them the
protection and facilities necessary to allow them to leave the Ministry in safety.
Accordingly, it appears to the Court that in their respect there have been breaches of
Articles 26 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention.
Taking note, furthermore, that various Iranian authorities have threatened to have some
of the hostages submitted to trial before a court, or to compel them to bear witness, the
Court considers that, if put into effect, that intention would constitute a breach of Article
31 of the same Convention.