Legal Bases for State Immunity in Iran's Lawsuit Against United States at the International Court of Justice

The right of state immunity in customary international law has been established as the definitive and consolidated right, which derives from the principle of the equality of sovereign governments and is one of the most fundamental principles of universal legal order. Despite the recognition of the principle of state immunity in the international and regional conventions and domestic law of countries, the United States, with the approval of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and subsequent amendments, prepared the ground for a lawsuit against a so-called terrorism sponsors. The seizure of $ 2 billion in Iranian assets by the US Supreme Court in its April 20, 2016 has violated the Iranian government's immunity and posed many legal challenges. This article tries to study the legal principles of defending the immunity of the Iranian government by referring to the rules of international law and the procedure of the International Court of Justice. The results show that the identification of the exception to terrorism as a basis for violating the immunity of the Iranian government by the United States contradicts the principle of equality and independence of states as the fundamental principles of international law. The United States' conduct is also a clear violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and is in conflict with Article 38 of the statute of the International Court of Justice, ICJ Judgment of 3 February 2012, the international procedure, the European Court of Human Rights and United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004).