However, this does not apply to the present case. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that Article I states in general terms that there shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship between the Parties. The Permanent Court observed: "Freedom of trade, as established by the Convention, consists in the right in principle unrestricted to engage in any commercial activity, whether it be concerned with trading properly so-called, that is the purchase and sale of goods, or whether it be concerned with industry, and in particular the transport business; or, finally, whether it is carried on inside the country or, by the exchange of imports and exports, with other countries." Contention that the claims of Iran cannot be founded on Article X, paragraph 1, of the Treaty Meaning of the word "commerce" in that provision – Scope not limited to maritime commerce – Scope not limited to activities of purchase and sale – Provision protecting "freedom of commerce" – Freedom that might in fact be impeded by acts entailing the destruction of goods destined to be exported or capable of affecting their transport and storage with a view to export – Destruction capable of having an effect upon the export trade in Iranian oil and of having an adverse effect upon freedom of commerce as guaranteed by the provision in question – Lawfulness can be evaluated in relation to that provision. 36. The spirit and intent set out in this Article animate and give meaning to the entire Treaty and must, in case of doubt, incline the Court to the construction which seems more in consonance with its overall objective of achieving friendly relations over the entire range of activities covered by the Treaty. International Court of Justice 2017-2020 – All rights reserved. It further stated that Iran's Application was based on those three provisions and "not on the violation of the object and purpose of the Treaty as a whole". Contention that the Treaty cannot apply to questions concerning the use of force – Lack of any provision expressly excluding certain matters from the jurisdiction of the Court Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), as a defence on the merits Unlawfulness of actions incompatible with the obligations flowing from the Treaty, whatever the means employed. Nor did the Court accept the generic claim by the United States that the actions of Iran had made the Persian Gulf unsafe for shipping, concluding that, according to the evidence before it, there was not, at the relevant time, any actual impediment to commerce or navigation between the territories of Iran and the United States. 222, and p. 136, para. Judges SHAHABUDDEEN, RANJEVA, HIGGINS and PARRA-ARANGUREN and Judge ad hoc RIGAUX append separate opinions to the Judgment of the Court. "does not merely formulate a recommendation or desire . Three Iranian offshore oil platforms and a United States Navy warship, USS Samuel B. Roberts, were destroyed when the ship struck a mine in international waters near Bahrain. Also to be considered is the entire range of activities dealt with in the Treaty as, for example, the reference in Article IV to the freedom of companies to conduct their activities, to enjoy the right to continued control and management of their enterprises, and "to do all other things necessary or incidental to the effective conduct of their affairs". 31. 28. The Court must now consider the interpretation according to which the word "commerce" in Article X, paragraph 1, is restricted to acts of purchase and sale. By an Order of 3 June 1993, the President of the Court, at the request of Iran, extended to 8 June 1993 the time-limit for the filing of the Memorial; the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial was extended, by the same Order, to 16 December 1993. [3] The court found (1) by a vote of 14-2 (dissenting Judges Al-Khasawneh (Jordan), Elaraby (Egypt)) that the U.S. actions against Iranian oil platforms in 1987 and 1988 do not meet the treaty's essential security exception but that they did not breach the treaty's freedom of commerce provision and so Iran's claim against the U.S. could not be upheld, and (2) by a vote of 15-1 (dissenting Judge Simma (Germany)) that the U.S. counter-claim against Iran could not be upheld.