July 23, 1952

World Court Bars Ruling on Iran Oil

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

HE HAGUE, The Netherlands, July 22 -- The International Court of Justice ruled today by a vote of 9 to 5 that it had no jurisdiction in the British-Iranian dispute over oil nationalization. As a consequence, the court canceled its unheeded year-old injunction calling for a temporary restoration of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to control of its property.

While the verdict ended Britain's hopes of getting a judgment against oil nationalization in the world's highest tribunal, a British spokesman stressed that the decision was purely on technical grounds and would not deter his Government and the company from seeking other legal recourse to "protect our rights."

Specifically, Sir Eric Beckett, Foreign office legal adviser and chief counsel in the case, declared Britain would persist in seeking the detention of tankers carrying oil produced at Anglo-Iranian properties, and a spokesman for the company announced that it was renewing its request for the appointment by the court's president of a "sole arbitrator" to rule on the dispute.

Arbitrator Sought in 1951

Iran's 1933 concession agreement with the company provides for the naming of such an arbitrator by the court's president when the two parties are unable to agree on an umpire for a dispute. The company applied in May last year for this appointment, but the court postponed action on the request pending consideration of the British Government's general complaint.

"In the meantime the company maintains its claim to be entitled to all crude oil and oil products derived from the area covered by its concession agreement and will continue to take all such action as is necessary to protect its interests in this oil," the oil company spokesman said.

The British position was disputed by Hossein Navas, Iranian Minister to the Netherlands and the agent in the case, who asserted that the court's verdict canceling last year's injunction had removed any legal basis for the detention of the tanker Rose Mary, which was held in Aden on a British order while carrying Iranian oil to Italy, or for action against vessels carrying similar shipments.

Navas also said the court's decision would strengthen the hand of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, Premier-designate at a crucial moment in the Iranian political situation.

Briton Votes Against London

The judges participating in the nonjurisdiction decision were President Sir Arnold Duncan McNair of Britain, Vice President Jose Gustavo Guerrero of El Salvador, Bohdan Wieniraski of Poland, Milovan Zorcic of Yugoslavia, Helge Klaestad of Norway, Abdel Hamid Badawi Pasha of Egypt, Hsu Mo of China, Enrique C. Armand Ugon of Uruguay and Karim Sandjabi of Iran, a temporary judge.

Those dissenting were Judges Jules Basdevant of France; Levi Fernandes Carneiro of Brazil, Green H. Hackworth of the United States, Alejandor Alvarez of Chile and John E. Read of Canada.

Judge McNair's participation in the majority decision marked the first time in the history of the post-war court that a judge had voted against his own Government. Court historians said the only precedent they could recall was in the early 1920's when another British judge voted against his Government.

The decision was based on the majority finding that the 1933 oil concession was a simple contract rather than an international agreement and that Britain could not invoke previous treaties because the Iranian declaration in 1932 accepting the court's compulsory jurisdiction excluded disputes involving prior agreements.

A point at issue was the interpretation of the ambiguous 1932 Declaration, but the verdict said "the court is satisfied that it was the manifest intention of the Government of Iran to exclude from the jurisdiction of the court disputes relating to the application of all treaties and conventions accepted by it before ratification of the Declaration."

As to the status of the oil concession the court declared "it is nothing more than a concessionary contract between a government and a foreign corporation * * * It does not regulate in any way the relations between the two Governments."

Having reached its decision on this basis the court gave no ruling on variety of other points raised in the case.