The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran filed a lawsuit with the international Hague Tribunal in October 1992 on the strength of breaching friendship treaty between Iran and the United States signed by the former regime of Iran. Finally, the tribunal issued its final ruling on the case known as "oil platforms" on November 6. 2003. The Petroenergy Information Network has interviewed Dr. Seyed Mostafa Zeineddin, head of the legal affairs department of the National Iranian Oil Company on the details of the two countries' claims and the tribunal's verdict as well as possible mechanisms for receiving remuneration from the United States. Q: Mr. Zeineddin, the United States has claimed that its military assault against Iranian oil platforms has been legitimate defense according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and aimed to ensure basic interests of that country. Therefore, that country did not accept charges about illegitimate attack on platforms as well as the breach of friendship agreement. Please explain about the US claims and its defense bill at the Hague Tribunal. A: During eleven years that have passed since that time (especially until the last hearing of the case in March 2003), the United States both in its defense bill and oral explanations had alleged that destruction of oil platforms was a legitimate defense to curb spate of attacks that were launched against ships carrying US flag at that time by Iran through planting sea mines or other ways. Q: How Iran had responded to those claims? A: The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran tried to reject US claims and explain to the tribunal that the main cause of tension in the region was Iraq's invasion of Iran, occupation of the latter, and incessant attacks by the Iraqi regime against oil and other installations. Iran has referred to extensive facilities and modern equipment made available to the Iraqi regime by various countries including the United States. Q: The United States has claimed that based on Article 20 of the friendship treaty, attacking the American ships had been tantamount to jeopardizing basic interests of that country and destruction of Iran oil platforms was in line with realization of that country's interests. Therefore, they say, the attacks were not a breach of the agreement. What is your opinion? A: The US administration claimed that its military attacks aimed to realize the American interests and could not be considered a breach of 1955 friendship agreement, based on which the Hague Tribunal would be qualified to see into the case. Q: Has the tribunal accepted those allegations? A: Based on the contents of the ruling, military operations launched by the United States to demolish Iranian oil platforms in 1987 and 1988, were not necessary to protect security of its interests in line with the friendship, economic and legal consular treaty singed between the two countries in 1955 and lacked necessary grounds to justify a legal defense from the viewpoint of the international law. Q: Although the tribunal did not consider US attacks in line with realization of that country's basic interests, it did not accept Iran claim to remuneration too. Why? A: The tribunal believed that the Islamic Republic of Iran's claim to remuneration for demolition of platforms through military operations by the American forces could not be accepted on the basis of breach of the said treaty. In other words, although the United States' demolition of the oil platforms was not justifiable, since it had attacked Reshadat platform in 1987 when it was undergoing basic repairs and was not producing oil due to an earlier attack by Iraqi military and since the US troops attacked Salman and Nasr platforms at the time that oil dealings between the two countries had been ceased due to oil embargo enacted by the United States, the US attacks could not be considered to have limited free trade as stipulated by the friendship treaty, which is the basis for qualification of the international tribunal. As a result, the tribunal rejected Iran's claim to remuneration on the basis of clause 1, Article 10 of the treaty. Q: What defense bill Iran presented for destruction of US ships in the Persian Gulf? A: The Islamic Republic of Iran reminded that it was to the benefit of the Iraqi government to jeopardize security of shipping in the Persian Gulf because what it received from regional countries was enough to wean it from dependence on a safe international waterway. On the opposite, Iran was totally dependent on the international waterway for the realization of its oil revenues. Of course, the united states produced a lot of documents to substantiate the alleged attacks by Iran on the American ships which contained remarks by high-ranking Iranian authorities. Q: However, both sides testified before the tribunal for three weeks in February and March 2003. After studying the reports presented by experts from both sides, satellite pictures and other arguments, the tribunal ruled that the reasons given by the United States to incriminate Iran of the attacks were not sufficient. Q: Did the tribunal accept US claims about Iran attacks on its ships in the Persian Gulf and the request for receiving remuneration for those attacks? A: The tribunal rejected claims by the US government for remuneration in return for damages done to the American ships or those carrying the US flag as well as other costs incurred by the United States for protecting security in the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea due to contents of the treaty and the reason that the said ships were not trading between the two countries. Q: Qualification of the Hague tribunal to see into Iran and the United States' claims about Salman, Nasr, Reshadat and Resalat oil platforms stemmed from the friendship treaty. The tribunal did not accept Iran's claim to remuneration. Is there any other way through which Iran could take measure in this regard? A: Yes. Before any measure, since the United States had already informed the UN Security Council that its attacks on the Iranian platforms were acts of legitimate defense and aimed to protect that country's interests, it would be possible for Iran to officially inform the Security Council that the Hague Tribunal had ruled that the military operations by the American government had been against international law and declare to the council that: 1) Since the responsibility of the US government has been proven, the Islamic Republic of Iran would deserve to receive remuneration from the US government according to relevant international regulations, which have been recognized by the UN Security Council and used by it when necessary (for example in the case of Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) and the council must get the United States to pay remuneration to Iran. 2) On the other hand, it is legally possible for the case to be referred to Iran and America tribunal, which is trusted by both countries in view of the content of the Algeria Statement and commitment of the US government for not interfering in Iran's internal affairs. 3) Other possibility is that regardless of the Hague Tribunal's ruling, the governments of Iran and the America (on the strength of the first paragraph of Article 36 of the tribunal's articles of association) could agree to submit the case jointly to the Hague Tribunal or embark on the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal. 4) The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to settle its case through peaceful means as stipulated by the United Nations Charter. Although it would need more studies with regard to the consequences of the case. Anyway, the two governments can reach a compromise on remuneration. It should be noted that many rulings have been issued by the US courts against the Islamic Republic of Iran and, therefore, damages done to oil platforms could be brought up during any possible negotiations between the two governments.