In Oil Platforms, the ICJ held that the US could not discharge its burden of proving that Iran had committed armed attacks against it. In doing so, the Court framed its inquiry as one into objective fact, rather than as to what the US honestly or reasonably believed. Similarly, when it responded to the US argument that ‘that it considered in good faith that the attacks on the platforms were necessary to protect its essential security interests,’ the Court held that ‘the requirement of international law that measures taken avowedly in self-defence must have been employee attitude matters when for that purpose is strict and objective, leaving no room for any “measure of discretion”.’ (para. 73)
The ILC and the
ICJ thus do not seem to allow for invoking any kind of mistake of fact doctrine in the self-defence context. While neither addressed the merits or demerits of a mistake of fact doctrine in any detail, they both clearly seem to see the justifiability of self-defence in purely boost your seo strategy with semji’s new features: ai+ brand voice, ai+ knowledge… and much more! terms.
The USS Vincennes and Iran Air Flight 655
But there are examples that may cast doubt on such a position. Let’s look at only one, and a particularly appropriate one at that. On 3 July 1988 a US warship, the Vincennes, after exchanging fire with several Iranian small craft, shot down a civilian Iranian america email by mistake. The commander of the warship believed that Iran Air Flight 655 was actually a military plane on a hostile mission (on the facts, the mistake may have been honest, but would be difficult to label as reasonable).
Council by invoking self-defence and called the downing of the airliner ‘a terrible human tragedy’ (S/19989). At the Security Council meeting at which the incident was debated, then-Vice President Bush committed the US to paying ex gratia compensation to the victims of the crash ‘strictly as a humanitarian gesture, not as a matter of legal obligation.’ (S/PV.2818, at 58).