A/HRC/33/48 definition of international legal disputes, understood as a “disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons”.11 As only States may apply to and appear before the International Court of Justice,12 international organizations, other entities and private persons are not entitled to institute proceedings before the Court. The legal standing of unrecognized States or de facto entities to apply to the Court is subject to controversy.13 This issue may be relevant to certain sanctions regimes. 20. The jurisdiction of the Court in a contentious case brought by a targeted State against a targeting State could be based either on a dispute settlement clause or on a special agreement between the States concerned (an hypothesis a priori highly unlikely as regards sanctions) or could result from the recognition by the targeting State of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. An example of such a treaty arguably providing for the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to hear a claim against the application of unilateral coercive measures is offered by the 1955 Iran-United States of America Treaty of Amity,14 which was previously used by the Islamic Republic of Iran to institute contentious proceedings in the Oil Platforms case.15 21. According to article 38 of the Statute of the Court, it shall apply in the adjudication of disputes submitted to it, international conventions, international custom and the general principles of law, as well as judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of various nations. The Court may thus apply to a given case regarding unilateral coercive measures, human rights norms that may be relevant to the evaluation of sanctions, as briefly identified in a previous report of the Special Rapporteur. 16 There have been cases in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice in which the claimant State based part of its claims on the alleged violation by the respondent State of human rights norms.17 22. The International Court of Justice has already considered the legality of economic sanctions under public international law. Called to rule on, inter alia, the legality of acts of “economic pressure” exercised by the United States of America against Nicaragua, the Court stated that “a State is not bound to continue particular trade relations longer than it sees fit to do so, in the absence of a treaty commitment or other specific legal obligation”.18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 This is the classical definition of a legal dispute set out by the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. Great Britain), Judgment of 30 August 1924, P.C.I.J. Series. A, No. 2, p. 11. See Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 34 (1). On this matter, see for example, Sean D. Murply, “International judicial bodies for resolving disputes between States” in Oxford Handbook on International Adjudication, Cesare Romano, Karen Alter, Yuval Shany, eds. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 185-186. See Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights Between the United States of America and Iran, 15 August 1955, 284 U.N.T.S. 93. On 14 June 2016, the Islamic Republic of Iran initiated proceedings before the International Court of Justice against the United States of America, alleging violations of the Treaty of Amity in relation to measures by the United States targeting Iranian entities, including the Central Bank of Iran. See Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgments, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161. See A/70/345. See for example, Bruno Simma, “Human rights before the International Court of Justice: community interest coming to life?” in The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, Christian J. Tams and James Sloan, eds. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 577-603. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 276; see also A/HRC/19/33, paras. 13-14.