FROM ACTION STATIONS TO ACTION - UNITED-STATES NAVAL DEPLOYMENT, NON-BELLIGERENCY, AND DEFENSIVE REPRISALS IN THE FINAL YEAR OF THE IRAN-IRAQ-WAR

Four years after the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq War, a new case was b rought against the United States before the World Court for matters of allegedly illegal use of force arising in the context of the American naval development in the Persian Gulf. At the height of American inte rvention in the Gulf Tanker War, U.S. naval forces often exceeded thei r deterrence mission and entered into overt large-scale hostilities ag ainst Iran. This article looks at the major naval events in the final year of the Iran-Iraq War and examines the opposing argumentation from a double perspective. First, could the American action fit within the confines of the inherent right of self-defense, or should it be addre ssed as unlawful armed reprisals? Second, to what extent could the pol icies of the United States be construed as consistent with the traditi onal laws of neutrality, or better, with those of ''non-belligerency'' ? The article concludes that although diplomacy may occasionally be te mpted to confound the notions of self-defense and reprisals, legal the ory should spare no effort in order to keep them distinct. Undoubtedly , the naval aspects of the Iran-Iraq War in its final year nurtured a host of legal queries concerning the jus contra bellum so that an auth oritative ruling of the International Court of Justice is expected to be eminently rich and instructive.