International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Whether Bank Markazi a company under Article III(1) of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955 — Whether Bank Markazi’s activities commercial — Purpose of Bank Markazi’s activities — Link between Bank Markazi’s activities and its sovereign functions — Admissibility — Whether Iranian entities exhausting local remedies in the United States — Whether remedies in United States’ legal system effective — Defences on the merits — “Clean hands” doctrine — Whether sufficient connection between wrongful acts imputed to Iran and Iran’s claims — Abuse of rights — Whether Iran invoking rights for purpose other than that for which rights created — Article XX(1)(c) and (d) of 1955 Treaty — Whether United States’ measures seeking to regulate production or traffic in arms — Whether United States’ measures necessary to protect essential security interests

Treaties — Interpretation — Application — Alleged violations of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955 — Article III(1) of 1955 Treaty — Article IV(1) of 1955 Treaty — Link between provisions — Scope of duty to recognize juridical status of entities under Article III(1) — Whether question being existence of company rather than company’s separateness — Meaning of “fair and equitable treatment” — Denial of justice — Whether provisions removing separateness of companies amounting to denial of justice — Whether United States’ measures “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” — Whether measures manifestly excessive — Article III(2) of 1955 Treaty — Whether Article III(2) conferring procedural and substantive rights or merely access to courts — Whether Iranian companies’ access to United States’ courts limited — Article IV(2) of 1955 Treaty — Whether United States’ measures expropriatory — Illegality — Whether “most constant protection and security” protecting against both physical and legal harm — Article V(1) of 1955 Treaty — Whether Article V(1) applying to cases of expropriation — Article VII(1) of 1955 Treaty — Meaning of “restrictions” — Whether Iran’s claims relating to exchange restrictions — Article X(1) of 1955 Treaty — Whether financial transactions falling within meaning of “commerce” — Whether commerce taking place between the territories of United States and Iran — Whether United States’ measures actual impediments to commerce — Remedies — Cessation — Compensation — Satisfaction

Arbitration — Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Jurisdiction — Scope of jurisdiction — Existence of dispute — Characterization of dispute — Whether dispute concerning interpretation or application of UNCLOS — Whether real issue in the case being immunity of Italian marines — Whether immunity of marines incidental to real issue in the case — Whether UNCLOS provisions constituting a renvoi to customary international law — Whether jurisdiction over immunity of marines based on UNCLOS Article 297 — Jurisdiction over Italy’s additional claim concerning India’s maritime zones legislation — Whether dispute concerning compatibility of India’s maritime zones legislation with UNCLOS existing at the time of notice of arbitration — Admissibility of Italy’s additional claim — Whether Italy’s additional claim transforming subject-matter of dispute — Admissibility of India’s counterclaims — Agreement of Parties that India’s counterclaims admissible

Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Article 87(1) — Italy’s claims — Freedom of navigation — Whether India impeding Enrica Lexie’s freedom of navigation by requesting that it sail to port of Kochi — Meaning of “freedom of navigation” — UNCLOS Article 92 — Exclusive flag State jurisdiction corollary of freedom of navigation — Whether India breaching Italy’s exclusive flag State jurisdiction by requesting that Enrica Lexie sail to port of Kochi — Whether India exercising its jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zone — Whether India’s acts amounting to enforcement jurisdiction — UNCLOS Article 97 — Collision at sea — Whether risk of collision between Enrica Lexie and St Anthony — Meaning of “incident of navigation” — Meaning of “persons in the service of the ship” — UNCLOS Articles 100 and 300 — Duty to co-operate in repression of piracy — Whether marines reasonably apprehending threat of piracy — Whether India’s legal system implementing obligation to co-operate in repression of piracy — Remedies — Satisfaction — India’s counterclaims — UNCLOS Article 56 — Whether marines’ actions limiting India’s right to explore and exploit resources of EEZ — UNCLOS Article 58 — Whether marines’ actions breaching Italy’s obligation to give “due regard” to India’s rights — UNCLOS Articles 87 and 90 — Whether St Anthony having Indian nationality — Whether causing change of course of St Anthony breaching India’s freedom of navigation — UNCLOS Article 88 — Whether marines’ actions breaching Italy’s obligation to reserve sea for peaceful purposes — Remedies — Satisfaction — Compensation — Parties to agree on compensation within a year of date of award — Arbitration tribunal to remain seised of matter for a year of date of award

State immunity — Customary international law — Immunity ratione materiae — Whether marines entitled to immunity for acts committed on board the Enrica Lexie — Whether marines State officials — Whether marines exercising official functions — Whether territorial tort exception excluding immunity of marines — Remedies — Cessation and non-repetition — Satisfaction

International organizations — Russia’s Accession to the World Trade Organization — Constitutional scrutiny of Protocol on the Accession of Russia to the Marrakesh Agreement, 2011 — Whether Protocol conforming with the Constitution of Russia 1993 — Whether Russian sovereignty infringed — Whether national security threatened

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Signature — Ratification — Application — Russia’s Accession to the Marrakesh Agreement — Protocol — Whether in conformity with the Constitution of Russia — Role of the Russian Constitutional Court — Extent of review

Treaties — Signature — Ratification — Application — Constitutional scrutiny of treaties — Extent of constitutional review by Russian Constitutional Court — Constitutional Court reviewing specifically indicated provisions and not the treaty in its entirety — Constitutional Court not reviewing compliance with procedure for ratification — The law of the Russian Federation