Chapter 8 US–Iran Hostage Crisis 1979 (Resolutions 457 and 461 (1979)) 1 Relevance to the Overall Project Towards the end of 1979 and at the beginning of 1980, the Security Council considered whether Iranian militants’ taking of the US Embassy and holding of Embassy staff as hostages could fall within the ambit of ‘threat to the peace’. A further contributing factor in these considerations was the icj’s provisional orders, which found that Iran had violated numerous obligations under inter- national law, and the subsequent order requiring the immediate release of the hostages and return of the Embassy to US control.1 The question before the Se- curity Council hinged on whether such violations of the core principles of dip- lomatic relations under international law, and the refusal to comply with icj orders, led to the existence of a ‘threat to the peace’. The matter came to a close in the Security Council when the draft resolution from the US,2 determining an Article 39 finding and Article 41 enforcement measures was rejected by a vote of 10 in favour, two against (including a veto from Russia) and two abstentions;3 with China declining to engage in the vote.4 The Repertoire of Practice of the Se- curity Council highlights that this was the only instance between 1975 and 1980 where the concept of ‘threat to the peace’ was significantly discussed by the Council, with the sticking point being that the Council’s proposed action was not commensurate with the violation committed by Iran.5 While this certainly was one of the considerations in the debates, it was by no means the only one, as the justificatory discourse explored below demonstrates. 1 Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran): Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 1979 International Court of Justice Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (International Court of Justice 1979). 2 United Nations Security Council, ‘United States of America: Draft Resolution’ (United Na- tions, 10 January 1980). 3 United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council, Thirty-Fifth Year: 2191st Meeting (S/PV.2191)’ (United Nations, 11 January 1980), 14. 4 United Nations Security Council, 14. 5 Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, ‘Chapter xi: Considerations of Chapter vii the Charter (1975–80)’, 400–01. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���9 | doi:�0.��63/978900439�4�0_0�0 <UN> Us–iran Hostage Crisis 1979 (resolutions 457 And 461 (1979)) 93 2 Context of the Debates The Iranian perspective on events was represented to the Security Council in a letter to the Secretary-General dated 13 November 1979.6 The letter generally outlined US interference and manipulation of Iran’s internal affairs, requested public examination of the Shah’s guilt and the US Government’s return of his assets to Iran (as he and his family were residing in the US at the time). These were expressed as pre-conditions to releasing the hostages.7 The Secretary- General then briefed the Security Council on Iranian militants’ seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran, noting that this had been achieved with the support of the new Iranian Government.8 The Secretary-General stated that the seizure of the Embassy, in contravention of international law and diplomatic relations, ‘threaten[s] the peace and stability of the region and could well have great consequences for the entire world’.9 The Secretary-General outlined the inter- national response to the Embassy seizure, stating that ‘it was in light of these developments and of the escalation of tension that I concluded that the pres- ent crisis poses a serious threat to international peace and security’.10 This led to the unanimous passing of Resolution 457 (1979), requesting that the Secre- tary-General attempt to mediate a resolution to the crisis.11 On 22 December 1979, the Secretary-General provided an update report to the Security Council on the progress of the crisis.12 The report summarised the Secretary-General’s actions on the issue and Iran’s refusal to comply with the icj’s orders to release the hostages and return the Embassy to the US.13 The Secretary-General concluded, in oral briefings to the Security Coun- cil regarding the report, that there was no foreseeable end to the crisis.14 6 Iran, ‘Letter Dated 13 November 1979 from the Charge D’Affairs of the Permanent Mission of Iran to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General’ (United Nations, 13 No- vember 1979). 7 Iran, 3. 8 United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council, Thirty-Fourth Year: 2172nd Meeting (S/PV.2172)’ (United Nations, 27 November 1979), 1. 9 United Nations Security Council, 1. 10 United Nations Security Council, 1. 11 United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council, Thirty-Fourth Year: 2178th Meeting (S/PV.2178)’ (United Nations, 4 December 1979), 2. 12 United Nations Secretary-General, ‘Report of the Secretary-General Concerning Imple- mentation of Security Council Resolution 457 (1979)’ (United Nations Security Council, 22 December 1979). 13 United Nations Secretary-General. 14 United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council, Thirty-Fourth Year: 2182nd Meeting (S/PV.2182)’ (United Nations, 29 December 1979). <UN>.