Iran files legal challenge at ICJ over ICAO ruling on downed passenger plane

Tehran disputes UN aviation body's jurisdiction in case brought by Canada, UK, Ukraine, and Sweden.

Roses and candles are displayed as hundreds gather for a candlelight vigil at Mel Lastman Square in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on January 8, 2023, as Iranian-Canadians commemorate the third anniversary of the downing of Ukrainian Airlines Flight PS752. (c) Creative Touch Imaging

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

Iran has formally challenged a recent decision by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), bringing the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The case centers around the ICAO's ruling that it has jurisdiction to consider a complaint filed by Canada, Ukraine, Sweden, and the United Kingdom concerning the 2020 downing of Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752. This legal development marks the latest step in a long-standing international dispute following the tragic loss of 176 lives.

In its filing on Thursday, Tehran declared that it was contesting the ICAO's March decision, asserting that the UN aviation body overstepped its legal bounds by allowing the case to proceed. The move comes over four years after the plane was shot down near Tehran on January 8, 2020, just minutes after takeoff. Iran admits its military fired two surface-to-air missiles at the Boeing 737-800, but claims the incident was unintentional and the result of human error.

Iran challenges ICAO ruling has now become a legal flashpoint in the broader diplomatic fallout from the PS752 tragedy, with implications for both justice and international aviation law.

Iran disputes aviation court's jurisdiction

In its application to the ICJ, Iran maintained that the ICAO acted outside its authority in agreeing to hear the joint case brought by the four grieving nations. Tehran requested that the World Court annul the ICAO’s jurisdictional decision, arguing that the downing of the passenger jet was not a deliberate military action but a tragic mistake under unusual circumstances.

According to Iran’s statement to the court, the missile strikes were carried out “unintentionally and due to human error.” Iranian officials further explained that the country’s air defense forces misidentified the aircraft during a time of high tension, just hours after Iran had launched ballistic missiles at U.S. military bases in Iraq in response to the killing of General Qassem Soleimani.

“The Iranian military had misidentified and targeted the flight by two missiles without obtaining authorization, contrary to mandatory military regulations,” Tehran said in the filing. The country’s defense forces were reportedly on high alert for a potential U.S. counterattack and, amid the confusion, misjudged the commercial airliner as a hostile threat.

Rising tensions before the tragedy

The broader context of the tragedy was a period of escalated hostility between the United States and Iran. Days before the downing of flight PS752, the U.S. had carried out a drone strike that killed General Soleimani, a top commander in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In retaliation, Tehran launched missile strikes against U.S. bases in Iraq, triggering fears of a wider war.

It was within this volatile environment that Iranian air defenses mistakenly identified the Ukrainian jet as a hostile object. While Iran admitted its mistake just three days after the crash, saying the incident was not intentional, the international community has since pressed Tehran for transparency, accountability, and compensation for the victims’ families.

Push for accountability from victims’ countries

Canada, Sweden, Ukraine, and the UK have remained united in their efforts to hold Iran accountable. They welcomed ICAO’s March decision affirming jurisdiction, with the UK’s foreign ministry calling it "a step closer to holding Iran to account for its illegal downing of PS752.”

In a joint statement issued earlier this year, the four nations said they remain committed to seeking “justice, transparency, and accountability for the 176 innocent victims and their families.” This includes pursuing additional legal avenues beyond ICAO, such as separate proceedings at the International Court of Justice itself.

Compensation controversy and ICJ proceedings

Iran previously offered to compensate the victims’ families, announcing in 2020 that it would pay $150,000 or the equivalent in euros to each of the affected families. However, this proposal was swiftly rejected by both Ukrainian and Canadian officials, who criticized Tehran’s attempt to settle the matter through a unilateral declaration. They argued that proper compensation must come through a fair and transparent negotiation process.

In 2023, the four countries jointly filed a case with the ICJ, demanding that Iran provide “full compensation” to the families of the victims, in line with international law. The current challenge filed by Iran represents a counter-effort to delay or derail the legal processes initiated by the grieving nations.

The ICJ, also known as the World Court, was established after World War II to adjudicate disputes between member states of the United Nations. Its rulings are binding, but the court does not have direct enforcement powers. This makes political pressure and international cooperation crucial components of the legal process.

Legal and diplomatic implications of Iran's challenge

By choosing to challenge the ICAO ruling at the ICJ, Iran is not only trying to reverse a procedural step—it is signaling its broader strategy in handling the aftermath of flight PS752. Tehran’s legal argument rests on the notion that ICAO, as a UN body focused on civil aviation, lacks the authority to adjudicate matters that it considers to be outside the scope of civilian oversight—especially incidents involving military operations under exceptional circumstances.

But critics argue that this is an attempt to dodge responsibility. They believe that the ICAO’s jurisdiction is appropriate given that the victims were passengers on a commercial flight and that the missile strike represents a clear violation of international aviation law.

If the ICJ sides with Iran, it could set a precedent limiting the ICAO’s ability to handle similar cases in the future. On the other hand, a ruling against Iran would reinforce international mechanisms for civilian aviation oversight and accountability.

The road ahead in The Hague

The ICJ’s review of Iran’s application will take months, possibly years. Legal experts say that even if the court finds in Iran’s favor and quashes the ICAO decision, the separate case seeking compensation could still proceed independently.

What remains clear is that the families of the 176 victims continue to seek justice through all available international channels. As Iran challenges the ICAO ruling, the broader issue of state accountability for the use of military force against civilian aircraft remains at the heart of the debate.

This high-stakes legal dispute—centered on the Iran challenges ICAO ruling—will shape not just the future of this tragic case but also the way international aviation disputes are handled in the years ahead.

The coming months will determine whether the global justice system can deliver a measure of closure to the families who lost their loved ones on that fateful January morning, and whether international institutions can uphold the rules meant to protect innocent lives in the skies.