Salah el-Dine Tarazi

Salah el-Dine Tarazi (1917–1980) [صلاح الدين ترزي] was a Syrian jurist and diplomat who served as a judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from 1976 until his death in 1980. Prior to his judicial career, he represented Syria as its Permanent Representative to the United Nations during the early 1960s, where he frequently opposed Israeli and Western positions.

Tarazi had reluctantly co-signed an agreement with his Israeli counterparts in July 1949. Before accepting his duties to negotiate an armistice, Tarazi, a radical Arab nationalist, reportedly wept before his colleagues.

Diplomatic and Political Opposition

Opposition to Israel and Rhetoric at the UN

During his tenure as Syria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Tarazi was a persistent critic of Israel.

Already in Oct 1948, Tarazi attempted to accuse Israel of so called "genocide."

Tarazi frequently employed highly charged rhetoric in debates (including nazi comparisons, alraedy in those early days).

• In 1962, he publicly argued for a UN-appointed custodian to oversee Arab property in Israel, framing the issue in ways that delegitimized Israel’s sovereignty and property rights. He also drew comparisons to Nazi atrocities, a characterization that inflamed tensions and was strongly condemned by Israeli and Western delegates.
• In 1963, Tarazi and other Arab delegates rejected Israeli peace proposals, continuing a pattern of opposition that reinforced international isolation of Israel in UN forums.

During the UN 1962 sessions, when Argentina and Chile slammed Ahmad Shukairy, the Saudi Arabia's ambassador, for (11.30.62) promoting neo-Nazi Tacuara (reminding its about hatred and genocide), Tarazi did not condemn Shukairy, instead he offered Arab unity agreeing to Shukairy statement put out as P.A.D (with Issa Nakhleh).

It was after:

“

Ramon Huidobro, of Chile, referring to the so-called "Tacuara" movement in Argentina. said he could not believe that the Government and people of Saudi Arabia and of the other Arab countries hoped for the growth of a movement that was contrary to the laws of friendly countries and undermined the very foundation of the inter-American system, which was built upon racial and religious tolerance and coexistence. The spread of those Latin American principles to the rest of the world would do more to promote the cause of the Palestine refugees and of peace in general than dissemination of doctrines of hatred and genocide.

”

Advocacy Against Israel at the UN

Tarazi consistently worked to advance Arab claims over territory and property in ways that challenged Israeli sovereignty.

UN Custodian Proposal: He led efforts supporting the establishment of a UN custodian for Arab property in Israel, which Israel and U.S. representatives argued would violate the property rights of Israeli citizens and undermine legal norms. These initiatives are seen as part of a broader strategy to internationalize disputes over land and refugees, often at the expense of Israel’s legal and political standing.

ICJ

Tarazi’s election to the International Court of Justice occurred during the Cold War, when the ideological orientation of judges was closely scrutinized. His strong advocacy for Arab nationalist positions and repeated opposition to Israeli interests drew concern among Western diplomats, who feared his presence on the ICJ could influence rulings in ways unfavorable to Israel and its allies.

Legal Controversy: Tehran Hostages Case

Tarazi is best known for his dissenting opinion in the ICJ case United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (1980) [1], which arose from the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran and the detention of American diplomats.

• Contextualizing Violations: While the Court found Iran in clear violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Tarazi’s dissent was widely interpreted as an attempt to justify or mitigate Iran’s actions by citing broader political grievances. Critics argue that his stance blurred the line between objective legal judgment and political advocacy.

Author describes:

“

In his dissenting opinion in the Tehran Hostage Case,.while not raising the issue of any more recognizable erga omnes obligations, Judge ad hoc Tarazi upheld the Court's finding of the violation by Iran of its obligations under the two Vienna Conventions concerning diplomatic and consular relations. However, the underlying claim of some measure of universality in the nature of erga omnes obligations and discernible in another conventional form was more expressly noticed by Tarazi in the UN Charter. Tarazi was of the view that the "philosophy of law has made considerable progress since the end of the Second World War. Noting that "Christianity asserts itself by opposing an international community," Tarazi expressed the view that "Islam did not approach collaboration and that it contented itself with confrontation." Geography of the region of nationality seems to have informed no one particular judicial consider ation. It seems that the judge ad hoc was influenced more by the inviolability of diplomatic personnel in the Islamic legal culture than by the geography of the region of his nationality.

”