The International Court of Justice in its jurisdictional judgment in "Certain Iranian Assets" (Iran v. USA), which was issued on February 13, 2019, is considered USA's preliminary objections to the jurisdiction and the admissibility of claim. Objection on exceptions to the non enforcement of the Amity Treaty (Article 20 (1)), objection on non-protection of the Amity Treaty to the immunity of the State, and the objection to non-inclusion of the treaty-based protection of the Central Bank (because of its failure to be regarded as a "Company") as objections to jurisdiction of the Court and the abuse of process, and the unclean hands of applicant (Iran) as the inadmissibility of claim were raised. The Court carefully considered the arguments of the parties to the dispute. The Court upheld the objection on non-protection of the Amity Treaty to the immunity of the State, but dismissed the objection to "national and essential interests" and the objection to the inadmissibility of the claim and thereby confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the application. the objection to non-inclusion of the treaty-based protection of the Central Bank joined to the merit. Because, in the Court's view, this objection is not exclusively preliminary. In this article, we attempt to examine and analyze the arguments of the parties to the dispute and the Court's conclusions about them and analyze the Court's findings.