ZCZC
BFF-08
IRAN-US-SANCTIONS-COURT-NUCLEAR-LAW
Four questions on Iran’s legal challenge to US sanctions
THE HAGUE, Aug 24, 2018 (BSS/AFP) – Iran’s legal challenge against
renewed sanctions by the United States goes before the UN’s International
Court of Justice on Monday.
Here are four key questions regarding the case:
What is the case about?
Iran’s attempt to block the reinstatement of sanctions, announced by US
President Donald Trump earlier this year, is the latest in a series of court
battles that Tehran and Washington are fighting at the ICJ.
Trump announced on May 8 that he was pulling out of a landmark deal
between Iran and major powers aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon.
The deal agreed with the UN’s five permanent Security Council members and
Germany in 2015 limits Tehran’s stockpile of enriched uranium until 2031 in
exchange for sanctions relief.
Blasting the accord as a “horrible, one-sided deal”, Trump reimposed a
wave of tough, unilateral sanctions.
Tehran now accuses Washington of “besieging” its economy and wants the
Hague-based court — which rules in disputes between countries — to order
the US to temporarily halt punitive measures, while the judges mull the
deeper merits of the case.
Does Tehran have a case?
The case has two elements, said Eric De Brabandere, professor of
international dispute settlement at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
Firstly, “Iran genuinely considers the re-imposition of sanctions a
violation of international law.”
Secondly, “Iran has the support of many European states on the question of
sanctions, politically speaking,” De Brabandere argued.
Iran’s representatives need to convince the ICJ that its 15 permanent
judges indeed have the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Tehran bases its arguments on a little-known 1955 treaty between Iran and
the United States. The treaty provides for “friendly relations” between the
two countries, encourages mutual trade and investment and regulates consular
relations.
However, there has been no formal diplomatic ties between Tehran and
Washington since the regime of the US-back Shah was deposed by Iran’s Islamic
revolution in 1979.
What will Washington argue?
“My guess is that for this case they will argue that the court has no
jurisdiction, as they did in a separate case launched against the US two
years ago,” said De Brabandere.
Washington could invoke two arguments.
One is that the 1955 treaty is no longer in force, because it is a “treaty
of friendship” between two nations which have been adversaries for the last
four decades.
Secondly, US representatives could say that the dispute was “not about the
treaty, but about sanctions and Iran’s alleged terrorist activities,” De
Brabandere said.
“The US is likely to argue that the dispute is about something much
broader than a treaty,” for instance Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the expert
said.
Furthermore, there is a clause in the 1955 treaty which allows the states
to take “any measures to protect essential security interests.”
Can Iran’s case succeed?
“I think it’s very likely that the ICJ will, based on the 1955 treaty,
decide to hear the case,” said De Brabandere.
However, whether the case will be successful on its own merits — in other
words whether the United States indeed breached its obligations — is more
difficult to establish.
“For one, the 1955 treaty is relatively narrow in scope. It means that the
ICJ can only rule whether the US violated its obligations under the specific
treaty,” De Brabandere said.
This means that the ICJ’s judges will not rule in what they may consider
any broader dispute between Iran and the United States.
The outcome of the case — which could still take years before being
handed down — “is very difficult to predict,” said De Brabandere.
BSS/AFP/RY/08:23 hrs