 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . |  |
. |
 By Jan HENNOP The Hague (AFP) Aug 24, 2018
Iran's legal challenge against renewed sanctions by the United States goes before the UN's top court Monday, as Tehran seeks to avert painful punitive measures that could hurt its still fragile economy. Tehran filed a suit against US President Donald Trump's decision to reimpose economic sanctions at the Hague-based International Court of Justice last month. After unilaterally pulling out of a historic hard-won deal aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear programme in May, Trump slapped a first round of sanctions on the country in early August. And a second round is set to come into effect in early November, this time blocking Iran's valuable oil and energy sales. But Tehran argues that Washington has no right to reinstate such measures and is calling on the ICJ to order the US to "immediately suspend" them. It is also demanding compensation. The ICJ is expected to take a couple of months to decide whether to grant Tehran's request for a provisional ruling, while a final decision in the case could actually take years. International sanctions against Iran were lifted in 2015 when it a struck a landmark accord with the US, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, agreeing to rein its nuclear ambitions. - 'One-sided deal' - But Trump described it as a "horrible one-sided deal (that) failed to achieve the fundamental objective of blocking all paths to an Iranian nuclear bomb." And even though all of the other parties pleaded with him not to abandon the pact, Trump pulled out and announced he would reinstate sanctions. Tehran -- which argues that the move violates a little-known Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations signed by the two countries in 1955 -- says that the new sanctions are already hurting its economy. And its currency, the rial, has lost around half its value since April. A raft of international companies -- including France's Total, Peugeot and Renault, and Germany's Siemens and Daimler -- have already suspended operations in Iran in the wake of the US move. Washington "is besieging Iran economically, with all the dramatic consequences that a siege implies for the besieged population," Tehran said in court papers. Iran "requests that, pending final judgement in the case, the Court indicate... that the USA shall immediately take all measures at its disposal to ensure the suspension of the implementation of all the May 8 sanctions," it said. Eric De Brabandere, professor of international dispute settlement at Leiden University in the Netherlands, said that the support of many European states for the nuclear deal meant that "Iran's position is strengthened." And the publicity generated by Iran filing a lawsuit at the ICJ could work in Iran's favour, the expert suggested. "One of the objectives is to publicly denounce the acts of the United States," De Brabandere told AFP. - 'Malign' activities - In his executive order, Trump argued that the sanctions would turn up the financial pressure on Tehran to come to a "comprehensive and lasting solution" regarding the activities that the international community regarded as "malign", such as its "ballistic missile programme and its support for terrorism." But earlier this month, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to rule out any immediate prospect of talks, saying "there will neither be war, nor negotiations," with the US. Meanwhile, both the US and close ally Israel have called on European countries to do more to pressure Iran. A separate 2016 complaint lodged by Iran against the US for freezing around $2 billion of its assets abroad is due to begin in October, when the United States will argue the ICJ has no authority to hear the case.
Four questions on Iran's legal challenge to US sanctions 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.
Europe must 'pay price' to save nuclear deal: Iran FM Tehran (AFP) Aug 19, 2018 Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Sunday that Europe had not yet shown it was willing to "pay the price" of defying Washington in order to save the nuclear deal. Zarif said European governments had put forward proposals to maintain oil and banking ties with Iran after the second phase of US sanctions return in November. But he told Iran's Young Journalist Club website that these measures were more "a statement of their position than practical measures". "Although they have mo ... read more
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
| The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2024 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. All articles labeled "by Staff Writers" include reports supplied to Space Media Network by industry news wires, PR agencies, corporate press officers and the like. Such articles are individually curated and edited by Space Media Network staff on the basis of the report's information value to our industry and professional readership. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Statement Our advertisers use various cookies and the like to deliver the best ad banner available at one time. All network advertising suppliers have GDPR policies (Legitimate Interest) that conform with EU regulations for data collection. By using our websites you consent to cookie based advertising. If you do not agree with this then you must stop using the websites from May 25, 2018. Privacy Statement. Additional information can be found here at About Us. |
del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Google
