Tehran Aims to Sue US Individuals Over Sanctions

Tehran is preparing a lawsuit in Iran against US individuals involved with economic sanctions imposed by Washington, President Hassan Rouhani said Monday.

Rouhani said the presidency's legal affairs office as well as the justice and foreign ministers have been tasked with "drawing up a lawsuit against all those within America involved with designing and executing these sanctions.”

The case would be lodged in a "competent court inside Iran," he said, quoted by state television. 

Speaking after the last cabinet meeting of Iran's calendar year which ends on March 20, Rouhani condemned the sanctions as a "crime against humanity" that was hitting ordinary Iranians.

"The world should know that what America has done was not against the Iranian state, it was not against Iran's nuclear program, it was against the wellbeing of the Iranian people," he said.

Rouhani said the sanctions targeted "the normal life of the people... the food supply... the medical supply of the people.”

Last May, US President Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers.

The renewal of American sanctions, which had been eased in exchange for curbs on Tehran's nuclear program, sent shockwaves through Iran's economy.

The IMF reported that the Iranian economy slumped into recession in 2018 and has forecast a 3.6 percent decline in GDP for 2019.

The sanctions have indirectly impacted medical and food supplies, and a steep decline in the value of the rial has pushed up prices of basic goods.

In October, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered the United States to lift sanctions affecting imports of "humanitarian" goods to Iran.

The court said sanctions "may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran.”

Photo Credit: IRNA

US Fails to Halt Iran Bid to Free Frozen Billions

An international court Wednesday ruled Iran can proceed with a bid to unfreeze assets in the United States, rejecting Washington's claims the case must be halted because of Tehran's alleged support for international terrorism.

Washington had argued that Iran's "unclean hands"—a reference to Tehran's suspected backing of terror groups—should disqualify its lawsuit to recover USD 2 billion in assets frozen by the US Supreme Court in 2016.

But the International Court of Justice in The Hague threw out the US challenges, and said that it had the right to hold full hearings at a later date as to whether Tehran will get the money back.

Chief judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said the UN's top court "unanimously rejects the preliminary objections to admissibility raised by the United States of America.”

The court also "finds that it has jurisdiction" in the case, Yusuf said at the end of an hour-long reading of the decision.

Tehran said the United States had illegally seized Iranian financial assets and those of Iranian companies—and with Iran's clerical regime facing economic difficulties after sanctions and a fall in its currency resolving the case remains crucial.

The US Supreme Court had said Iran must give the cash to survivors and relatives of victims of attacks blamed on Tehran, including the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Iran said the freezing of the funds breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity with the United States, an agreement signed before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution severed relations between the countries.

The United States announced in October that it was pulling out of the Treaty of Amity after the ICJ in a separate case ordered Washington to lift nuclear-related sanctions on humanitarian goods for Iran.

The ICJ is the top court of the United Nations and was set up after World War II to resolve disputes between member states. Its rulings are binding and cannot be appealed, but it has no means of enforcing them.

 'Unclean Hands'

Tensions between Tehran and Washington are already high around the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution and a Middle East meeting in Warsaw starting Wednesday where the United States aims to pile pressure on Iran.

Relations have been strained ever since US President Donald Trump's decision last year to pull out of a "terrible" international nuclear deal with Iran and reimpose sanctions.

The 2015 nuclear deal had unblocked billions of dollars in other Iranian funds.

Iran first lodged the lawsuit in June 2016, accusing Washington of breaking the decades-old amity treaty dating from the time of the Shah, who was deposed in the revolution.

Judge Yusuf noted that at the last hearing on Iran's funds in October, the United States had argued "that Iran's 'unclean hands' preclude the court from proceeding with this case."

But he added that "even if it were shown that (Iran's) conduct was not beyond reproach, this would not be sufficient" on its own to throw out the case.

He also said the fact that the US had now pulled out of the amity treaty with Iran "has no effect on the jurisdiction of the court" and that it now needed to hold detailed hearings.

US officials including US National Security Advisor John Bolton have previously called the ICJ's legitimacy into account, and were incensed by October's ruling by the court that Washington must drop sanctions on humanitarian goods.

In Poland this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will use a two-day conference of foreign ministers to try to rally the world behind increasing pressure on Iran and supporting Israel, although turnout could be thin.

The Trump administration has also found itself at odds with its European allies over the nuclear deal, with EU powers launching a mechanism to bypass sanctions.

Photo Credit: Wikicommons

World Court to Rule on Iran's Billions Frozen in US

The International Court of Justice will on Wednesday give its decision on a bid by Iran to recover USD 2 billion in frozen assets that the United States says must be paid to victims of attacks blamed on Tehran.

The case threatens to cause further bad blood after a decision in October when the Hague-based tribunal ordered Washington to lift nuclear-related sanctions on humanitarian goods for Iran.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington are already high around the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution and a Middle East meeting in Warsaw where the United States aims to pile pressure on Iran.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that Iran must give the cash to survivors and relatives of victims of attacks blamed on Tehran, including the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut.

Iran said the US decision to freeze the funds breached 1955 Treaty of Amity with the United States, an agreement signed before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution severed relations between the countries.

The United States announced after the sanctions case that it was immediately pulling out of the Treaty of Amity.

At the last hearing on Iran's funds appeal in October at the Hague-based tribunal, Washington said Iran has "unclean hands" and that its alleged support for terrorism should disqualify the case from being heard.

The court will now rule on the "preliminary objections" of the United States to Iran's case, it said in a statement.

The ICJ is the top court of the United Nations and was set up after World War II to resolve disputes between member states. Its rulings are binding and cannot be appealed, but it has no means of enforcing them.

'Bad Faith'

Relations between Washington and Tehran have been strained since US President Donald Trump's decision last year to pull out of a "terrible" international nuclear deal with Iran and reimpose sanctions.

The 2015 nuclear deal had unblocked billions of dollars in other Iranian funds.

In Poland this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will use a two-day conference of foreign ministers to try to rally the world behind increasing pressure on Iran and supporting Israel, although turnout could be thin.

The Trump administration has also found itself at odds with its European allies over the nuclear deal, with EU powers launching a mechanism to bypass sanctions.

But with Iran's clerical regime facing economic difficulties the case on the frozen funds remains crucial.

Iran first lodged the lawsuit in June 2016, accusing Washington of breaking the decades-old amity treaty dating from the time of the Shah, who was deposed in the revolution.

Tehran said the United States had illegally seized Iranian financial assets and those of Iranian companies.

However in October, Richard Visek, a US State Department legal official, told the ICJ that "Iran comes to the court with unclean hands—indeed, it is a remarkable show of bad faith.

"The actions at the root of this case centre on Iran's support for international terrorism... Iran's bad acts include supports for terrorist bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and airline hijackings," he said at the time.

Pompeo had added in October the time that "we owe it to our fallen heroes, their families, and the victims of Iran's terrorist activities to vigorously defend against the Iranian regime's meritless claims... in The Hague.”

The US Supreme Court ruled in April 2016 that the USD 2 billion in frozen Iranian assets should be paid to about 1,000 survivors and relatives of those killed in attacks blamed on the Islamic Republic.

As well as the Beirut Marine barracks attack, in which 241 soldiers were killed, these also included the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Photo Credit: Wikicommons

Iran Has 'Unclean Hands' in World Court Battle, US Says

The United States accused Tehran Monday of having "unclean hands" as it fought an Iranian court bid to unfreeze billions of dollars earmarked by Washington for terror victims.

Washington said Iran's "support for international terrorism", including bombings and airline hijackings, should rule out its case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

Iran dragged Washington to the UN's top court in 2016 over a US Supreme Court ruling that the USD 2 billion should go to victims of attacks blamed on the Islamic republic.

Iran said the case breached a 1955 "Treaty of Amity" between Washington and Tehran signed before Iran's Islamic revolution.

Washington tore up that treaty last week after the ICJ in a separate case ordered the United States to ease sanctions reimposed on Iran by US President Donald Trump after he pulled out of Iran's 2015 international nuclear deal.

"Iran comes to the court with unclean hands. Indeed, it is a remarkable show of bad faith," Richard Visek, a US State Department legal official, told the court.

"The actions at the root of this case centre on Iran's support for international terrorism... Iran's bad acts include supports for terrorist bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, and airline hijackings," he said.

Visek also accused Iran's "most senior leaders" of the "encouragement and promotion of terrorism" and "violation of nuclear non-proliferation, ballistic missile and arms trafficking obligations".

Iran's use of the 1955 treaty to lodge the case was an "abuse of process", he added.

The ICJ was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between United Nations member states. Its rulings are binding but it has no power to enforce them.

'Full Reparations'

At Monday's hearing, a 15-judge bench is listening to US arguments over whether the ICJ can take up the case under its strict rules governing its procedure.

The US Supreme Court ruled in April 2016 that USD 2 billion in Iran's frozen assets must go to American victims of terror attacks.

These included the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut, in which 241 soldiers were killed, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In total, the decision affects more than 1,000 Americans.

Iran angrily accused Washington of breaking the 1955 treaty—even though it was signed at the time with the pro-US regime of the Shah—and called for the US "to make full reparations to Iran for the violation of its international legal obligations".

A decision by the ICJ's judges could take weeks or even months before being made public.

But Monday's showdown risks deepening the Trump administration's rift with international justice.

Last Wednesday, Trump's national security advisor John Bolton announced the US was not only leaving the amity treaty but also quitting the international accord relating to the UN top court's jurisdiction.

That followed Iran's shock victory last week when the ICJ ruled that the US must lift sanctions against Tehran targeting humanitarian goods like food and medicine.

The step also came after the Palestinians went to the ICJ to challenge the US move of its Israel embassy to Jerusalem. 

Trump last month at the United Nations virulently rejected the authority of the International Criminal Court—a separate court based in The Hague that the US is not a member of—over a probe into US forces in Afghanistan.

Photo Credit: ICJ

UN Court Tells US to Ease Iran Sanctions in Blow for Trump

The UN's top court ordered the United States on Wednesday to lift sanctions on humanitarian goods for Iran, in a stinging rebuke for the Trump administration which nonetheless made clear the decision would change nothing.

Tehran declared victory after the International Court of Justice ruled that sanctions reimposed after President Donald Trump pulled out of a nuclear deal put Iranian lives at risk.

But the United States insisted it was already allowing humanitarian 
exemptions and, accusing Iran of seeking a "propaganda" win, announced it was 
terminating a treaty on which the case was based. 

The judges at the court in The Hague ruled unanimously that sanctions on some goods breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States that predates Iran's Islamic Revolution.

They called on Washington to "remove by means of its choosing any impediments arising from the measures announced on 8 May to the free exportation to Iran of medicines and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities" as well as airplane parts and services, chief judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said.

The court said sanctions on goods "required for humanitarian needs... may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran."

US sanctions also had the "potential to endanger civil aviation safety in Iran." 

Trump slapped a first round of sanctions on Iran in August after pulling out in May from the 2015 international deal aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear ambitions, to the dismay of his European allies. A second round of punitive measures is due in November.

Iran Hails Ruling

Iran dragged the United States to the ICJ in July and, during four days of hearings in late August, its lawyers accused Washington of "strangling" its economy.

Foreign drugs are now a rare commodity in Iran which is also dealing with a free-falling rial currency and price hikes. Official Iranian statements acknowledge the shortage and say imports of certain drugs are no longer subsidised.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the court ruling "another failure for (the) sanctions-addicted US government and victory for rule of law".

The foreign ministry said in a statement that the ruling was a "clear sign" that "Iran is in the right".

But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of "abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes" and noted that the court did not reject US sanctions more broadly.

"The court's ruling today was a defeat for Iran. It rightly rejected all of Iran's baseless requests," Pompeo told reporters in Washington.

He said that the United States was ending the 1955 friendship treaty, signed when Iran was ruled by the Western-oriented shah.

"This is a decision, frankly, that is 39 years overdue," Pompeo said, referring to the time since the 1979 Islamic revolution transformed Iran from one of the closest US allies to a sworn foe. 

"Given Iran's history of terrorism, ballistic missile activity and other malign behaviours, Iran's claims under the treaty are absurd," he said.

Zarif said that the move showed the United States to be an "outlaw regime".

The end of the treaty will have little direct effect but Iran as well as the United States have cited it in court cases including when Tehran sought compensation when the US Navy downed an Iran Air civilian flight in 1988, killing 290 people.

Wednesday's ruling is in fact a decision on so-called provisional measures ahead of a final ruling which may take several more years, experts said.

Decisions by the Hague-based ICJ, which rules on disputes between United Nations members, are binding but it has no mechanism through which it can enforce its decisions.

Iran, US Ignored Rulings

In 1986, Washington disregarded the court's finding that it had violated international law by supporting the pro-US Contra the ICJ's ruling rebels in Nicaragua. 

Iran in turn ignored the ICJ's ruling in 1980 to release hostages seized when revolutionary zealots took over the US embassy. 

Trump has repeatedly voiced disdain for international organizations that he sees as limiting US sovereignty.

Trump's national security adviser John Bolton recently threatened that the United States would take action against any judge from the separate International Criminal Court who pursues a case against US troops in Afghanistan.

Negotiated under his predecessor Barack Obama, Trump argues that the 2015 Iran deal gave Tehran money to support extremist groups and build nuclear-capable missiles.

European allies have pledged to keep the agreement alive, with plans for a mechanism to let firms skirt the US sanctions as they do business with Iran.

Hearings in a separate Iranian case against the US freezing of around USD 2 billion of Iranian assets to help American terror victims are due to start at the ICJ next week.

US Must Lift 'Humanitarian' Sanctions on Iran: UN court

Editor’s Note: The full text of the order of the International Court of Justice can be seen here.

The UN's top court Wednesday ordered the United States to lift sanctions on "humanitarian" goods to Iran that President Donald Trump reimposed after pulling out of Tehran's nuclear deal.

The International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that Washington "shall remove by means of its choosing any impediments arising from the measures announced on May 8 to the free exportation to Iran of medicines and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities" as well as airplane parts, said judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf.

The court said sanctions on goods "required for humanitarian needs... may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran."

US sanctions on aircraft spare parts also had the "potential to endanger civil aviation safety in Iran and the lives of its users.”

Trump slapped a first round of sanctions on Iran in August after pulling out in May of a historic deal aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear ambitions, to the dismay of his European allies. A second round of punitive measures is due in November.

The ICJ rules on disputes between United Nations member states. Its decisions are binding and cannot be appealed, but it has no mechanism to enforce them.

Photo Credit: ICJ

Iran, US in Tense Wait for World Court Sanctions Ruling

The International Court of Justice will hand down an eagerly awaited decision this week on Iran's demand for the suspension of debilitating nuclear-related sanctions imposed by the United States.

Accusing Washington of "strangling" its economy, Tehran has asked the court in The Hague to order Washington to lift the measures, reimposed after US President Donald Trump pulled out of a multilateral 2015 accord.

Despite its long enmity with the United States, Iran brought the case under a 1955 "friendship treaty" that predates the country's Islamic Revolution.

Washington has forcefully told the court, which rules on disputes between United Nations member states, that it has no jurisdiction to rule on the case as it concerns a matter of national security.

The ruling on Wednesday at 0800 GMT—in the grand surroundings of the 1913-built Peace Palace in the Dutch city—follows four days of hearings at the end of August.

Rulings by the ICJ are binding and cannot be appealed, but it has no way to enforce its decisions.

"If the court orders measures, they should be respected," Eric De Brabandere, a professor of international law at the University of Leiden, told AFP.

If the court decides it has jurisdiction, it will likely "declare that the parties should refrain from aggravating the dispute", but any steps beyond this remain to be seen, he said.

The 2015 nuclear deal saw Iran agree to limit its nuclear program and let in international inspectors in return for an end to years of sanctions by the West.

But Trump pulled out of the deal in May, to the dismay of European allies, arguing that funds from the lifting of sanctions under the pact had been used to support terrorism and build nuclear-capable missiles.

'Economic Warfare'

At the United Nations General Assembly last week, Trump denounced the deal as "horrible" and "one-sided.”

During the ICJ hearings, Iran said the sanctions reintroduced in September are causing economic suffering for its citizens. US lawyers retorted that economic mismanagement was at the root of Iran's woes.

A second wave of US measures is due to hit Iran in early November, targeting its vital oil exports.

Experts said the Iran-US case was an important opportunity for the ICJ to rule on the issue of "economic warfare"—not currently designated as a use of force.

The case "may offer the court sufficient legal basis to indicate a limit under international law to coercion by the US," Geoff Gordon, an international law expert at the Asser Institute in The Hague, told AFP.

"International law, for reasons to do with power politics, has never formally recognized economic warfare to be a use of force as prohibited by the UN Charter, though economic sanctions can have the same effects and worse as guns and bombs."

But he warned that "the decision is likely to be occasion for escalating tensions."

Relations have plunged to a new low since Trump's election, even as the US president reaches out to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un over his nuclear program.

Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani faced off at the UN last week, with Rouhani denouncing leaders with "xenophobic tendencies resembling a Nazi disposition."

Despite their 1955 Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations, Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic ties since 1980.

The ICJ was set up in 1946, after the carnage of World War II, to rule in disputes between countries.

Photo Credit: ICJ

US Accuses Iran of Bad Faith Over Sanctions Lawsuit

The United States on Wednesday accused Iran of bad faith for challenging Washington's renewed nuclear-linked sanctions against it at the UN's top court.

Iran has asked the International Court of Justice to order the United States to lift the sanctions, reimposed after US President Donald Trump pulled out of a multilateral 2015 accord.

Iran brought the case at the court in The Hague under a 1955 friendship treaty that predates the country's Islamic Revolution.

Washington told the court it had no jurisdiction to rule on the case, which it said was a matter of national security.

"Iran is not invoking the treaty of amity in good faith in this proceeding," US State Department lawyer Jennifer Newstead said in her closing argument.

"Iran cannot be permitted to draw this court into a political and psychological campaign" against the United States, she added.

During four days of hearings, Iran said the sanctions reintroduced this month are causing economic suffering for its citizens.

The US lawyers retorted that economic mismanagement was at the root of Iran's woes.

A second wave of US measures is due to hit Iran in early November, targeting its vital oil exports.

Closing the hearings, ICJ president Abdulqawi Yusuf said the court would issue a ruling "as soon as possible" but did not set a date.

"The judges are well aware of the political stakes," said Eric De Brabandere, professor of international dispute settlement at Leiden University in the Netherlands.

But "in principle the court will focus strictly on the legal aspects of the case", he told AFP.

Despite their 1955 Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations, Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic ties since 1980.

The ICJ was set up in 1946 to rule in disputes between countries.

The court is tasked with deciding only whether it has jurisdiction over Iran's request, De Brabandere said.

But he noted that "the political consequences of the decision are of course important," since either state would see a favorable outcome as "a huge victory."

Photo Credit: ICJ

UN Court Has No Jurisdiction in Iran Sanctions Case: US

The United States told UN judges Tuesday they had no jurisdiction to rule on Tehran's demand for them to order the suspension of debilitating nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

Iran has argued that US President Donald Trump breached a 1955 treaty with his decision to reimpose the sanctions after withdrawing from a multilateral nuclear accord.

But US State Department lawyer Jennifer Newstead told the court in The Hague that it "lacks prima facie jurisdiction to hear Iran's claims".

But Newstead argued that the United States had the right to protect its national security and other interests.

The treaty "cannot therefore provide a basis for this court's jurisdiction" in the case, she said.

The United States and several other world powers lifted sanctions on Iran under a 2015 accord after years of diplomacy. In return, Tehran made commitments not to seek to build nuclear weapons.

Trump said the 2015 accord did not do enough to curb the threat from Iran. He pulled out of the accord in May and began reimposing sanctions this month.

In the first day of hearings at the ICJ on Monday, Iran's lawyers said the sanctions were threatening the welfare of its citizens and disrupting tens of billions of dollars' worth of business deals.

Photo Credit: ICJ

Iran Urges UN Court to Halt 'Economic Strangulation' by US

Iran on Monday demanded the UN's top court suspend US nuclear-linked sanctions against Tehran, accusing Washington of plotting its "economic strangulation".

The Islamic Republic launched a suit at the International Court of Justice in The Hague over US President Donald Trump's decision to reimpose the sanctions that had been lifted in a 2015 accord.

Iran says Trump's move breaches a 1955 treaty. It told the court the measures were already devastating its economy and threatening the welfare of its citizens.

"The United States is publicly propagating a policy intended to damage as severely as possible Iran's economy and Iranian nationals and companies," Iran's lawyer Mohsen Mohebi told the court.

"This policy is nothing but naked economic aggression against my country," he added.

"Iran will put up the strongest resistance to the US economic strangulation, by all peaceful means."

US lawyers are due to give their response in arguments before the court on Tuesday.

Sanctions had been lifted under a 2015 multilateral agreement in return for Iran committing not to pursue nuclear weapons.

But Trump reimposed unilateral sanctions three weeks ago. He said they were needed to ensure Iran never builds a nuclear bomb.

A second wave of punitive measures are due to hit Iran in early November, targeting its vital energy sector including oil exports.

'Irreparable prejudice'

The US measures have added to Iran's economic woes, helping to fuel strikes and protests from across the country and political spectrum.

In the latest blow, Iran's parliament impeached Economy Minister Masoud Karbasian on Sunday.

Tehran filed its case before the ICJ in late July, calling on the Hague-based tribunal's judges to order the immediate lifting of sanctions pending a definitive ruling.

It said the sanctions would cause it "irreparable prejudice". It argues they breach the 1955 Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations between Iran and the United States.

'One-sided deal'

The ICJ is expected to take a couple of months to decide whether to grant Tehran's request for a provisional ruling. A final decision in the case may take years.

The 2015 deal was signed by Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.

Trump, who took office in 2016, called it a "horrible one-sided deal."

He said it "failed to achieve the fundamental objective of blocking all paths to a Iranian nuclear bomb."

To the horror of the other signatories, Trump pulled out and announced in May that he would reinstate sanctions.

'Neither war, nor negotiations' -

Tehran says that the new sanctions are already hurting its economy. Iran's currency the rial has lost around half its value since April.

In a court filing at the ICJ, Iran's lawyers said the US sanctions threaten tens of billions of dollars' worth of business deals with foreign companies.

International companies including France's Total, Peugeot and Renault, and Germany's Siemens and Daimler, have suspended operations in Iran since Trump announced the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal in May.

Air France and British Airways announced Thursday they would halt flights to Tehran next month, saying they were not commercially viable. The British carrier added however that the decision was unrelated to the fresh sanctions.

Trump said the sanctions would turn up the financial pressure on Tehran to come to a "comprehensive and lasting solution" regarding its activities such as its "ballistic missile program and its support for terrorism."

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this month appeared to rule out any immediate prospect of talks, saying "there will be neither war, nor negotiations," with the US.

Washington's lawyers will present their case on Tuesday, with a second round of arguments on Wednesday and Thursday. Experts expect the US to challenge the ICJ's jurisdiction.

The ICJ was set up in 1946 to rule in disputes between countries.

Photo Credit: ICJ

Four Questions on Iran's Legal Challenge to US Sanctions

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.

Photo Credit: ICJ

Iran Versus US Battle to Hit UN's Top Court in August

The UN's top court said Thursday it will hold hearings next month in a bitter battle between Iran and the United States, after President Donald Trump reimposed sanctions on the Islamic  republic.

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold public hearings from Monday 27 to Thursday 30 August in the case" concerning Iran versus the United States, the tribunal said.

"The hearings will be devoted to the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Iran," it added in a statement.

Tehran filed its case with the ICJ last week calling for the judges to order the immediate lifting of the sanctions which they said would cause "irreparable prejudice."

Iran maintained restoring the penalities, lifted under the landmark 2015 deal aimed at reining in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, violated a decades-old treaty.

Nuclear-related sanctions are set to be reimposed by Washington in two phases in August and November, and seek to bar European and other foreign companies from doing business with Iran and blocking its oil sales abroad.

Iran argued in its filing to the court that the move would break a 1955 Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations concluded between the two countries before the Islamic revolution under the regime of the shah. But the two foes have not had official diplomatic relations since 1980.

The court, set up in 1946 in The Hague to rule in disputes between nations, revealed Wednesday that its president, judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, had taken the unusual step to write a letter about the case directly to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

It did not reveal the contents, but said under its rules the court could appeal to any party "to act in such a way as will enable any order the court may make ... to have its appropriate effects."

Over the objections of allies, Trump in May withdrew the United States from the nuclear deal signed between Tehran and world powers in 2015.

He ordered the reimposition of the US sanctions that had been suspended in return for controls on Tehran's nuclear program, effectively barring many multinational firms from doing business in Iran.

Four days of hearings into an earlier complaint lodged by Iran in October 2016 against the US for freezing around USD 2 billion of its assets abroad are due to start on October 8 when the United States will argue the court has no authority to hear the case.

Photo Credit: ICJ

Iran Lodges Complaint Against US Over Renewed Sanctions

Iran has lodged a complaint with the International Court of Justice against the United States' reimposition of sanctions, the foreign ministry said on Tuesday. 

The complaint was registered the previous day, spokesman Bahram Ghasemi said on the ministry's website.

The goal is "to hold US accountable for its unlawful re-imposition of unilateral sanctions," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter. 

"Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of US contempt for diplomacy and legal obligations. It's imperative to counter its habit of violating (international) law," he added.

The complaint came in response to Washington's decision in May to abandon the 2015 nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran. 

Tehran says the action violates international obligations, including the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity—an agreement signed well before Iran's 1979 revolution, but which is still invoked in ongoing legal battles. 

Iran and the US have not had diplomatic relations since 1980 when American embassy officials were held hostage in Iran. 

Zarif addressed world diplomats and Iranian businessmen at a lavish Tehran hotel on Monday night, in a meeting designed as a show of continued mutual support in the face of US aggression. 

"This administration in the United States doesn't know how to behave towards the world... it breaks international treaties as a tool. It is necessary to put a stop to this behavior," Zarif said. 

Austrian ambassador Stefan Scholz, whose country currently holds the presidency of the European Union, said "unorthodox and innovative measures" were being considered to allow banking transactions to continue after US sanctions return.

"We are all in this together, since the EU is facing a net loss of EUR 10 billion (USD 11.7 billion) in lost trade with Iran next year," Scholz said. 

The ICJ is already due to hear a complaint on October 8 that Iran lodged two years ago against the United States for freezing around USD 2 billion of its assets held abroad. 

Photo Credit: ICJ

UN's Top Court to Hear Iran Row with US Over Frozen Assets

The UN's top court will in October hear a complex case brought by Iran against the United States seeking to recover billions in frozen assets, which US courts say should go to American victims of terror attacks.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) said in a statement Friday it will "hold public hearings in the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), from Monday 8 to Friday 12 October 2018" at its seat in The Hague.

The hearings "will be devoted to preliminary objections raised by the United States," the statement added, after which judges will decide whether or not they can rule in the dispute.

The case was lodged by Tehran in June 2016 accusing the US of breaking a decades-old bilateral treaty, dating from the time of the Shah, by seizing Iranian financial assets and those of Iranian companies.

US courts have "awarded total damages of over USD 56 billion ... against Iran in respect of its alleged involvement in various terrorist acts mainly outside the US," Iran said.

The case was filed just weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled in April 2016 that USD 2 billion in frozen Iranian assets should be paid to about 1,000 survivors and relatives of those killed in attacks blamed on the Islamic
republic.

These included the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.

But Tehran reacted angrily to the ruling which came almost a year after the landmark nuclear deal with world powers which led to the unblocking of other frozen funds.

To the dismay of the other world powers, US President Donald Trump has since walked away from the nuclear deal, and the United States in 2017 raised objections to the court's hearing of the case.

The four days of public audiences are expected to focus on whether the ICJ judges can take up the case under the strict rules governing their procedures.

Set up in 1946, the ICJ rules in disputes between states on the basis of existing treaties and international law.

Iran argues that the US is breaking the terms of the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed with the then regime of the Shah long before he was ousted in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The treaty governs economic ties and consular rights.

But the US severed bilateral diplomatic ties with Iran in 1979 after 52 Americans were taken hostage in the US embassy in Tehran. They have not yet been fully restored.

Iran meanwhile is also demanding that the United States "make full reparations to Iran for the violation of its international legal obligations in an amount to be determined by the court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings."

Photo Credit: UN