US Rejects UN Jurisdiction on Iran Suit Against US Nuke Deal Withdrawal, Renewed Sanctions

The International Court of Justice- Photo Credit: Lybil BER via Wikimedia

Iran, on Monday, asked the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) to order President Donald Trump to lift the sanctions he imposed on the Islamic Republic, and to reverse his unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, and suspend his accusations about Iran’s spreading terrorism in Middle Eastern countries.

Iran argues Trump’s moves violated a decades-old Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations signed between Iran and the US in 1955. Of course, in 1979, Iran violated every possible aspect of the same treaty, when it invaded the American embassy in Tehran and kept embassy staff hostage for more than a year.

The American delegation was given three hours to present its initial response on Tuesday.

The response the U.S. gave to the U.N. judges a short time later was that they have no jurisdiction to rule on Iran’s demand.

U.S. State Department lawyer Jennifer Newstead told the International Court of Justice in The Hague that it “lacks prima facie jurisdiction to hear Iran’s claims,” according to an AFP report. She argued that the U.S. has the right to protect its national security interests.

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial body of the United Nations. It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. The court comprises a panel of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. It is seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.

In contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

2 Comments on “US Rejects UN Jurisdiction on Iran Suit Against US Nuke Deal Withdrawal, Renewed Sanctions”

  1. Peter Hofman Says:

    The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. The Obama administration has so far made greater efforts to engage with the Court. It is participating with the Court’s governing bodies and it is providing support for the Court’s ongoing prosecutions. Washington, however, has no intention to join the ICC, due to its concern about possible charges against US nationals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s