UN Court Orders US

PUBLISHED: 2:39 AM 7 Oct 2018
UPDATED: 6:20 PM 7 Oct 2018

U.N. Courts Tells U.S. To Lift Sanctions

The International court told the U.S. to lift sanctions while an international case was ongoing. However, they lack any mechanism by which to ensure compliance with the demand.

A United Nations court told the United States to lift sanctions against Iran. It seems like they forgot who's in charge now.

The United Nations court has declared that the United States ‘must’ lift sanctions on ‘humanitarian’ goods to the nation of Iran, even though such sanctions existed before the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

To many, it certainly seems like the U.N. doesn’t understand who’s in charge in the United States, or how the relationship between the most powerful country on earth and the ‘international’ organization has changed. Still, the UN Court ‘ordered’ the U.S. to act in Iran’s favor. Many people wonder how dare they order America to do anything.

When Donald Trump was running for the presidency in 2016, he repeatedly said that he would be tougher on Iran than his predecessor. When he won, he carried through with that promise, and imposed new sanctions on Iran, undoing Barack Obama and John Kerry’s ‘treaty’ with the Islamic Republic.

The International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that the Trump administration needed to lift sanctions on “humanitarian” goods that were reinstated when President Donald J. Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal.

The ICJ ruled that the U.S. should “by means of its choosing” remove measures announced on May 8.

Basically saying, American can do what it likes, as long as it abides by the global court decision.

These measures would allow nations to export, to Iran, medicines and ‘medical devices,’ ‘food and agricultural commodities,’ and, perhaps most interestingly, ‘airplane parts,’ according to judge Abulqawi Ahmed Yusuf.

Abulqawi Ahmed Yusuf is a Somali who has spent years working within the UN, and has interacted with the United Nations since the 70s.

The international court complained that sanctions on medical equipment and supplies could negatively impact the health of people in Iran.

They also said that sanctions on airline parts could endanger civil aviation in the country, even though such parts could, in some cases, be used for military purposes.

President Trump and his administration slapped the first set of sanctions on the country in August.

However, a second round of punitive measures against the nation is due to come into effect in November.

While the ICJ may have made their ruling, and they are ‘empowered’ to rule on ‘disputes’ between member nations of the United Nations, that doesn’t mean much, as they lack the ability to actually enforce any of their decisions.

Tehran first dragged Washington D.C. to the ‘international’ judicial body in July, seeking an ‘emergency suspension’ of various economic sanctions.

Their basis for the claim against those sanctions was that they violated a ‘friendship treaty’ between Iran and the United States that dated back to 1955, well before the Islamic Revolution.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, declared that the sanctions were a type of “psychological warfare” the United States was waging against his country.

Washington’s legal representation replied by saying that the ICJ didn’t have any sort of jurisdiction over the ‘dispute’ or America’s decision, because it was related to a national security issue.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has already decried the filing as “meritless” in the first place, and the Trump administration has suggested that they are going to challenge the ruling.

The ruling that was issued on Wednesday was an interim ruling, one that basically issued the equivalent of an injunction on the United States’ plans.

Richard Nephew, who was the former lead U.S. sanctions expert during Iran deal negotiations, said that the case was more likely to be symbolic than it was to have some actual impact.

Nephew pointed out that the Iranian foreign ministry knew that it had to play a role in front of the international community, and suggest that it was the aggrieved party in the situation.

He also suggested that he wasn’t fully convinced that President Donald Trump or the Trump White House would comply with any ruling handed down by the international court.

After all, Donald J. Trump and members of his administration recently criticized the international court, and have repeatedly suggested that the court has no jurisdiction over them or the United States in general.

They have also regularly suggested that the United Nations had little, if any, power over the United States and its conduct.

It also seems somewhat senseless that the Iranian government would bring up a treaty from 1955 to rationalize their lawsuit.

After all, since then the United States and Iran have essentially ceased communicating, and no longer view each other on friendly, or even indifferent, terms, it’s hard to understand why that could be a reasonable basis. The government, and even the basic government structure that agreed to that treaty no longer exists, after all.