Document Type : Original Independent Original Article
Authors
1 M.A. student in International Law, Faculty of Divinity, Political Science and Law, Science And Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. And M.A. Graduate in Democracy and Human Rights, The Institute for Social Sciences and Humananities, The Hague, Netherlands.
2 Assistant Prof, Department of public and International law, Faculty of Divinity, Political Science and Law, Science And Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Assistant Prof. at Law Department,, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
Highlights
Introduction
Following the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the reinstatement of unilateral sanctions against Iran, Iran sued the US in the ICJ, claiming that the US had violated the Treaty. Iran filed the complaint with the ICJ on July 16, 2018. Iran asked for the revocation of the unilateral sanctions, as well as payment for the treaty violation and economic damages brought on by the sanctions, citing Article 36 of the ICJ Statute and Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the Treaty. Iran also asked for a temporary injunction based on Article 41 of the Statute and articles 73 and 75 of the ICJ's Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the main question this study addresses is whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over the substance of the case.
Therefore, this study aims to the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the substance of this case. The research hypothesis also indicates that the US has clearly violated the Treaty, which is regarded as a living instrument of international law and one of the sources of international law, as stated in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. Based on the review of previous decisions, similar cases, different aspects of the case, and the arguments of the parties, it can be concluded that the ICJ has jurisdiction over the substance of this case, and the US is required to compensate Iran for violating its extensive obligations and return the situation to pre-trial state.
Methodology
This meta-analysis reviewed the reports and verdicts of the ICJ on previous similar cases. Considering the novelty of the research subject and the paucity of Farsi references on the ICJ’s substantive jurisdiction in this case, this study focused on documents and procedures of the ICJ to legally support the research hypothesis and arguments.
Findings
Three of the five preliminary objections made by the US to the ICJ's jurisdiction were fully rejected by the court. The ICJ also declared that the other two objections pertain to the substantive stage. Therefore, the lawsuit will be dismissed in its entirety if these two objections are recognized at the substantive stage. Otherwise, the final verdict will be in favor of Iran. These two objections are as follows:
Results
It is clear from the ICJ's adherence to its prior verdicts and opinions as well as the evidence and arguments presented in this study that the ICJ has jurisdiction over the substance of this case. Furthermore, based on the US legal arguments during the jurisdictional stage to confirm the ICJ's lack of jurisdiction, it can be concluded that the final verdict will be issued in favor of Iran.
The US has violated Paragraphs H (Introduction) and articles 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 36 of the JCPOA, articles 3, 4, 14, 15, and 19 of Resolution 2231, articles 25 and 103 of the United Nations Charter, and Article 2 (Paragraph 1), Article 4 (paragraphs 1 and 2), Article 5 (Paragraph 1), Article 7 (Paragraph 1), Article 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), Article 9 (paragraphs 2 and 3), and Article 10 of the Treaty. Therefore, under international laws and regulations, the US should lift its illegal sanctions, return the situation to its previous state, and compensate for damages caused to Iran's people and economy. To have a stronger executive guarantee than the joint commissions, Iran needs to introduce the ICJ as a competent authority for dispute resolution in future agreements and also include the conditions of reference to the ICJ in the event of a dispute or misinterpretation. Additionally, these agreements are recommended to be approved by the parties' respective parliaments and internal authorities. As a result, the political agreements and contracts become official treaties, providing the highest level of executive guarantee in the event of a violation. If the above-mentioned conditions were established, the US could not unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA if it had any objections; instead, the US should pursue the case through the ICJ procedures.
Keywords
Main Subjects