Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The Hague On the Roll - ICJ Ruling

by Oui Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 at 06:05:06 PM EST

After the threat to the ICC located in the city of The Hague by John Bolton recently, another top court has ruled against the United States of America. No "Invasion Act" yet conceived to kidnap the judges of the International Court of Justice located in the Peace Palace funded by Andrew Carnegie over 100 years ago.

UN court orders US to ditch Iran sanctions | DW |

The United Nations' top court ordered the United States to lift sanctions on humanitarian goods to Iran.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling is a blow to the Trump administration, which withdrew from the 2015 international nuclear accord in May and reimposed sanctions on Iran.

The ICJ 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."

Continued below the fold ...


The Netherlands-based court said sanction 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 spare parts for aircrafts were also ordered to be lifted because of the "potential to endanger civil aviation safety in Iran and the lives of its users."

Decisions made by the ICJ are binding and cannot be appealed, but the court has no means of enforcing its rulings. The ruling is preliminary as hearing the full case is a process that could take years

Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

...
Thus,  on 6 August 2018, the  President  of  the  United States  issued  Executive  Order 13846 "Reimposing Certain Sanctions" on Iran and Iranian nationals. In particular,  Section 1  concerns "Blocking Sanctions Relating to Support for the Government of Iran's Purchase or Acquisition of U.S. Bank Notes or Precious Metals; Certain Iranian Persons; and Iran's Energy, Shipping, and Shipbuilding Sectors and Port Operators".  Section 2 concerns "Correspondent and Payable -Through  Account  Sanctions  Relating  to  Iran's  Automotive  Sector;  Certain  Iranian Persons;  and  Trade  in  Iranian  Petroleum,  Petroleum  Products;  and  Petrochemical  Products".  Sections 3, 4 and 5 provide for the modalities of "`Menu-based'  Sanctions  Relating  to  Iran's Automotive  Sector  and  Trade  in  Iranian  Petroleum,  Petroleum  Products,  and Petrochemical Products".  Section 6  concerns  "Sanctions  Relating  to  the  Iranian Rial".  Section 7 relates to "Sanctions with Respect to the Diversion of Goods Intended for the People of Iran, the Transfer of Goods or Technologies to Iran that are Likely to be Used to Commit Human Rights Abuses, and Censorship".  Section 8 relates to "Entities Owned or Controlled by a United States  Person  and Established  or  Maintained  Outside  the  United States".  Earlie  Executive Orders implementing United States commitments under the JCPOA are revoked in Section 9. Section 2 (e) of Executive Order13846  provides that  certain subsections of Section 3 shall not apply with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the  provision (including any sale) of agricultural commodities, food, medicine or medical devices to Iran.

2. The issue of satisfactory adjustment by diplomacy under Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity (paras. 45-51)

The Court recalls that, under the terms of Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the 1955 Treaty, the dispute submitted  to it must not have  been "satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy". The  Court concludes from the wording of this provision that there is no need for it to examine whether formal negotiations  have  been  engaged  in  or  whether  the  lack  of  diplomatic  adjustment  is  due  to  the conduct of one party or the other. It is sufficient for the Court to satisfy itself that the dispute was not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy before being submitted to it.

In the  present case, the communications  sent by the Government of Iran  to the Embassy of Switzerland  (Foreign  Interests  Section)  in  Tehran  on 11  and  19 June  2018  did  not  prompt  any response from the United States, and there is no evidence in the case file of any direct exchange on this  matter  between  the  Parties.  As  a  consequence,  the  Court  notes that  the  dispute  had  not  been satisfactorily  adjusted  by  diplomacy,  within  the  meaning  of  Article XXI,  paragraph
2,  of  the 1955 Treaty, prior to the filing of the Application on 16 July 2018.

...
VI. OPERATIVE CLAUSE (PARA. 102)

THE COURT,

Indicates the following provisional measures:

(1) Unanimously,

The  United States  of  America, in  accordance  with  its  obligations  under  the  1955 Treaty  of Amity,  Economic  Relations,  and  Consular  Rights, shall  remove,  by  means  of  its  choosing,  any impediments  arising  from  the  measures  announced  on  8 May  2018  to  the  free  exportation  to  the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran of

    (i) medicines and medical devices;
    (ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; and
    (iii) spare  parts,  equipment  and  associated  services  (including  warranty,  maintenance,  repair
    services and inspections) necessary for the safety of civil aviation;

(2) Unanimously,

The  United States  of  America  shall  ensure  that  licences  and  necessary  authorizations  are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the goods and services referred to in point (1);

Press Release International Court Of Justice in The Hague - Oct. 3, 2018

US Risks War Crimes Accusation for Saudi Support
Barack Obama and an Act of War
New American Century - A Balance of ME Failure

Display:
Bush signed the Hague Invasion Act back in 2002.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 at 06:25:28 PM EST
Geez ... what a bunch of idiots in Washington DC

The Absurdity of US Foreign Policy - Iran

US terminates 1955 'Treaty of Amity' with Iran | DW |

The decision comes just hours after the UN top court ordered the US to lift sanctions on humanitarian goods to Iran. Tehran had dragged Washington to the court, saying the sanctions violate the 1955 friendship agreement.

Pompeo's announcement follows a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations' top court, on Wednesday ordering the United States to lift sanctions on humanitarian goods to Iran.

President Donald Trump in May announced a renewal of tough US sanctions on the Islamic Republic after abandoning the multilateral Iran nuclear agreement over its ballistic missile program.

Iran filed a lawsuit against the US at the ICJ in July, arguing that the sanctions violate the friendship agreement signed in 1955 between the two countries when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was in power. The treaty, which established economic relations and consular rights between the two nations, continued to remain in force following the 1979 Islamic Revolution despite diplomatic tensions between Tehran and Washington.

Long overdue

Pompeo said the practical fallout from the decision to terminate the decades-old treaty remains to be seen.

    "This marked a useful point
     for us to demonstrate the
    absolute absurdity of the treaty."


Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 at 07:08:11 PM EST
The 1955 Treaty of Amity was preceded by the 1953 UK and US backed overthrow of the Mossadegh government when it had the temerity to try and audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 at 07:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSUEAR STAFF IN TEHRAN
(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. IRAN)

The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States following the occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on 4 November 1979, and the capture and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. On a request by the United States for the indication of provisional measures, the Court held that there was no more fundamental prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the hostages. In its decision on the merits of the case, at a time when the situation complained of still persisted, the Court, in its Judgment of 24 May 1980, found that Iran had violated and was still violating obligations owed by it to the United States under conventions in force between the two countries and rules of general international law, that the violation of these obligations engaged its responsibility, and that the Iranian Government was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the Embassy premises, and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government. The Court reaffirmed the cardinal importance of the principles of international law governing diplomatic and consular relations. It pointed out that while, during the events of 4 November 1979, the conduct of militants could not be directly attributed to the Iranian State -- for lack of sufficient information -- that State had however done nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises and release the hostages. The Court noted that, after 4 November 1979, certain organs of the Iranian State had endorsed the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them, so that those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State.



Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 at 11:26:28 PM EST
ARGO and the Follow-Up: Iran and the United States | Peace Palace Library |

The Algiers Accords

The Algiers Accords stated that 'it is now and will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs'. The two main principles stipulate that the Unites States "will restore the financial position of Iran, in so far as possible, to that which existed prior to November 14, 1979" and to ensure the mobility and free transfer of all Iranian assets within the United States' jurisdiction. It further stipulates that both Iran and the United States would terminate all litigation between "the government of each party and the nationals of the other," and would settle such claims "through binding arbitration". This established the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, seated in the Hague. In return the Iranians released the 52 Americans they held hostage.

The Iran-US Claims Tribunal

The Iran-US Claims Tribunal (IUSCT) is the largest bilateral international claims adjudication program ever, it is unique in being a program between a Western country and a non-Western country. The Tribunal has finalized over 3,900 cases. The total amount of the awards to American claimants exceeds 2,5 billion $ and around 1 billion $ to the Iranian government. It is still working on some of the most complicated cases; disputes relating to contracts for sales and services of military equipment produced by US companies for Iran before 1979.

Meanwhile in the United States the former hostages have been trying to collect damages from Iran. They won a civil case by default, but then a judge ruled in 2002 that they could not collect damages, and this year the Supreme Court turned down their last appeal. The State Department has argued that damages are forbidden under the Algiers Accords,  and that if the courts interfered, it would become more difficult for the executive branch to conduct foreign policy. The hostages have now asked the US Congress to change the law. Their request comes at a time of new appreciation for the hazards of the Foreign Service, as demonstrated by the September attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  

US-Iran Relations and the 1981 Algiers Accords: Decades of Violations - and Silence

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 at 11:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Our National Interest"

Understanding the Iran-Contra Affair
President Reagan: "Those charges are utterly false." [Video]
Timeline of Nuclear Diplomacy With Iran

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Oct 3rd, 2018 at 11:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shall we start a pool on how long it will be before the US "brings democracy" to The Hague, i.e. drones and black ops strikes?
by rifek on Thu Oct 4th, 2018 at 12:20:22 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Recent Diaries