Project Description

In reviewing process, European Journal of International Law (EJIL)

After a few decades of conflict on Iran’s nuclear program and decades of sanctions against this country, eventually with the signing of the JCPOA by the conflicting parties in 2015 and its endorsement by the UNSC by means of Resolution 2231, the previous sanctions were removed. The new president of the USA however left the JCPOA and returned the previous sanctions. In response to such violation of obligations by the US, Iran decided to take a case to the International Court of Justice based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The present paper shall discuss the jurisdiction (jurisdiction and substantive competence) of the ICJ about this case, and also the legitimacy of US actions.

A review of previous lawsuits between US and Iran at the ICJ, all of which being based on the same treaty, and in view of the ICJ’s practice of emphasizing and reaffirming its previous decisions and orders, and by considering article 10 of the treaty of amity covering the principle of free trade and the ICJ’s opinion about illegitimacy of full-scale economic sanctions based on national security and also countless cases of violating international treaties and accords by the US demonstrate and establish that the ICJ has both jurisdiction (Ratione Materiae) and substantive competence (Merits).