World Court to Hear Iran’s Case Against US Sanctions

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).


Unilaterally imposed sanctions by one nation on others breaches international law.

UN Charter Article II prohibits the practice.

It mandates that all member states “settle…disputes” according to the rule of law.

It bans the threat or use of force by one nation against another.

Under Article 41, unilaterally imposed sanctions by one nation against others have no legal validity.

No nation or combination thereof may intervene against another without Security Council authorization.

It’s permitted only in self-defense or to enforce the rule of law when breached by a nation-state.

Security Council members alone may legally impose sanctions on nations, entities or individuals.

US sanctions on targeted nations constitute war by other means.

They’re weaponized to pressure, bully, and terrorize targeted nations into bending to its will.

Nations observing them are complicit in law-breaking.

In 1933, years before the UN Charter’s creation, the Montevideo Convention of Rights and Duties prohibited nations from intervening in the internal affairs of others — calling their sovereign territory “inviolable.”

The principle of non-intention is affirmed in other international law.

Notably throughout the post-WW II period, the US and its imperial partners operate by their own rules exclusively.

Their actions repeatedly and flagrantly breach core international law principles.

Nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to a higher power in Washington are considered enemies of its interests.

In late January at his first news conference, Tony Blinken said US sanctions on Iran will remain in place until its ruling authorities comply with unacceptable US demands.

He falsely accused the Islamic Republic of being “out of compliance on a number of fronts, and it would take some time, should it make a decision to do so, for it to come back into compliance, and (some time) for us then to assess whether it was meeting its obligations (sic).”

Under JCPOA Articles 26 and 36, Iran continues to comply with principles of the landmark nuclear agreement.

Increasing uranium to 20% purity and other actions taken are reversible in short order if the US and E3 countries fulfill their abandoned obligations.

It’s for them to take good will first steps, not Iran.

They breached the agreement, not the Islamic Republic.

Their “credible path back to diplomacy” is all about getting Iran to accept unacceptable demands it rejects.

Claiming Iran is “divert(ing) toward making nuclear weapons in return for sanctions relief from world powers” is a bald-faced Big Lie.

No evidence remotely suggests it. Plenty of indisputable evidence proves otherwise.

Biden/Harris hardliners are pursuing a path of confrontation with Iran, not mutual cooperation.

It’s an ominous sign for what may lie ahead.

Iran is not in violation of “JCPOA curbs.”

The US and E3 countries are in flagrant violation of breaching their JCPOA obligations.

On Wednesday, a 16-judge International Court of Justice (ICJ) panel agreed to hear Iran’s case against illegally imposed US sanctions — supported by its imperial partners.

Submitted to the Court in 2018, Iran accused the Trump regime of breaching the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights by imposing unlawful sanctions.

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif applauded the court’s decision, tweeting:

“The @CIJ_ICJ just dismissed all US preliminary objections in the case brought by Iran over unlawful US sanctions.”

“Another legal victory for Iran following 3 Oct. ’18 Order.”

“Iran has always fully respected int’l law.”

“High time for the US to live up to 𝙞𝙩𝙨 int’l obligations.”

In October 2018, Pompeo unilaterally ended the friendship treaty with Iran.

It was in force when Iran submitted its complaint to the Court.

It’ll likely take some time before the ICJ rules on this issue.

If it favors Iran over the Trump regime, it has no power to force US compliance.

In 1986, the IDJ’s ruling for Nicaragua was ignored by the US.

The Court ordered Washington to pay reparations to Nicaragua for contra war mass slaughter, destruction, and related high crimes against a sovereign state.

The pattern is virtually sure to repeat if the Court supports Iran’s legal claim against the Trump regime.

In October 2018, the ICJ ruled for Iran against US sanctions on humanitarian goods, calling Trump regime measures “illegitimate and cruel.”

Pompeo and other regime hardliners ignored the ruling.

A similar response is virtually certain whenever judicial rulings go against US actions and interests.

It’s how the scourge of US imperialism operates.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

Featured image is from Al-Masdar News

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Stephen Lendman

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." Visit his blog site at Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]