Iran has the facts of the US sanctions case in its favor and there are ample solid legal theories to argue to and convince the World Court. Under the ICJ Statute, the ICJ must decide cases in accordance with international law. Hence the ICJ must apply (1) any international conventions and treaties; (2) international custom; (3) general principles recognized as law by civilized nations; and (4) judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists of the various nations. From this body of international law, the International Court of Justice would find ample basis to support Iran’s claims not only for the benefit of its civilian population but also to advance the rule of law in the global community.
The ICJ is made up of 15 jurists from different countries. No two judges at any given time may be from the same country. The court’s composition is static but generally includes jurists from a variety of cultures. Among the principles, standards and rules of international law Iran should argue to the World Court could include, but would not be limited to, the following:
- The US-led sanctions violate international humanitarian law due to the negative health effects of the sanctions on the civilian populations. This renders the sanctions illegal under international customary law and the UN Charter for their disproportionate damage caused to Iran’s civilian population.
- The US-led severe sanctions regime constitutes an illegitimate form of collective punishment of the weakest and poorest members of society, the infants, the children, the chronically ill, and the elderly.
- The US, France and the UK have violated the UN Charter by their imposition of severe economic sanctions and threats of military and even nuclear force. The United States, Israel, and some of their allies, regularly threaten Tehran with the “option” of a military strike against its civilian nuclear facilities. The ICJ has ruled previously that “A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons is contrary to Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the UN Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful.” It has further ruled that “A threat of use of nuclear weapons must also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons.”
- Examples of the scores of threats to use force by US officials remarks made by retired US Army general Jack Keane, who earlier this year urged the administration of US President Barack Obama to use covert action against Iran and target members of the Quds Force, the Guard’s special foreign actions unit, and former CIA official Reuel Marc Gerecht who was reported as saying regarding Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West: “I don’t think that you are going to really intimidate these people, get their attention, unless you shoot somebody.” Both urged the Obama administration to assassinate top Iranian security officials, including Quds Force chief Qasem Soleimani. US planes and warships are currently entering the Persian Gulf, while 44 US senators are promoting an AIPAC initiative urging president Obama to break off talks with Tehran, toughen the sanctions even further and prepare for war.
- Unilateral US sanctions are illegal under International Law because they are in fact multilateral and impose penalties on any country which opposes the sanctions or does not choose to participate in them.
- The US-led sanctions amount to an Act of War given their effects including hardships on the general public and that Iran therefore has a legal right to self-defense including closing the Straits of Hormuz.
- The US-led sanctions, given their design and intent, constitute acts of aggression against Iran in violation of Article 2 (4) of the UN charter.
- The indisputable facts of the US-led sanctions case warrant the imposition by the ICJ of Restraining Orders designed to prevent a military attack on Iran, to prohibit any type of blockade of Iran and cease the imposition of further economic sanctions against Iran, and also their efforts of securing more sanctions against Iran at the United Nations Security Council. The Restraining Orders should also seek to prohibit the US and its allies from advocating aggressive military actions against Iran and to negotiate with Iran in good faith over the dispute concerning nuclear re-processing.
- Iran should apply to the World Court for Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) against the US, UK, France, EU, among other states, to cease and desist from committing ongoing voluminous threats by US officials, including members of Congress such as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Peter King, Chairman of Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management Michael McCaul, and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence Patrick Meehan.
- The US has failed to separate acts of war from the economic sanctions which are being used as an act of force.
- Iran can legitimately claim and should argue at the ICJ that certain bilateral or multilateral economic sanctions imposed by single countries or by intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations are illegal or even criminal due to their assault on the international legal right to development or in the case of military sanctions, the right of self-defense.
- The US-led sanctions violate the international law principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of UN member states.
- As Germany’s Green Party has argued, sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program violate international laws as long as no evidence of deviation toward nuclear weapons construction is found.
Despite Iran’s strong case on both the facts and the law, and the diversity in structure and composition of the International Court of Justice, the international tribunal has a few times over the years been criticized for favoring established powers. Under articles 3 and 9 of the ICJ Statute, the judges on the ICJ should represent “the main forms of civilization and principal legal systems of the world.” This definition suggests that the ICJ does not represent the interests of developing countries.
Nevertheless, the world court’s record has been by and large exemplary in applying principles, standards and rules of international law both in contested cases and advisory opinions and Iran has an excellent opportunity to protect its citizens, thwart US and Israeli designs on the region, and advance international accountability all to the inestimable benefit of all people and nations.
Iran should file an application with the International Court of Justice regarding the US led sanctions campaign without further delay.
Why should Iran think that any legal system will protect them from the wrong doing of other nations? We all know that most of these “legal systems” only apply to the “weaker” nation and are skirted by “powerful” countries at will.
Does Iran have a “RIGHT” to make a nuclear weapon? That is the essence of all of your words (certainly if you exclude the first part of your article (your biography)). I would rather think the best course of action is to eliminate ALL nuclear weapons not encourage their proliferation.
You mention retired Gen Keane suggestion of using covert methods to sabotage the Iranian effort. He doesn’t speak for the country,that is his opinion. Everyone has an opinion on the issue, why quote his?
Would Israel give up it’s nuclear weapons if every other country in the region said they wouldn’t attempt to acquire nuclear weapons or use them on Israel? NO, Israel will always believe that there will be those in the region that will attempt to acquire some means to destroy it. (After all, that excuse is what they use to suppress the Palestinians, and one must have an excuse when you are suppressing people). I am not sure who Israel will be blasting with those weapons, I guess everyone should keep their heads down.
The real problem is that every wannabe power on earth wants to control what it doesn’t legitimately own. That’s true of Iran, Israel, the US, and just about everyone else. In some cases, like human rights abuses, I can see it, but is it up to one country to say? We have the UN, but it doesn’t have the ability on it’s own. All of its authority comes from those who don’t want to be governed by it (hence the veto powers vested in the big five).
I just laugh my socks off. This is just sad, I feel sorry for Mr Lamb, he seems to have just lost his moral compass …
Iran could not dare to approach the ICJ because it then would be held accountable in the same court for three decades of systematic violation of its own people’s fundamental human rights.
Mr Lamb, bring on the lawsuit, and we will show you how justice wipes the floor with the mullahs. The Iranian people’s worst enemy is the medieval barbaric Iranian regime rather than western or UN sanctions.
We are ready, just bring on the lawsuit
Mr. Lamb,
Did these three legal giants from your alma mater teach you anything about the Clean Hands Doctrine as an equitable defense against Iran? Surely someone of your professed expertise in International Law would have brought this up in your sham of an article. Iran wont bring a case against the West in ICJ because they know it and so should you that it would be a fruitless pursuit.
to Juergista:
since when you have become the defender of iranan people. if you had your way you would have iranians plant tomatoes