The Leader’s Words Help US vs Iran in the International Court

A fresh battle between Iran and the United States got underway in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on August 27, with the Islamic Republic challenging the legality of the re-imposition of sanctions following the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal. 

On May 8, US President Donald Trump announced the US was withdrawing from the 2015 multi-national nuclear deal with Iran, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reimposing sanctions against the Islamic Republic. On July 16, the ICJ, based in the Hague, often referred to as the World Court, announced that Iran had filed a lawsuit against the United States alleging that Trump’s decision violates a 1955 treaty between the two countries.

Iran asked the court to process the lawsuit urgently, to order the United States to “terminate the May 8 sanctions without delay,” and to compensate Iran for financial damages already caused by the reimposed sanctions.

Iran and the US argued before the court over a period of four days. As part of their challenge against Iran, American lawyers pointed to recent statements made by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei about sanctions, as well as to statements from President Hassan Rouhani.

Iran’s case against Washington stated that the US decision “violated and continued to violate multiple provisions” of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights. The two countries signed the treaty following the 1953 coup that — with the help of the CIA — overthrew the prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and returned the shah back to power decades before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

In the first day of the ICJ hearing, Iran’s lawyer Mohsen Mohebbi branded the sanctions “naked economic aggression” and said that they threatened the welfare of its citizens and were disrupting tens of billions of dollars’ worth of business deals.  He blamed the sanctions for the rapid and steep fall in the value of the Iranian currency. 

Mohebbi argued that the US’ ban on the sale of passenger airliners to Iran posed a danger to the lives of Iranians because they have no option but to travel in worn-out and crash-prone planes.

Also arguing for Iran, London-based lawyer Samuel Wordsworth confirmed that sanctions were damaging Iran’s business deals and told the court the measures were jeopardizing Iranian nationals' access to medicine.

 

Mismanagement Not Sanctions

The first day of the hearings was dominated by arguments from Iran’s British and French lawyers, but on the second day, it was the turn of British and American lawyers representing the US to reject Iran’s claim — citing as evidence recent statements by Ayatollah Khamenei. A few days before the court started its proceedings, Sir Daniel Bethlehem, an English barrister representing the US, argued that the court should dismiss Iran’s lawsuit because the chaos in Iran’s economy was being caused by the country's own mismanagement and not by the sanctions.

Bethlehem referred to a speech Ayatollah Khamenei delivered on August 23. “Economic experts and many officials agree that today's livelihood problems do not emerge from foreign sanctions,” said the Iranian Supreme Leader. “Rather, they are tracked down to our internal issues. Many officials have explicitly mentioned this. The experts also — as far as I know — agree on ‘internal factors’ as the source for the crisis. The sanctions may have played a role in creating the current economic situation, but domestic factors play a stronger role in the matter. If actions are taken more efficiently, more prudently, more swiftly and more firmly, sanctions cannot have much of an effect, and they can be resisted. The problem mainly arises from within the country ... The problems arise from our methods of governance and policymaking.”

On the second day of the proceedings, US State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead said Iran's appeal based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity was a legal dodge because the treaty states that, to settle differences, the two countries must first try diplomatic methods such as negotiations. While the US has announced its readiness to talk, she said, Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly rejected the idea — most recently on August 29, when he said: “Any negotiation with the US is negated.”

The US side offered a full translation of Ayatollah Khamenei’s statements regarding the mismanagement of the Iranian economy to the court, and it now forms part of the evidence. "Iran cannot be permitted to draw this court into a political and psychological campaign" against the United States, Newstead said.

On August 29, Iran’s lawyer Samuel Wordsworth rejected Newstead’s argument and offered his own arguments based on statements made by President Rouhani. He asked the court to rule in favor of Iran and implicitly rejected Ayatollah Khamenei’s claim that sanctions do not play a major role in Iran’s economic problems.

He referred to a speech by President Rouhani, delivered a day earlier. “Today foreign companies are leaving Iran [because of the American sanctions],” Rouhani told the Iranian parliament. “What can be the reason they are leaving [if not the sanctions]? If a certain bank stopped working with us yesterday, then it is clear that they worked with us up until yesterday.”

Iran’s lawyer insisted that, according to Rouhani, it is the sanctions that have created new problems for the Iranian economy.

Contradictory Statements

But on the fourth day, the United States’ lawyer not only went over Khamenei’s statements again, but also turned to the same speech by President Rouhani to prove her point. “Our economic and social problems can be solved,” she quoted Rouhani as saying. “People are not afraid of the United States, people are not afraid of foreign threats, people are [only] afraid of fighting among ourselves...We will overcome all these problems.”

In her concluding statement Jennifer Newstead accused Islamic Republic officials of contradicting themselves. “The government of Iran says something inside Iran and something else outside,” she told the court.

Many Iranian citizens believe that the contradictory statements from Iranian officials about the effects of American sanctions are the result of factional fighting within Iranian politics. And they also feel it is the people of Iran who are the victims of this infighting.

Normally, the International Court of Justice takes a long time to issue a verdict. But Iran has asked the court to expedite the case due to its urgent nature. And at the end of four days of hearings, the Somalian president of the court, Abdulqawi Yusuf, said the court would issue a ruling "as soon as possible,” although he stopped short of setting a date. But whatever it decides, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have veto power over the enforcement of any ruling by the court — and, of course, the US is one of those five.

Until the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the United States and Iran never found a need to appeal to the World Court to settle their differences, but after the revolution and the hostage crisis, during which 52 American diplomats and US embassy staff spent 444 days in captivity in Tehran, this is the fourth time that Iran and the US have gone to Hague with their grievances.

It is expected that court will issue its verdict before November 4, when the sanctions on Iranian oil are set to take effect. As it happens, that day is also the anniversary of the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979.

 

More on the recent war of words between the Islamic Republic and the US government:

Why the Supreme Leader Banned Direct Talks with the US, August 14, 2018

Was the Guards Commander’s Response to Trump Unconstitutional?, August 2, 2018

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Commander Threatens Trump, July 26, 2018

Decoding Iran’s Politics: The 12-Point US Ultimatum, July 6, 2018

Can Iran Legally Close the Strait of Hormuz?, July 5, 2018

The 12 Demands of Pompeo's New Iran Strategy, May 21, 2018

Pompeo to Lay out New Iran Strategy, May 21, 2018