International Court of Justice Ruling in Favor of Iran: Sanctions Must Not Harm Essential Goods or Flight Safety

On Wednesday, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued a provisional ruling stating that the United States must ensure that its unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic do not negatively affect essential goods or passenger flight safety. According to Reuters, the court's ruling has been described as a 'victory' for Tehran against Washington. The International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that Washington must 'remove any obstacles to the free export of medicines, medical equipment, foodstuffs, agricultural products, and aircraft parts to Iran in any way it deems appropriate.' According to Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, the President of the International Court, the court also stated that 'sanctions on goods necessary for humanitarian needs can have a serious negative impact on the health and lives of the people of Iran.' The court emphasized that 'U.S. sanctions related to aircraft spare parts also pose aviation safety risks in Iran and could endanger passengers' lives.' The ruling issued on Wednesday is essentially a provisional order, and experts say that a final decision on this matter could take several years. Tehran brought this case against Washington to the Hague court in July, and Iranian officials claim that the U.S. has violated the 'Friendship Treaty' signed in 1955, prior to the Islamic Revolution, with its new sanctions. This treaty, formally known as the 'Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights,' was signed on August 14, 1955, in Tehran between the United States and the Imperial Government of Iran. The first paragraph of Article 23 of this treaty refers to 'sufficient opportunity for consultation' for any objections the other party may have, and the second paragraph of the same article suggests that if a dispute arises between the parties and 'is not satisfactorily resolved through diplomacy, it shall be referred to the International Court of Justice unless... resolved by other peaceful means.' Donald Trump, the President of the United States, withdrew from the historic JCPOA agreement in May and imposed the first round of new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran in the summer. The second round of U.S. punitive measures, aimed at changing the policies of the Islamic Republic, is set to be implemented starting November 4. Iran had requested the Hague court to issue an immediate suspension of Donald Trump's unilateral sanctions. During a four-day session that the Iranian legal team held with court officials in late August, these lawyers accused Washington of intending to 'suffocate' the Iranian economy, and Iranian representatives at the International Court of Justice described U.S. punitive actions as 'a blatant economic aggression.' However, U.S. lawyers, in response, referred to statements by Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, who said that economic problems stem from 'mismanagement, not sanctions.' Another argument presented by the U.S. legal team in these sessions pointed out that the so-called JCPOA 'has its own political mechanism for resolving disputes,' and thus, Iran has 'misused' the International Court of Justice by bringing this matter to The Hague. The International Court of Justice is tasked with mediating and deciding disputes between member states of the United Nations, but Washington has emphasized that such cases fall outside the jurisdiction of this court as they pertain to U.S. national security. The rulings of the International Court of Justice are binding, and appeals against them are not possible; however, this court has no means to enforce its decisions.