First two days of #Iran v US hearings at the #ICJ were very interesting. The case gives the Court an opportunity to address key questions about the "plausibility" standard for provisional measures and the nature of irreparable harm. I have a few more questions. #IranUS
1. Is it the US position that the exclusion under Art XX(1)(d) of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (which says the treaty does not preclude measures necessary to protect essential security interests) is entirely self-judging and beyond the scope of judicial review? #IranUS
2. The US argues #JCPOA has its own dispute settlement mechanism, thus precluding an #ICJ case. How does JCPOA do that? The JCPOA text describes a non-mandatory procedure that a party "could" invoke in the event of a disagreement. Nothing expressly precludes an ICJ case.
3. On that note, did the US go through the #JCPOA dispute settlement procedures before withdrawing & reimposing sanctions? If not, why is #Iran bound to use the JCPOA procedure rather than availing itself of the ICJ pursuant to the Treaty of Amity? Just some questions to ponder.
One final note: The US seems to have seen itself as vulnerable on the argument that sanctions could interfere with medical care, giving rise to a stronger basis for #Iran to claim irreparable harm. The US is wisely trying to nip that in the bud with a unilateral undertaking. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
