2. @S_R_Anders and @tradelawnews have rightly pointed out that the May 8 and Nov 4 reimposition of sanctions made no legal changes with respect to humanitarian exports. But operational/practical changes introduced by JCPOA withdrawal in May are very clear.
3. #Iran's petition to ICJ took care to explain the importance of financial transactions for trade use of general or specific humanitarian licenses. Iran argued an interruption not merely from returning sanctions, but also from Trump's promise of *further sanctions.* 
4. The court agreed that transactions are "more difficult in practice, since the announcement of the measures by the United States." There is an important distinction between "in principle" exemption and "in practice" exemption. The court sees the US failing on the later standard
5. What is important here is that the Trump administration has been actively making transactions more difficult in several ways. First, admin officials have been touring the world threatening banks and companies about trade with Iran, characterizing *all* trade as illicit.
6. Second, the administration is known to have significantly reduced the number of specific licenses being issued in support of humanitarian trade even before withdrawal from #JCPOA, undermining any strengthening in food/medicine supply chains.
7. Third, the administration outright rejected a request from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom to proactively protect humanitarian trade through more expansive waivers--itself a clear political signal of inflexibility and animus.
8. Fourth, the Treasury Department has left it needlessly ambiguous whether Iranian banks previously exempt from secondary sanctions will be exempt this time round--a decision yet to be taken--pointing to "further sanctions."
bourseandbazaar.com/articles/2018/…
bourseandbazaar.com/articles/2018/…
9. So the "in principal" legal exemption of humanitarian trade does not satisfy an "in practice" utility. I am *not a lawyer* but that seems to be the crux of the matter here. The court sees the rights/obligations set out in the Treaty of Amity as a practical matter.
10. As such, the ICJ ruling makes clear that the US must ensure "that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction" for the purpose of humanitarian trade. It does not say "legal" restriction, but reflects the encompassing language of the Treaty.
11. By my reading, the ruling does introduce an obligation for OFAC to stop messing around with humanitarian trade and (1.) eliminate the non-legal restrictions like scare tactics and (2.) refrain from abusive *new* designations that would render humanitarian trade impossible.
12. Not only does this ruling strengthen the hand of the Europeans in insisting on American proactivity, I can also see the judgement as resonating with some congressional leaders who are seeing Trump embarrass the US by taking food and medicine away from Iranian people.
13. The Trump admin and the US legal team have insisted on their commitment to allow humanitarian trade with #Iran to progress under sanctions.
The court basically pointed out how that is bullshit, but in legalese.
This is a legal judgement on a moral and practical failure.
The court basically pointed out how that is bullshit, but in legalese.
This is a legal judgement on a moral and practical failure.
P.S. This is the oh-so-mature response from this administration.
