Thread by @RezaNasri1

#Thred

1) Removing Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (#IRGC) from the U.S "Foreign Terrorist Organisations" (FTO) blacklist at the conclusion of the #ViennaTalks would be a very positive step.

2) Designating the IRGC as a FTO was a blatant blunder by the Trump administration with potentially serious long-term ramifications for the international legal regime governing the laws of war.

3) This unprecedented designation was not legally sound even according to US domestic law; And the introduction of this precedent-setting practice into the international order risks "politicizing" - hence undermining - even further the already fragile IHL legal regime.

4) Despite politically motivated claims, the IRGC is not a terrorist organization in the legal and proper sense of the term. Rather, it is the official conventional armed forces of a sovereign member-state of the UN; And has all the characteristics of a typical conventional army

5) For instance, the IRGC derives its authority from the Iranian constitution; It has a well-defined command structure and a ratified code of conduct that it is held accountable to in conformity with Iranian and international law.

6) Its members wear a uniform and have a fixed distinctive and recognizable emblem; Nearly half the Iranian male population performs its military service in the IRGC; And it operates in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and the laws and customs of war.

7) In fact, as documented by credible international organizations, the IRGC has an incredibly good record of self-restraint and compliance with IHL, even as it fought an eight-year-long war of attrition against the aggressive and WMD-using army of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

8) Officially, labeling the conventional army of a High Party to the Geneva Conventions as a terrorist organization introduces the inherently flawed notion of “terrorist soldiers” into international relations, with all the negative consequences this entails for POW status.

9) Needless to say that the generalization of this practice - namely as a result of reciprocal countermeasures – entails serious consequences for the US and other Western armed forces as well.

10) Indeed, if this practice becomes the norm and rival countries begin designating each others’ armies as “terrorist organizations”, the U.S or NATO servicemembers and commanders could also be tried and treated as “terrorists” if captured in foreign land.

11) To illustrate the folly of generalizing this practice, just imagine the chaos that would ensue if in the current conflict that is unfolding in Europe, the protagonists – Russia, Ukraine and members of NATO – designate each other’s armed forces as terrorist organizations!

12) How would captured soldiers be treated? As prisoners of war (POWs) that normally enjoy the protection of international law, or would they be put on trial upon capture and eventually punished as members of a terrorist organization? What would become of IHL in this scenario?

13) If this designation affects – or is perceived to have the potential to affect – the legal protection afforded to servicemembers on the ground, the concerned state may decide to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, hence causing the collapse of the legal regime altogether.

14) For these reasons, all other considerations aside, removing the IRGC from the FTO list would constitute a positive step towards the protection of IHL and the preservation of the integrity of a legal regime so indispensable in this era seemingly so prone to unpredictable wars.