This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/world/middleeast/us-iran-sanctions-international-court.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
International Court Orders U.S. to Ease Some Iran Sanctions International Court Orders U.S. to Ease Some Iran Sanctions
(35 minutes later)
In a rebuke to the Trump administration, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ordered the United States on Wednesday to ease some sanctions against Iran, including those related to the supply of humanitarian goods and the safety of civil aviation. In a rebuke to the Trump administration, the International Court of Justice ordered the United States on Wednesday to ease some sanctions against Iran, including those related to the supply of humanitarian goods and the safety of civil aviation.
The interim ruling was made in response to a plea from Tehran after President Trump’s announcement in May that he would withdraw the United States from the 2015 international agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.The interim ruling was made in response to a plea from Tehran after President Trump’s announcement in May that he would withdraw the United States from the 2015 international agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Washington is likely to challenge the ruling. The court, sometimes called the World Court, is the United Nations’ highest judicial body. It has no formal power to enforce its decisions, and the United States has long ignored its rulings. There was no immediate response from Washington, but the United States is likely to challenge the ruling. The court in The Hague, sometimes called the World Court, is the United Nations’ highest judicial body. It has no formal power to enforce its decisions, and the United States has long ignored its rulings.
Iran had sued the United States at the International Court in a new, if dubious, strategy to nullify the new round of sanctions, which have started to inflict pain on Iran’s already troubled economy. The decision on Wednesday was not the last word on Iran’s effort to overturn the sanctions since it was an interim injunction. A final ruling could take years. But Iran took the interim order as vindication.
“The decision proved once again that the Islamic Republic is right and the U.S. sanctions against people and citizens of our country are illegal and cruel,” the Foreign Ministry in Tehran said, according to state media.
Iran had sued the United States at the International Court in a dubious strategy to nullify the new round of sanctions, which have started inflicted pain on Iran’s troubled economy.
Mr. Trump had long scorned the 2015 accord, saying in an address in the White House: “This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made. It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”Mr. Trump had long scorned the 2015 accord, saying in an address in the White House: “This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made. It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”
In the latest case, Iran had argued that the re-imposition of sanctions by the United States contravenes a friendship treaty between Tehran and Washington dating from 1955, long before the 1979 revolution that led to a freeze in the countries’ relationship. Mr. Trump’s decision met with the disapproval of the other signatories to the nuclear deal — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the European Union.
Iran has argued that the re-imposition of sanctions by the United States contravenes a friendship treaty between Tehran and Washington dating from 1955, long before the 1979 revolution that led to a freeze in the countries’ relationship.
But the United States has argued that the international court had no jurisdiction in the affair.But the United States has argued that the international court had no jurisdiction in the affair.
The court said on Wednesday that Washington should ensure that its sanctions do not restrict Iran’s export of medicine and medical devices, food, and agricultural commodities, along with spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.The court said on Wednesday that Washington should ensure that its sanctions do not restrict Iran’s export of medicine and medical devices, food, and agricultural commodities, along with spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.
In reaction, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement, according to Reuters, that “the decision proved once again that the Islamic Republic is right and the U.S. sanctions against people and citizens of our country are illegal and cruel.” Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, heading a 15-member panel, said the international court had decided that the United States must “remove by means of its choosing any impediment arising” from the sanctions imposed in May.
“The United States must comply with its international commitments and lift obstacles to Iranian trade,” it added. Reading the court’s judgment, the judge said Washington should not curb “exportation to the territory of Iran of goods required for humanitarian needs such as medicines, medical devices and foodstuffs and agricultural commodities, as well as goods and services required for the safety of civil aviation.”
In theory, the court ruled, American sanctions do not include food and medical supplies, but “it has become difficult if not impossible for Iran, Iranian nationals and companies to engage in international financial transactions” relating to such purchases.
Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, praised Europe on Wednesday for taking a “big step” to maintain business despite the American withdrawal from the pact, which promised an easing of sanctions in return for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program.
The Tasnim news agency quoted Mr. Rouhani as saying that Mr. Trump’s increasing pressures on Tehran were intended to secure “domestic political gains.”