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 4 Version 5
International Court Orders U.S. to Ease Some Iran Sanctions International Court Orders U.S. to Ease Some Iran Sanctions
(35 minutes later)
PARIS — 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.PARIS — 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 United Nations’ highest court, known as the World Court, was responding to an urgent plea from Tehran after President Trump’s announcement in May that he would withdraw from the 2015 international accord limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. His decision was followed by a first round of sanctions in August and a second round is due in November. In response, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced in a news conference that the United States would cancel a treaty signed in 1955 by the two countries that had provided a basis for friendly diplomatic exchanges and economic relations, long before Iran’s Islamic revolution turned the two nations into enemies.
The court order, unanimously handed down by its 15 judges, amounts to an injunction put in place while Iran’s lawsuit challenging the sanctions, filed in July, winds its way through the court — a process that could take years. The interim ruling by the United Nations’ highest court, known as the World Court, came in response to an urgent plea from Tehran after President Trump’s announcement in May that he would withdraw from the 2015 international accord limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. His decision was followed by a first round of sanctions in August, and a second round is due in November.
During hearings in August, Iran argued that the United States was strangling the country “through naked economic aggression” and was violating the Treaty of Amity signed by the two countries on economic relations and consular rights in 1955, long before Iran’s Islamic revolution turned the them into enemies. The court order, unanimously handed down by its 15 judges, amounts to an injunction while Iran’s July lawsuit challenging the sanctions winds its way through the court — a process that could take years.
In response to the court decision, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced in a news conference that the United States would cancel the treaty with Iran.
And Peter Hoekstra, the United States ambassador to the Netherlands, said on Twitter that the ruling was “a meritless case over which the court has no jurisdiction.”
“Even so, it is worth noting that the court declined today to grant the sweeping measures requested by Iran. Instead, the Court issued a narrow decision on a very limited range of sectors,” Mr. Hoekstra added.
Iran, however, took the outcome as vindication.Iran, however, took the outcome 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.“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.
During hearings in August, Iran argued that the United States was strangling the country “through naked economic aggression” and was violating the Treaty of Amity signed by the two countries on economic relations and consular rights in 1955, long before Iran’s Islamic revolution turned the them into enemies.
Lawyers for the United States had argued that Iran was misusing the court because it had no jurisdiction in the case since the dispute involves American national security. Rulings by the court, which is based in The Hague and settles disputes between nations, are legally binding, though it has no way of enforcing them. In the past, both the United States and Iran have ignored its rulings.Lawyers for the United States had argued that Iran was misusing the court because it had no jurisdiction in the case since the dispute involves American national security. Rulings by the court, which is based in The Hague and settles disputes between nations, are legally binding, though it has no way of enforcing them. In the past, both the United States and Iran have ignored its rulings.
Peter Hoekstra, the United States ambassador to the Netherlands, echoed the administration’s view, writing on Twitter that the ruling was “a meritless case over which the court has no jurisdiction.”
Wednesday’s decision is not expected to change Washington’s course. 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.”Wednesday’s decision is not expected to change Washington’s course. 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.”
The United States, however, offered assurances in August that sanctions would not affect Iran’s humanitarian needs.The United States, however, offered assurances in August that sanctions would not affect Iran’s humanitarian needs.
But the court found that such promises were “not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns” raised by Iran.But the court found that such promises were “not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns” raised by Iran.
Washington’s plans to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and its announcement of new sanctions have drawn strong opposition from other countries who are party to the deal, including allies such as Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China.Washington’s plans to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and its announcement of new sanctions have drawn strong opposition from other countries who are party to the deal, including allies such as Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China.
They have openly said that they want to uphold the nuclear deal. But despite their opposition to the sanctions, which also hurt their business deals with Iran, some Europeans have already annulled trades with Iran as they fear a punitive response from Washington.They have openly said that they want to uphold the nuclear deal. But despite their opposition to the sanctions, which also hurt their business deals with Iran, some Europeans have already annulled trades with Iran as they fear a punitive response from Washington.
Wednesday’s interim ruling was handed down because the judges said they recognized the urgency of Iran’s plea at this stage of the proceedings.Wednesday’s interim ruling was handed down because the judges said they recognized the urgency of Iran’s plea at this stage of the proceedings.
The summary said the sanctions must not affect exports to Iran of goods required for humanitarian needs such as medicines and medical devices, foodstuffs and agricultural commodities, as well as goods and services required for the safety of civil aviation.The summary said the sanctions must not affect exports to Iran of goods required for humanitarian needs such as medicines and medical devices, 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.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.
It also urged the two parties to take no further steps to exacerbate the conflict.It also urged the two parties to take no further steps to exacerbate the conflict.
Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, praised Europe on Wednesday for taking a “big step” to maintain business ties despite the American withdrawal from the pact, which promised an easing of sanctions in return for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program.Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, praised Europe on Wednesday for taking a “big step” to maintain business ties 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 gain.”The Tasnim news agency quoted Mr. Rouhani as saying that Mr. Trump’s increasing pressures on Tehran were intended to secure “domestic political gain.”
Tehran’s bid to get the sanctions suspended is only its latest case against the United States at the World Court. In 2016, Tehran brought a suit against the freezing of nearly $2 billion worth of Iranian assets abroad, which courts in the United States courts have said should go to American victims of terrorist attacks.Tehran’s bid to get the sanctions suspended is only its latest case against the United States at the World Court. In 2016, Tehran brought a suit against the freezing of nearly $2 billion worth of Iranian assets abroad, which courts in the United States courts have said should go to American victims of terrorist attacks.
The hearings in that case are scheduled to begin next week.The hearings in that case are scheduled to begin next week.