did you think Bolton was overreaching when threatening the International Court? Well look what's happening now and will blow up next month
The United Nations’ highest court ordered the United States on Wednesday not to tamper with humanitarian and aid efforts in Iran with its sanctions, which are scheduled to increase dramatically next month, Reuters reported.
The International Court of Justice, which has in the past been ignored by both the United States and Iran, ruled in favor of the Islamic Republic, which argued President Donald Trump’s sanctions on Iran violated the two countries’ Treaty of Amity signed in 1955. The treaty was signed when Iran was still a monarchy and ally of the United States.
The ruling comes amid the Trump administration’s continued push to impose stiff sanctions on Iran after pulling out of a landmark nuclear agreement in May. That deal, negotiated in part by the administration of former President Barack Obama, sought to block Iran’s path to obtaining a nuclear weapon in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.
Iran, which has remained party to the deal along with its other signatories, responded to the U.S. withdrawal and reimposition of U.S. sanctions by filing a case with the ICJ this summer. Initial sanctions against Iran were reimposed over the summer with additional sanctions targeting Iran’s oil industry, a key economic driver in the Islamic Republic, scheduled to be reimposed next month.
The ICJ ruling would not only bar the U.S. from future sanctions that could impact humanitarian efforts but would also require the lifting of any current sanctions found to hinder those efforts as well. The court ruled the U.S. can determine how it removes sanctions.
U.S. sanctions do not target food and medical supplies going into the country, but the court argued that they still drastically hinder financial transactions required for importing those goods into Iran.
I didn't bother to read the entire article. Almost everything this guy says, or does makes me ashamed to say I'm an American! Find me a nice French-Canadian girl... I'll move there in a heartbeat!
I found my own by myself.... (lol)
Key words...treaty was signed when they were a monarchy and an ally. None of those hold today. I doubt such treaty has a clause to enforce it for life regardless. Next comment, the Iranian deal sounds to me like a judge makes an agreement with a viscious killer an cut him loose on the promise that he is going to be a good boy and everyone is forced into believing that he will, think about it how ridiculous that sound and last comment, this is one more attempt to try to steer people's mind prior midterm elections.
I do not agree with your assessment. Every prominent Democratic countries in the world, most fervent being the US at one time, strongly supported the ICJ (and the UN) as a mean to discourage dictatorships, wars and enforce accountability in rogue countries. Recent opposition of world institutions and dilution of agreements will not serve the US well when they will seek support from these same institutions in the future.
Legitimate curiosity: what can the ICJ do if the US continues to ignore them?
@powder not sure countries will follow the US's lead since every signatory to the Iran deal are keeping it alive after the US has left. The world leaders are seeing the US less and less as a leader and ally.
The UN has no authority by itself. Member states gives it legitimacy. Let's see who stays and leaves.