UN court orders US to lift some Iran sanctions

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday ordered the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to civil aviation safety.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice is legally binding, but the Trump administration said the U.S. was terminating a decades-old treaty that Iran used as the basis for its case.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said withdrawing from the 1955 Treaty of Amity was long overdue and followed Iran "groundlessly" bringing the complaint to the U.N. court.

Pompeo said the administration would proceed with sanctions enforcement with existing exceptions for humanitarian and flight safety transactions.

"The United States has been actively engaged on these issues without regard to any proceeding before the ICJ," he said.

Meanwhile, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said the administration also was pulling out of an amendment to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that Iran or others, notably the Palestinians, could use to sue the U.S. at The Hague-based tribunal.

President Donald Trump moved to restore tough U.S. sanctions against Iran in May after withdrawing from Tehran's nuclear accord with world powers. Iran challenged the sanctions in a case filed in July at the International Court of Justice.

In a preliminary ruling, the court said that Washington must "remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from" the re-imposition of sanctions to the export to Iran of medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.

By limiting the order to sanctions covering humanitarian goods and the civil aviation industry, the ruling did not go as far as Iran had requested.

The U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, Peter Hoekstra, pointed that out in a tweet.

"This is a meritless case over which the court has no jurisdiction," the ambassador tweeted. "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."

While imposing the so-called provisional measures, the court's president, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, stressed that the case will continue and the United States could still challenge the court's jurisdiction.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif praised the court ruling on Twitter, calling it "another failure for sanctions-addicted" U.S. and a "victory for rule of law." He added that it is imperative for the international community "to collectively counter malign US unilateralism."

Iranian state television trumpeted the court's decision in a scrolling graphic at the bottom of TV screens: "The victory of Tehran over Washington by the Hague Court."

No date has been set for further hearings in the case.

At hearings in August, Tehran sought the suspension of sanctions while the case challenging their legality is being heard — a process that can take years. U.S. lawyers responded that the sanctions are a legal and justified national security measure that cannot be challenged by Tehran at the world court.

In its decision, the court said that the U.S. sanctions "have the potential to endanger civil aviation safety" in Iran and that sanctions limiting sales of goods required for humanitarian needs such as food, medicines and medical devices "may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran."

The court said that the Trump administration must "ensure that licenses and necessary authorizations are granted" and payments not restricted if they are linked to the humanitarian and aviation goods.

The court also told both the United States and Iran to "refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute."

U.S. lawyers had told the court that the administration would "use its best endeavors" to look at concerns about humanitarian and aviation related issues caused by the sanctions.

But in its written ruling the court said that the American assurances "are not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns" raised by Iran.

Iran alleges that the sanctions breach the 1955 Treaty of Amity, which regulates and promotes economic and consular ties between the two countries.

The treaty was signed when the U.S. and Iran were still allies following the 1953 revolution — fomented by Britain and the U.S. — that ultimately cemented the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Diplomatic relations were severed following the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and takeover of the U.S. Embassy and ensuing hostage crisis. However, the treaty had remained in force.

Associated Press writer Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran, and AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee in Washington, contributed to this report. </s> THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations' highest court has ordered the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goods and products and services linked to the safety of civil aviation.

President Donald Trump moved to restore tough U.S. sanctions in May after announcing he was withdrawing from Tehran's nuclear deal with world powers. Iran challenged the sanctions in a case filed in July at the International Court of Justice.

In a preliminary ruling in the case, the court said Wednesday that Washington must "remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from" the re-imposition of sanctions to the export to Iran of medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities and spare parts and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation.

The U.S. is expected to challenge the court's jurisdiction in a future hearing.

The economic impact of sanctions has already triggered protests in Iran, some of which have been broken up by security forces using tear gas.

Iran alleges that the sanctions breach a 1955 bilateral agreement known as the Treaty of Amity that regulates and promotes economic and consular ties between the two countries.

The treaty was signed when the U.S. and Iran were still allies following the 1953 revolution — fomented by Britain and the U.S. — that ultimately cemented the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Diplomatic relations were severed following the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and takeover of the U.S. Embassy and ensuing hostage crisis. However, the treaty remains in force.

Wednesday's ruling could set up another clash between the Trump administration and a Hague-based court.

Last month, Trump's national security advisor, John Bolton, denounced the International Criminal Court — a separate and unrelated institution based just a few miles away from the International Court of Justice.

The ICC prosecutes people accused of war atrocities while the ICJ settles disputes between nations.

Bolton said last month that "for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us." </s> The World Court ordered the United States to ensure that sanctions against Iran do not impact humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

Judges at the International Court Of Justice handed a victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the administration of US President Donald Trump violate the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.

The ruling is likely to have at most limited practical impact on the implementation of sanctions, which Washington is reimposing and tightening after pulling out of a 2015 nuclear deal that Iran signed with world powers.

The ICJ is the United Nations' highest court for resolving disputes between nations. Its rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them, and both the United States and Iran have effectively ignored its decisions in the past in cases they have brought against each other.

The court found that assurances offered by Washington in August that it would do its best to ensure sanctions would not affect humanitarian conditions were "not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns raised" by Iran.

"The court considers that the United States must, in line with its obligations under the 1955 treaty, remove by means of its choosing any impediment arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018," said Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, reading a summary of a ruling by the 15-member panel of justices.

The sanctions may not hurt "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," he said.

Washington argued last month that Iran's request was an attempt to misuse the court and that the 1955 treaty specifically ruled out using courts to resolve disputes.

The treaty was signed long before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution which turned the two countries into arch foes.

US State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead had said Iran's real quarrel was Iran's frustration over US plans to pull out of the 2015 nuclear pact, under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

The unilateral US move has been opposed by the other countries that are party to the agreement, including Washington's close European allies Britain, France and Germany as well as Russia and China.

Despite international criticism, Washington is pushing ahead with the measures. A new series of sanctions is due to go into effect Nov. 4 aimed at sharply curtailing Iranian oil exports. </s> The United Nations' top court has issued an interim order that requests the United States to lift sanctions linked to humanitarian goods and civil aviation imposed against Iran.

"On humanitarian grounds, the US must remove by means of its choosing any impediment to the free exportation to Iran of goods involving humanitarian concerns," the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said in its ruling on Wednesday.

Tehran had urged the ICJ, also known as the World Court, to order Washington to suspend the sanctions temporarily while it hears Iran's case in full, a process that could take years.

The ICJ's rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them.

Al Jazeera's Zein Basravi, reporting from Tehran, said that in essence, the ICJ decision is not exactly what the Iranians wanted, nor is it what the Americans wanted.

Iranians would have wanted a "complete lifting of all of the sanctions", Basravi said.

"They [ICJ judges] talked about parts and equipment for civil aviation - which has been a source of a lot of strife in Iran," he said.

"Even though this court's rulings cannot be appealed and they are binding, there is no way to enforce it - especially that the US has left the court," Basravi said.

Tehran had also argued that the sanctions imposed since May by US President Donald Trump's administration violate the terms of their 1955 Treaty of Amity.

Washington says that Iran's request is an attempt to misuse the court. Iran has invoked a little known 1955 Treaty of Amity that was signed before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which caused a sharp deterioration in bilateral ties that has endured until today.

US State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead argued during oral hearings last month that the 1955 treaty specifically rules out using courts to resolve disputes.

Iran's real quarrel, she argued, is not within the court's jurisdiction, but Iran's frustration over President Trump's plan to pull out of a 2015 landmark agreement between Iran, the US and five world powers.

That pact saw sanctions against Tehran lifted in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.

But the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement in May and announced unilateral plans to restore sanctions against Tehran.

The US move has been opposed by other major powers, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union, which helped negotiate the deal.

Iran says the US sanctions, which have prompted many foreign companies to stop doing business with it and are undermining its already weak economy, violate the terms of the 1955 treaty.

Despite international criticism, Washington is pushing ahead with the measures. A new series of sanctions is due to go into effect by November 4. </s> An Iranian woman shops at a drug store at the Nikan Hospital in Tehran on, September 11 (AFP photo)

THE HAGUE — The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to ensure that sanctions against Iran, due to be tightened next month, do not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed a victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the administration of US President Donald Trump violate the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected the decision, saying the court has no jurisdiction and that Washington would terminate the treaty.

However, Pompeo said the United States would work to ensure it is providing humanitarian assistance to the Iranian people.

“I’m announcing that the US is terminating the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran. This is a decision, frankly, that is 39 years overdue,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters, referring to the date of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Pompeo said Iran was misusing the court for political purposes and that the United States was actively ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches the country, without regard to the court ruling.

“We’re disappointed that the court failed to recognise that it has no jurisdiction to issue any order relating to these sanctions with the United States, which is doing its work on Iran to protect its own essential security interests,” Pompeo said.

The ruling is likely to have, at most, limited practical impact on the implementation of sanctions, which Washington is reimposing and tightening after pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran signed with world powers.

The court order issued on Wednesday is temporary, pending a resolution of Iran’s full lawsuit against Washington by the ICJ, something that could take years.

Iran’s foreign ministry said in a statement “the decision proved once again that the Islamic republic is right and the US sanctions against people and citizens of our country are illegal and cruel.

“The United States must comply with its international commitments and lift obstacles to Iranian trade,” it added.

The ICJ is the United Nations’ highest court for resolving disputes between nations. Its rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them, and both the United States and Iran have ignored them in the past.

The court said assurances offered by Washington to ensure sanctions do not affect humanitarian conditions were “not adequate”.

“The court considers that the United States must... remove, by means of its choosing, any impediment arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018,” said Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, reading a summary of a ruling by the 15-member panel of justices.

The sanctions may not hurt “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”, he said.

While US sanctions “in principle” exempt food and medical supplies, the court said “it has become difficult if not impossible for Iran, Iranian nationals and companies to engage in international financial transactions” to purchase such goods.

The Trump administration argued last month that Iran’s request was an attempt to misuse the court and that the 1955 treaty specifically ruled out using courts to resolve disputes.

The treaty was signed long before Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution which turned the two countries into arch-enemies.

US State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead had said Iran’s real quarrel was its frustration over the US pullout from the nuclear pact, under which Tehran restricted its disputed uranium enrichment programme under UN monitoring in exchange for a lifting of most international sanctions.

Trump’s unilateral move has put it at odds with the other signatories to the deal, including Washington’s close European allies Britain, France and Germany as well as Russia and China.

Washington nonetheless plans to pursue a new series of sanctions due to go into effect November 4 aimed at curtailing Iranian oil exports, the lifeblood of its economy. </s> The World Court ordered the United States on Wednesday to ensure that sanctions against Iran do not impact humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

Judges at the International Court Of Justice handed a victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump violate the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.

The ruling is likely to have, at most, limited practical impact on the implementation of sanctions, which Washington is reimposing and tightening after pulling out of a 2015 nuclear deal that Iran signed with world powers.

READ MORE: Trump imposes sanctions on Iran after pulling out of nuclear deal, urges others to follow suit

The ICJ is the United Nations’ highest court for resolving disputes between nations. Its rulings are binding, but it has no power to enforce them, and both the United States and Iran have effectively ignored its decisions in the past in cases they have brought against each other.

The court found that assurances offered by Washington in August that it would do its best to ensure sanctions would not affect humanitarian conditions were “not adequate to address fully the humanitarian and safety concerns raised” by Iran.

“The court considers that the United States must, in line with its obligations under the 1955 treaty, remove by means of its choosing any impediment arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018,” said Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, reading a summary of a ruling by the 15-member panel of justices.

WATCH: Iran argues to have U.S. sanctions lifted as America argues it is misusing World Court.

The sanctions may not hurt “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,” he said.

Washington argued last month that Iran’s request was an attempt to misuse the court and that the 1955 treaty specifically ruled out using courts to resolve disputes.

The treaty was signed long before Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution which turned the two countries into arch foes.

READ MORE: U.S. threatens Iran with ‘strongest sanctions in history’ if treaty demands not met

U.S. State Department Legal Adviser Jennifer Newstead had said Iran’s real quarrel was Iran’s frustration over U.S. plans to pull out of the 2015 nuclear pact, under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

The unilateral U.S. move has been opposed by the other countries that are party to the agreement, including Washington’s close European allies Britain, France and Germany as well as Russia and China.

Despite international criticism, Washington is pushing ahead with the measures. A new series of sanctions is due to go into effect Nov. 4 aimed at sharply curtailing Iranian oil exports.

WATCH: Iran’s Rouhani says country wants no sanctions or bullying </s> Iran filed a lawsuit against the United States earlier in July in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that the Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and re-imposing the unilateral sanctions in May violated a 1955 treaty between the two countries.

Today, the ICJ announced its decision on Iran lawsuit, reprimanding the US government’s illegal move to restore anti-Iran unilateral sanctions ordering Washington to lift restrictive measures linked to humanitarian trade, food, medicine and civil aviation.

Iran has welcomed ICJ ruling as ‘a victory for rule of law’. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, tweeted after the court’s decision was announced that it was “another failure for sanctions-addicted USG [US government] and victory for rule of law. Imperative for int’l community to collectively counter malign US unilateralism.”

Iranian Foreign Minister, furthermore, released a statement on Wednesday afternoon saying that the court’s unanimous decision was another clear testament to the truthfulness of Iran and the illegitimacy and unfairness of the United States’ sanctions against Iranian people and citizens.

Meanwhile, according to the Guardian newspaper, in relation to the ICJ ruling, the US ambassador to the Netherlands, Pete Hoekstra, said in a statement “this is a meritless case over which the court has no jurisdiction.” </s> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Tuesday said that it has admitted the Iranian complaint against the United States over re-imposition of unilateral sanctions.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran yesterday instituted proceedings against the United States of America before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States, which was signed in Teheran on 15 August 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957 (“the 1955 Treaty”)," the court said in a statement.

READ MORE: 'No Blanket Waivers, No Grandfathering' On Iran Sanctions — Mnuchin

On May 8, US President Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear agreement. Trump said the United States would re-impose the previously lifted sanctions on Iran, including secondary sanctions that target countries doing business with that country. The Trump administration has been seeking to persuade allies and friends, including China and India, to abandon oil imports from Iran. </s> AMSTERDAM: Iran has filed a suit against the United States alleging that Washington's decision in May to impose sanctions after pulling out of a nuclear deal violates a 1955 treaty between the two countries, the International Court of Justice said on Tuesday.

President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran reached by his predecessor Barack Obama and other world powers, and ordered tough U.S. sanctions on Tehran. Under the 2015 deal, which Trump sees as flawed, Iran reined in its disputed nuclear programme under U.N. monitoring and won a removal of international sanctions in return.

The ICJ, also known as the World Court, is the United Nations tribunal for resolving international disputes. Iran's filing asks the ICJ to order the United States to provisionally lift its sanctions ahead of more detailed arguments.

"Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of U.S. contempt for diplomacy and legal obligations," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a statement on Monday with respect to Tehran's lawsuit at the ICJ.

Iran said in its filing that Trump's move "has violated and continued to violate multiple provisions" of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, signed long before the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted the U.S.-allied shah and triggered decades of hostile relations with Washington.

The U.S. State Department could not immediately be reached for comment. In a suit filed by Iran in 2016 based on the same 1955 treaty, Washington argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction. The court has scheduled hearings in that case in October.

The next step in Iran's new suit will be a hearing in which the United States is likely to contest whether it merits a provisional ruling. The court has not yet set any date, but hearings on requests for provisional rulings usually are heard within several weeks, with a decision coming within months.

Although the ICJ is the highest United Nations court and its decisions are binding, it has no power to enforce them, and countries - including the United States - have occasionally ignored them.

The spectre of new U.S. sanctions, particularly those meant to block oil exports that are the lifeline of Iran's economy, has caused a rapid fall in the Iranian currency and triggered street protests over fears economic hardships will soon worsen.

Trump's administration has indicated it wants a new deal with Iran that would cover the Islamic Republic's regional military activities and ballistic missile programme.

Iran has said both are non-negotiable and the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal including major European allies Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, remain committed to it. </s> "I am announcing that the President has decided that the United States will withdraw from the optional protocol and dispute resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations," Bolton told reporters.

The official explained that the move is connected with a Palestinian lawsuit. However, he noted that the core issue was not Iran or Palestine, but the ICJ, which he and the rest of the Trump team considers an "ineffective" body without jurisdiction over the US.

"This is in connection with a case brought by the so-called state of Palestine, naming the United States as the defendant, challenging our move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."

READ MORE: Israel Will Demand New Weapons From US Amid S-300 Supply to Syria — Scholar

Responding to a question as to why he did not recognize Palestine as an existing state, the adviser stated that currently, Palestine "does not meet the international law test of statehood".

"Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol," Article I states.

READ MORE: Iranian FM Slams US as 'Outlaw Regime' Over Withdrawal From 1955 Treaty of Amity

The National Security Adviser went on to say that the Trump administration was undertaking a comprehensive review of all international agreements that could expose the United States to a jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice.

"We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice," Bolton told reporters.

Earlier in the day, the International Court of Justice made a preliminary ruling, partially upholding Iran's lawsuit filed in July, and ordering the United States to lift sanctions related to the export of humanitarian goods and civil aviation equipment.

READ MORE: Tehran: Iran's Missile Strike Near US Troops in Syria Sent Washington a 'Signal'
The International Court of Justice orders the U.S. to lift sanctions against Iran related to the import of humanitarian goods and civil aviation safety.