US reacts angrily to ICJ ruling, aborts normalisation treaty with Iran

The US has reacted angrily towards the International Court of Justice (ICJ) after it ruled that Donald Trump’s administration had to ease its sanction on Iran. The decision, which was described by Iranians as a victory, was met with fury from senior members of the White House who reacted by threatening to pull out of two international agreements.

Judges from the main judicial organ of the UN, which settles legal disputes between member states, ruled that the US had to remove “any impediments” to the export of humanitarian goods, including food, medicine, and aviation safety equipment.

The ruling, according to analysts is expected to encourage European companies, which ceased trading with Iran for fear of falling foul of Trump, to reconsider their position.

While the 15-judge panel rejected Iran’s call for the termination of sanctions in its entirety without delay and for the US to compensate Iran for the revenue losses it has incurred, they ordered the US to “remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from the measures on 8 May to the free exportation to the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran” of; medicines and medical devices; foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; and spare parts, equipment and services necessary for the safety of civil aviation.

OPINION: No war between America and Iran, but no peace either

Disgruntled US officials said they would fight their corner after the ICJ was asked by Tehran to give its verdict on the new sanctions imposed by Trump. Tehran argued that Washington was in violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, a treaty signed between Iran and the US, which grants the international legal body jurisdiction over disputes. Iran also insisted that Trump’s re-imposition of sanctions were unfounded because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had repeatedly confirmed that Iran was complying with the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord signed by Tehran and six world powers.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reacted to the ICJ ruling by announcing that the US will withdraw from a 1955 Treaty of Amity adding that “this is a decision that is, frankly, 39 years overdue”. His remark was noting the fact that the treaty was signed with the Shah of Iran, who was an American ally. However, the ICJ had ruled previously that the 1955 treaty is valid even though it was signed before the 1979 Revolution in Iran.

US national security adviser John Bolton denounced Iran for its “abuse of the ICJ” and said that the US would withdraw from the “optional protocol” under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. “We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the US to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice,” Bolton said.

READ: Palestine files war crime claim to ICC over Khan Al-Ahmar demolition

Hi remarks may also have been intended for the Palestinians who brought a complaint against the US to the ICJ in September, challenging the Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The American reaction has fuelled further concerns over its de-legitimisation of the international law based system. “It is clearly part of a bigger campaign to undermine international institutions and its notable that Bolton emphasized that the US is going to be aiming to remove itself from any further jurisdiction,” said Richard Gowan according to CNN. The Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research at United Nations University continued his remarks adding: “I think that’s part of Bolton’s underlying agenda. He’s quite obsessed with restraints on US policy making.”

David Bosco, a professor at Indiana University’s School of Global and International Studies, also commented on the US reaction noting that the US was “trying to make itself much harder to sue in international courts,” but he pointed out that that also means “if some other country is violating a treaty, the US won’t be able to bring a case against it.”