header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 September 2020 / Marc Weller
Issue: 7902 / Categories: Features , International justice , Profession
printer mail-detail

International law: Lethal weapon(s)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
27516
Marc Weller outlines why & how he believes the US bungled the Iran sanctions snapback

In brief

  • Non-compliance: an increasingly serious pattern.
  • Ongoing debate: US withdrawal from the deal, Iranian compliance or non-compliance and a possible US attempt to trigger the snapback.
  • Legal disputes: tense relations between governments.

In August, the US Administration attempted to trigger the Iranian sanctions snapback. Broad UN sanctions against Iran had been removed in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. The deal committed Tehran to abandoning its reputed nuclear weapons programme. The snapback allows the parties to the deal to bring the sanctions back into operation through a unilateral claim of significant non-compliance—an important safeguard in view of the feared break-out from the international nuclear non-proliferation regime by Iran.

However, when the US sought to exercise its claimed right to bring the full range of UN sanctions back into operation through a unilateral application to the Security Council, this request was simply ignored. If this position is maintained, this would represent an unprecedented

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll