header-logo header-logo

16 September 2020 / Marc Weller
Issue: 7902 / Categories: Features , International justice , Profession
printer mail-detail

International law: Lethal weapon(s)

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll