Iran’s victory at the International Court of Justice against the United States has boosted the country’s clout in international negotiations to shore up the 2015 nuclear deal, a top government official said.
Laya Joneydi, vice president for legal affairs, who played a key role in filing the lawsuit, said in a recent interview with Financial Times that the ICJ win has offered diplomatic leverage to Iran on the global stage despite the court’s lack of power to enforce it.
“It may not be the perfect option [for Iran] but … it has been useful,” she said.
In May, the US withdrew from a nuclear deal that was signed between Iran and world powers in 2015, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, under which Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear activities in return for relief from international sanctions.
US President Donald Trump called the accord “defective at its core”, arguing that it did not cover Iran’s nuclear activities beyond 2025, nor its missile program and regional behavior.
He restored the sanctions in a “maximum pressure” campaign to bring the Iranian government to the negotiating table once again for a new deal.
Injustice to Iranian People
The measures have severely affected the country’s economy with the Iranian rial losing value by over 50% against the US dollar within a year.
“This has been an injustice to Iranian people, who see their economy and welfare weakened while even their access to basic needs is hit,” Joneydi said.
“What the US administration has done to the Iranian people is illegitimate from a legal point of view and more illegitimate from a moral point of view.”
With Joneydi’s help, Iran brought proceedings before the world court against the US, arguing that the sanctions imposed on Iran violated the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights concluded between the two states in 1955.
The court handed a victory to Tehran in early October by ordering the US to lift any restrictive measure that would affect the trade of humanitarian goods and civil aviation safety equipment.
While 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 court found that assurances offered by Washington to ensure sanctions do not affect humanitarian conditions were “not adequate”.
Although the court has reaffirmed that its provisional measures have binding effect and create international legal obligations, it has no means of enforcing them.
Moreover, the US immediately terminated the treaty on which the ruling was based.
Gains
Joneydi, however, argues that it has had gains for Iran.
“The US knows that it cannot ignore the ICJ’s rulings. The verdict also helped Iran’s efforts to capitalize on a European Union decision to stick with the nuclear accord," she said.
The EU has offered support for JCPOA and taken steps to keep it alive by protecting Iran against the US measures and upholding its benefits under the deal.
Its update to the “Blocking Statute” bans any EU company from complying with US sanctions against firms investing in or doing business with Iran.
The most vital plan, however, is the financial mechanism known as the Special Purpose Vehicle aimed at keeping trade afloat with Iran on a non-dollar basis, which is due to be launched in the coming weeks.
Joneydi suggested that without the ICJ ruling, “European countries might not have been willing to set up a sanctions-busting payments channel for trade with Iran.”
In addition, Iran is using the ICJ verdict in negotiations with foreign companies and banks that are reviewing their ties with the country, she concluded.
