The Trump administration has announced it will exit a 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled Wednesday that the US must abide by parts of the treaty.
The unanimous ruling ordered the United States to remove “any impediments” to the export of humanitarian goods to Iran, as well as on goods related to the safety of civil aviation. It further stated that the US could not limit financial transactions related to those goods.
The ruling did not challenge the bulk of the US sanctions Iran had sought to invalidate, including the most painful ones against Iran’s petroleum sector slated to go into effect on Nov. 5. But the case did throw a long-obscure treaty into the limelight and deal an unwelcome challenge to the Trump administration’s reimposition of sanctions following its unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement.
“This decision is binding so the US will have to comply with it,” Gentian Zyberi of the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights told Asia Times.
“It is interesting to note the decision of the court is unanimous. Even the ad hoc judge appointed to the case from the US has agreed,” he added.
The Trump administration responded by exiting the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, which requires a year’s notice to go into effect. US National Security Advisor John Bolton also took the opportunity to lambast the international judicial system as a whole.
“The ICJ failed to recognize that it has no jurisdiction to issue any order with respect to sanctions the United States imposes to protect its own essential security,” Bolton told reporters hours after the ruling.
The hawkish national security advisor announced that President Trump had decided to not only withdraw his country from the 1955 amity treaty, but also to exit an optional protocol and dispute resolution linked to the Vienna Convention, which governs international diplomatic relations.
“This is in connection to a case brought by the so-called state of Palestine, naming the US as a defendant, challenging our move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” Bolton said.
These withdrawals, Bolton explained, were about more than the individual cases but about rejecting binding rulings against the United States.
“This really has less to do with Iran and the Palestinians than the continued consistent policy of the United States to reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
“It relates obviously in part to our views on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and to the nature of so-called purported international courts to be able to bind the United States,” he said.
Trump in his United Nations General Assembly speech last month lambasted the ICC, but had not touched on the ICJ.
Bolton warned that the administration would henceforth “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.”
When they didn’t like it the just rip it apart. Then they tell all others, abide by the international law and order. Might is right.
"Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" …
Andrew Jackson.
The ICJ has rendered it’s ruling….
This is an ant trying to push an elephant.
I for one am tickled pink that these silly treaties are being ripped up.
Obama and his Humanitarian crusades, coupled with all these bully NGO’s using them as cover to run roughshod over the PEOPLES rights has gone too far.
Actually, it may turn out to be a huge number of ants. Not much push right now, but over time…. As long as the US doesn’t expect other countries to abide by treaties, either, I guess the Ugliest American’s position is reasonable. As a Canadian I have long experience of the US simply refusing to abide by judgments made against it under trade treaties.
On the other hand, I do not disagree with Mr. Martinez about "humanitarian crusades" and "bully NGOs". The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Bolton is an Israeli agent, nothing more than a war criminal working for foreign nation.
Is there any reason why a country would sign an agreement with the United States in the future? For that matter why can’t a country break a current agreement with the U.S.?
The 1955 TREATY in any case, was reached in Iran = but ONLY with the legitimate SHAH of IRAN, not the revolutionary terrorists that usurped the Shah and ordered his death. I was one of the Aussie Guards who greeted the Shah Of Iran with the customary shower of Fire-fighting hoses in and arc across his Jet, when the Shah landed in Townsville, NQ, Australia.
In that case, Bolton can be better trusted than any other Middle-East Terrorist group or leader… since they have nothing but murder on their minds full time. And even Saudi Kings worried about Iran getting Nukes, as Iran would not hesitate to use them if they could… enter Israel again on the Saudi Arabian side, bombing the crap out of the nuke facilities to slow them down. After all, Israel recognises Saudi Arabins as ancient cousins.
A few Have,
Trump had a prior RIGHT to breach that treaty! It was reached with the SHAH, BEFORE the thugs of the Revolutionary Islamists took over… Someone merely slipped up in forgetting that treaty and that it was VOID upon the Shah being ousted.
USA can’t handle ANY international court of justice. It’s become a rogue state, on the way to becoming a pariah one at that. The long forecasted decline of Pax Americana has started in ernest.
On August 19, 1953, democratically-elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the CIA and British intelligence, after having nationalized the oil industry. The Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was re-installed in the primary position of power. Massive protests broke out across the nation, leaving almost 300 dead in firefights in the streets of Tehran.
Responsible stakeholder, rule of law, upholder of international order, member of the civilised world blah blah blah. The US has never recognised international law. They refuse to be a signatory of UNCLOS, does not submit to the World Court or ICJ, abrogates treaties when it suits them, like the ABM nuclear treaty with Russia, the deal with Iran etc. Same as it was with all the treaties they signed with the Native Americans.
And they are telling Belize to go to the ICJ…hyprocties
This has zero to do with Obama
This has zero to do with Obama