So stand by for a response, weenies. Oh wait, here's one now:

This is the EU new world order getting pissed that they can not fuck up the world!

Trump for world president!!!!!!!

Iran Sanctions - U.S. Responds To Court Order By Canceling Treaty That Gave The Court Jurisdiction

Earlier today the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a provisional judgment (pdf, 29 pages) against some of the U.S. sanction against Iran. The ruling is a preliminary injunction over urgent humanitarian issues that will later be followed by a final judgment.

The U.S. responded by canceling the treaty the gave the court jurisdiction over the case.

The ICJ is the main judicial organ of the United Nations and settles legal disputes between member states. The rulings of the court, based in The Hague, are binding. But there is no global police force that can make the U.S. government follow the court's ruling.

Nevertheless the judgment sets a precedent that other courts will use when more specific cases against the U.S. sanctions against Iran come up. A company that loses business because of the sanctions may sue the U.S. over financial losses. An ICJ ruling on the illegality of the U.S. sanctions will then be used by a local court, even an American one, as reference.

The core of the ruling says:

THE COURT,

Indicates the following provisional measures:

(1) Unanimously,

The United States of America, in accordance with its obligations under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, shall remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018 to the free exportation to the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran of

(i) medicines and medical devices;
(ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; and
(iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and inspections) necessary for the safety of civil aviation;

(2) Unanimously,

The United States of America shall ensure that licences and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the goods and services referred to in point(1);

(3) Unanimously,

Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve. 

The provisional judgment, comparable to an injunction, was issued because of the imminent humanitarian damage the U.S. sanctions cause to Iran. The final judgment may take a year and is likely to be much wider. After today's unanimous ruling the general direction of the outcome is not in question.

The U.S. had claimed that the the court has no jurisdiction over the issue of its sanctions against Iran.

Iran argued that U.S. sanctions are in violations of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States of America (pdf), which was signed at Tehran on 15 August 1955. That treaty gave the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes between the two countries in all issues related to it.

The court accepted Iran's view.

U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo just held a press conference in which he announced that the U.S. is now canceling the 1955 treaty. His statement was full of bluster and lies:

The United States on Wednesday called an international court ruling against its Iran sanctions a defeat for Tehran as it terminated a 1955 treaty on which the case was based.
...
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted that the UN court did not rule more broadly against US sanctions and he insisted that the United States already exempted humanitarian goods from the sanctions.

"The court's ruling today was a defeat for Iran. It rightly rejected all of Iran's baseless requests," Pompeo told reporters.

The preliminary injunction is obviously a victory for Iran. The court has not yet judged on the wider issue of the U.S. sanctions. Having read the argument I am convinced that the final judgment will only confirm this win. The ruling is a big loss for the Trump administration. It shows the world that the U.S. is the one and only entity which is in breach of the 1955 treaty, the nuclear agreement with Iran (JCPOA) and the unanimous resolution of the UN Security Council endorsing the nuclear deal.

Pompeo's announcement of the canceling of the treaty is somewhat schizophrenic. It accepts the ruling and transgresses on it:

• The U.S. would not have canceled the treaty without the court's judgment that is based on the treaty. With today's canceling, or the announcement thereof, the U.S. admits that the court intervention based on the treaty is legally correct. This contradicts its earlier argument.
• The canceling of the treaty today transgresses on the courts judgment. Measure three of the court's ruling orders the parties to not make the issue more difficult to resolve. Canceling the treaty now makes the case more difficult and aggravates and extends the dispute in violation of the court order.

The U.S. is in fact mocking the court. It is unlikely that any court will accept the clearly upcoming U.S. claim that the treaty no longer exists,  that the ICJ has lost jurisdiction over the case and that its orders can thus be ignored. One can not simply change a contract after being found guilty of violating it. The case will be going to a final judgment under the 1955 treaty because that set the legal status when the case was brought to the court.

Pompeo and other will undoubtedly argue that the ruling does not matter for the U.S. and that transgressing it will have no costs. That underestimates the effect of such a ruling on lower national courts. It will be them that will judge about the seizure of U.S. assets when claims of economic damage are brought up against the U.S. and its sanction regime.

The case will also weigh on the global opinion. It makes it more difficult for other governments to follow the U.S. sanction regime. 

It was a really bad deal for America and a real bad deal for peace in the this area.

You can keep quoting EU/UN/Commieworld all you want. Trump is doing what is best for America which is best for the good of the world. What is wrong with that?

Later, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel was one of the first EU politicians to say that Washington had no right to tell European companies with whom they could trade and develop economic relations.

I'm curious if this dipshit actually knows how much trade his and the other EU countries do with the Mullahs and with the US. And unless I miss my guess it's quite a bit more with the US, which will disappear if they keep trading/selling/dealing with the Mullahs. I wonder how their citizens will react to not having decent American toilet paper???

The U.S. is in fact mocking the court. It is unlikely that any court will accept the clearly upcoming U.S. claim that the treaty no longer exists, that the ICJ has lost jurisdiction over the case and that its orders can thus be ignored. One can not simply change a contract after being found guilty of violating it. The case will be going to a final judgment under the 1955 treaty because that set the legal status when the case was brought to the court.

Pompeo and other will undoubtedly argue that the ruling does not matter for the U.S. and that transgressing it will have no costs. That underestimates the effect of such a ruling on lower national courts. It will be them that will judge about the seizure of U.S. assets when claims of economic damage are brought up against the U.S. and its sanction regime.

The case will also weigh on the global opinion. It makes it more difficult for other governments to follow the U.S. sanction regime.

Your babbling has already met reality in The Nicaragua Case, or more formally, Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1986 ICJ Reports 14.

Decide whatever they may, the ICJ must refer their decision to the Security Council for enforcement. At the Security Council, the United States may simply veto whatever they choose, just because they feel like it. That's one of the perqs of being a permanent member of the Security Council.

Charter of the United Nations

Chapter XIV — The International Court of Justice

Article 94

“1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.

2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. That occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the United States' noncompliance with the court's decision before the Security Council. Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. Furthermore, the most effective form to take action for the Security Council, coercive action under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, can be justified only if international peace and security are at stake. The Security Council has never done that so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

U.S. defense and response

The United States refused to participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, but the Court found that the US refusal did not prevent it from deciding the case. The Court also rejected the United States defense that its action constituted collective self-defense. The United States argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction, with U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick dismissing the Court as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't."

The United States had signed the treaty accepting the Court's decision as binding, but with the exception that the court would not have the power to hear cases based on multilateral treaty obligations unless it involved all parties to the treaty affected by that decision or the United States specially agreed to jurisdiction. The court found that it was obliged to apply this exception and refused to take on claims by Nicaragua based on the United Nations Charter and Organization of American States charter, but concluded that it could still decide the case based on customary international law obligations with 11-4 majority.

After five vetoes in the Security Council between 1982 and 1985 of resolutions concerning the situation in Nicaragua, the United States made one final veto on 28 October 1986 (France, Thailand, and United Kingdom abstaining) of a resolution calling for full and immediate compliance with the Judgement.

When a similar but crucially non-binding resolution was brought before the United Nations General Assembly on 3 November it was passed. Only El Salvador and Israel voted with the U.S. against it. El Salvador's ruling junta was at that time receiving substantial funding and military advisement from the U.S., which was aiming to crush a Sandinista-like revolutionary movement by the FMLN. In spite of this resolution, the U.S. still chose not to pay the fine.

Bring the troops home. Why does Trump need to spend billions to protect his dancing SA wahhabis and Israel. The hell with them, they're on their own!