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 defeat for the Trump administration. After the extensive

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll