We're going to get an answer to a question I've had since the awful Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015 (a.k.a. JCPOA) was put in place. Namely, whether "snapback" sanctions are legal under the United Nations charter. I suspect the answer is they are not.
We are at the end of the month when stuff is supposed to happen:
It is unclear if the E3 [NOTE: the United Kingdom, Germany, and France] will initiate the dispute resolution process outlined in the JCPOA or directly refer Iran's non-compliance to the UNSC. The dispute resolution process can take up to 35 days and involves a series of steps that aim to resolve non-compliance issues.[7] The E3 can choose to engage in the dispute resolution process and then refer the issue to the UNSC if it believes that Iran continues to show "significant non-performance." The E3 can, conversely, bypass the dispute resolution process and directly refer the non-compliance issue to the UNSC. The E3 would be required to include a description of "the good-faith efforts the [E3] made to exhaust the dispute resolution process" when they refer Iran’s non-compliance to the UNSC. The JCPOA gives the UNSC 30 days to pass a resolution to extend sanctions relief for Iran, but UNSC permanent members (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia) can veto such a resolution.
Of course, the mere fact that the sanctions aren't already in place despite years shows they did not in fact snap back after it was clear Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons despite its commitment not to do so. Tell me, will Russia and China insist that the E3 did not in fact exhaust the dispute resolution process? Will Russia and China deny Iran is guilty of "significant non-performance" in the JCPOA?
But more basically, what about the ability to put UN Security Council sanctions back in place without an additional Security Council vote to impose them? That is, can one Security Council essentially require a future Security Council to do its bidding by inverting the resolution process? I've long suspected that is not legal under the UN charter, as I explained in my review of the published deal:
Page 20 has the interesting part on "snapback" sanctions. First off, no already gained benefits will be lost by Iran.
This provision says that the UNSC has 30 days to vote to continue lifting sanctions or the old sanctions resolutions are reimposed, unless the UNSC says otherwise.
Further, any lawful contracts signed are not retroactively cancelled. So unless Iran is clueless, they will lock in long-term deals that will survive the reimposition of sanctions.
Also, the deal says that Iran will consider any reimposition of sanctions as grounds to abandon the deal in whole or in part.
And let me add a question I've asked before. Can the United Nations charter be amended by this deal to carve out an exception to the veto power of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council?
Here's what the Chapter V, Article 27 of the UN charter says about the veto:1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.Because I can see the Russians or Chinese objecting to the whole notion that UNSC resolutions can be reimposed after 30 days of inaction by the Security Council. What do we do when the Russians and Chinese (probably correctly, but it has been a long time since I had an international law class) argue that this deal provision is invalid and that no sanctions resolutions can go into effect without 9 votes, including the concurrence of the five permanent members, and they will not go along with it?
I think China and Russia--and maybe France depending on their mood that day--will argue that future Security Council authority cannot be signed away in any deal no matter who approves it.
I think this nuclear deal provision was a false safeguard designed to get the agreement passed and not designed to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. I hope I am wrong.
Still, the E3 have begun the sacred "process". And Iran begins their process in their so-called parliament:
The bill would require Iran to leave the NPT and the Additional Protocol, end all negotiations with the United States and the E3, and terminate cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Have a super sparkly day.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. You know you want to.
NOTE: I made the image with Bing.
