Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (hereinafter Treaty of Amity case), initiated by the Islamic Republic of Iran on July 16, 2018, marks a pivotal point for public international law. States have increasingly resorted to unilateral sanctions to advance foreign policy goals, reasoning that these measures are preferable to armed confict. States targeted by these sanctions, however, note that civilians suffer the brunt of these measures and that their legality under international law is uncertain. Unilateral sanctions—despite their increased usage—constitute a “grey area” in international law. The Treaty of Amity case provides the International Court of Justice (ICJ) an opportunity to clarify the legality of these measures.

U.S. sanctions on Iran encompass various economic restrictions, including limitations on access to vital resources, impediments to transactions involving Iranian currency, and constraints on Iranian business entities. Notable are the sanctions’ extraterritorial aspects—several impose punitive measures on third parties engaged with targeted Iranian sectors, such as energy and fnance. These measures have resulted in human rights consequences, despite the United States’ proclaimed carve-outs for supplies related to humanitarian needs. Citizens in Iran now struggle to access food, medicine, and other vital supplies. The ICJ, in the Treaty of Amity case, should address the implications of the United States’ unilateral sanctions on human rights obligations, thereby illuminating, for the frst time, any restrictions on the power of sanctioning states to burden civilian populations.

In addition to human rights obligations, the use of unilateral sanctions implicates potential violations of the customary international law principle of non-intervention and the countermeasures framework of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). The ICJ has broached the former topic before, in its Nicaragua v. United States case, delineating when a state imposing economic restrictions on another state runs afoul of the non-intervention principle. The Court should now consider whether U.S. unilateral sanctions encroach on Iran’s sovereignty in a manner that violates the principle of non-intervention. The ICJ has not yet considered unilateral sanctions under the ARSIWA countermeasures framework; it should do so in the Treaty of Amity Merits Judgment.

In sum, this Note asks the ICJ to clarify the legal landscape of unilateral sanctions in the Treaty of Amity Merits Judgment, which provides the Court with a direct question about the legality of U.S. sanctions on Iran. The Note provides a summary of the background and legal principles relevant to the use of unilateral sanctions and suggests that the Court apply the ARSIWA countermeasures framework to the use of unilateral sanctions. Should the ICJ choose this approach, unilateral sanctions will no longer constitute a grey area in international law

Continue Reading “Defining the Limits: The International Court of Justice’s Crucial Task in Assessing the Legality of Unilateral Sanctions“